A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for


Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

House | June 9, 2015 | Committee Room | Finance

Full MP3 Audio File

Good morning! The house committee of finance will come to order. We have one bill on the agenda today. House bill 328 is the intention of the chair to vote this bill today. I would like to thank our Sergeants at Arms Reggie Sails, Marvin Lee, Chris Mckrakin and Joe Kruk. We are aided by pagers today, [xx] Butt from Wake county, Matthew Carapola[sp?] from New Hannover, Seth Cashin from Randolf, Paker Casleberry from Lake, and Ted Cheffman from Meckonberg. Just a little bit of house keeping. We have a PCS before us today, it was voted in the previous session, but will not require an additional motion for today's consideration. Unfortunately Representative Sane has the list of those that were on the queue to speak when we ran out of time last week. I'm we will receive it, but until we do, after a small presentation we'll just taking the new sign ups. Representative Harry Wann is recognised for a quick review of his bill.  Thank you Mr. Chair. as I said last week, this isn't, this bill isn't a dialogue or meant to open a dialogue on immigration, immigration enforcement or former immigration law and it not debating whether people who are illegally present should be here or should not be here for signing blame for where they are it is about recognizing and as the fact that approximately 325, 000 people are illegally present and is the federal government who is responsibility it is to secure borders former immigration process and the guest work in progress because doing it so having done so for the last 40 years and giving no issue that are about to and I said last week and I made some synthesis on very simple bill the question before us is whether or we as an elected body want to take some strong registered steps to hold and documents that focused accountable to probably North Carolina law put in some place some measures that will destroy it further illegal migration in North Carolina later reducing the number illegally present to establish a capability by determining identities to speak the driver committee and restricted id program will prove public safety and create and wide database for law enforcement including finger prints background checks and permanent identities. To make a strong impact on the negative aspect it is illegal migration without looking at federal last year and damage in the North Carolina economy I think we covered the bill for more than 90 minutes plus and the bill is brought before us for about three years and everybody knows individual provision pretty well so and interesting time and the information we have just directed the questions. Representative Zetra. Yes I have a comment and few questions The gentleman's recognized to debate the bill. Thank you. At our last meeting a statement was made by one of the sponsors that we're sitting down here to read the bills and the public generally doesn't pay attention or doesn't know them, I'm paraphrasing. It was a statement made during their debate regarding the public doesn't pay attention, I count that the public pays a great deal of attention of what we do on every bill down here, and the court did declare at one time on the floor when she was a house member, this will end up in a mailbox near you, but that's just an old quote. But I had a question regarding DMV, regarding them if they had any questions with implementation and the actual cost, I'd like to hear if the commissioner's here, I'd like to hear from him if that's possible. Alright, sure is the commissioner's representative present today? The commissioner is here, would you advance to the microphone and identify yourself sir. Thank you Sir, my name is Kelly Thomas, The Commissioner of Motor Vehicles and thank you Mr. Chair and thank you for the questions sir. Well Mr. Sachu's recognized to ask this questions to the Commissioner of He has heard my question. Okay. The ability of DMV to implement this bill in March of next year is with significant risk. The recommended IT date implementation, at 2.3 million unprogrammed dollars will be December of 2016. This will allow the adjustment to the Star's database which is technically the State automated driver's license database. If this bill was edited in January of 2018, using the current contract to replace the Star's database. This program improvement would cause the State less $100, 000. So again the

difference is if you do it on this timeline is 2.3 million, if you waited to the already existing contract put it in place, is less than 100, 000. Sir, did I answer your question? You didn't follow up, follow up are there any other course, that we have dismissed as we've talked but, do you generally do Finger printing in the process of [xx] department?   Sergeant Kelly Thomas, may I answer his question? Yes. Thank you. Finger printing is not a core competency of DMV, we do a lot of things but finger printing is not. So by this bill there's two courses of action that would either require the Sheriff's offices, the local sheriff's office, to do the finger printing or a third party vendor to accomplish this task. There's a third party vendor that currently does that for other services, with six service stations, customer service stations across the state. The perimeter estimate of $3-5 million additional cost for the finger printing of a third party vendor. Does that answer your question sir? Yes sir, thank you. Follow up. I had another question regarding Section 20-28 regarding the seizure and impoundment and I was wondering if there's any one here from State Hallway Patrol that could comment on that because just reading over it I had more questions than I could answer myself, so I was wanted to hear from them if it's possible. Well since I noticed the Colonel has just stood up in the background, will the gentleman approach the microphone and identify himself for the record Good morning Sir, I'm Bill Gray with Highway patrol. Thank you Colonel Gray, Representative Seth[sp?] is recognized to ask his question. Colonel Gray, do you have Is the State Highway Patrol have any issues or problems regarding the seizure impoundment in the scope of your all duties? Yes Sir, my concern harness and in an empowerment part of this bill is that the potential work load it has to generate. In other words, when you there is very few things now that we impound a vehicle for, felony, speeding to elude, being arrested for DWI while your license is already revoked for so it's a very small part of it, so it's not that labor intensive. But with this, when you are impounding every inner ware car, every car with no insurance showing, that is a lot of man hours to sit there for a record for 45 minutes to an hour and a half, trying to wait them come to get the vehicle, and then of course you have to insure the safety of the passengers and the driver to be removed from that vehicle. 3 or 2 O'clock in the morning the rule parks of North Carolina, there's very limited things that you can do with those people to insure their safety. So those were the concerns right at the top of my head. Follow up? That answered my concern, thank you Canal. Thank you. Representative Warren.  Thank you Sir, if I may respond to the commissioners remarks and the canal's.  The gentleman is recognised to respond. We met, in the formations bill, we've met with on not less that five occasions, three of them specifically with commissioner Thomas, and once most recently on March 25th and again on April 20th. The reason for the April 20th meeting was to assess any problems with the bill that he saw from the DMV stand point. During that meeting, he identified six things that he was concerned about, and we've address every one of them, and year. One of the words that was most concerning to him, and was what he covered here, the implementation date 2018. That has other factors in that consideration of that date beyond just the transition from the current saddles program that will enter into the new program that is being implemented now, with the More for trust, the next generation security driver's licence program. That is coming in, in three phases.commissioner Kelly, Thomas at that time at that meeting, inferred that 2018 would be less problematic and less expensive. The next day on April 24th, I had a conference call with the vendor, and the fact the matter is from the vendor's stand point, that the optimal time to do this would be 2016, what was discussed with me, with a conference call to vendor and actually three of the representatives of the Mohit Trust was that, the original date of implementation Implementations Bill was October 2015, and they said that they could do this by December of this year. But it would be less problematic actually if we moved over to phase two.

That way as they said, we'd not be straddling both programs. So, we can move the server into 2016 for implementation. The question I've for him then is what is the optimum time in 2016. Understanding that programs can sometimes not meet the schedule of implementation because of problems that happened as you roll out a program, as we saw with NC tracks for example. So, we decided that 2016, March of 2016, would be a good time. So, that's why the Bill's date of implementation was changed to March, 2016. As I pointed out last week, we've approximately 325, 000 folks here illegally, probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 90-110, 000 who would qualify for these permits or ID's. If you only had a 15% response come out to that, and you charge a $60 fee for this, you generate over almost 3million dollars in revenue from that which in more than cover the cost which incidentally, the numbers that Commissioner Thomas put out were not being we were not able to confirm those in the conversation with [xx] Trust, so that number is really still up in the air. Now as far as the fingerprint does. Nothing in the bill requires the DMV to do the fingerprinting. The number that he quoted about $3-$5 million would be if you go back to the DPS study that was done on this last year came out on March of last year. The DPS study decided that if you were to require the DMV to do the figure printing the equipment upgrade and training cost everything would be about $3-$5 million of cost. What we have in the bill is the latitude for DPS or the DMV to contract with a vendor, a third party vendor, to do the fingerprinting. Morpho Trust our current vendor does the figure printing and background checks for 35 other states. and they can do worse, in fact a year, several years ago they actually were negotiating with North Carolina about doing our fingerprints and background checks but the sheriff was doing that, and  so that negotiation fell through. So there's no problem in throwing this bill out in 2016. The question you have before you is, what happens between 2016 and January 2018? What happens with the number of people driving, uncertified and uninsured? What is the risk factor that's out there for out constituents? Is it worth saving money that you're going to get back anyhow because of the fees?  So now in terms of the Canal's remarks, he mentioned how problematic it would be if you're stopping people without insurance. This Bill doesn't have anything to do with people driving without insurance. The Bill had been changed [xx], except the last part on auto confiscation. It is only proposed to a driver who are presently illegal, and driving without a restricted permit, that is not having had one. If you're stopped and you're a citizen and you've had your license revoked for DUI you're also covered under these, but there're only two provisions, folks who're here illegally, driving without a restricted permit, and folks who are driving here with a driver's license have been revoked. The provisions for all other confiscations that were in the original Bill has been taken out, they're not in this PCS. So again I don't see the problem. Okay, I would like to thank Ms [xx] for retrieving trauma for us, the list of speakers that were queued last time, for the elucidation of the Committee. The current list is Alexander Dollar[sp? Hamilton[sp? Haisting[sp?] representative Alexander do you still need to ask a question? Alexander Rep. Dollar. Thank you Mr. Chair, I'd like to direct a question to Colonel Gray since he's here with us today. Would Colonel Gray except an additional question sir The gentleman is recognized to ask this question. Thank you Mr. Chairman, thank you Colonel Gray if I'll ask the two questions together and then you can kind of [xx] on the answer them as you will and the two question are really this, one is it, would it be your view that having seen a lot of individuals accidents and the like where individuals

were one or more the vehicles involved the owners were not insured would it not Be an advantage. At least have some additional individuals as would be paraded under this bil, l that would be insured in that process and then the other question is that maybe more, important for Mayor may not be more important for the Haway pro but I'll be interested in the commentary, and that's having someone with an  identification that you know who they actually are, they've had a verify identification as opposed to having someone that you pulled over, whether it's an accident or just being pulled over for any particular any reason. Where there's no identification or official identification exactly who it is that you're potentially, also potentially dealing with and then if there's any other particular section on this bill that might be beneficial or not if you had any further comment. Coroner Brian. Yes sir thank you, and thank you for the question Sir, to answer your first question if I understood correctly, is it not advantageous for everybody to have insurance? And yes sir, I absolutely. The problem I have with running a registration plate, and coming back with no   insurance stacks, is I'm not confident if that data is accurate. Seems in audit, I saw from DMV in 2012, that majority of those had actually had valid insurance or had a valid reason why it showed in insurance stock that was not accurate.  As you know, if you change insurance carriers, the one you leave is going to submit a stock form on you and a lot of times the person on the front end doesn't say, okay, we have him now. So the hand-off is difficult based and just to give, and I'm worried about all that information, you have to be careful with it, with who enters it, and how it gets done and this has a big insurance peace in it, but even things like stolen vehicles, experience where we've stopped the stolen vehicle, reported stolen vehicle, taken the people out of the car, and have finally stopped in the car because the NCIC records warn't up to date, they didn't put the information back okay thank you my concern is are all this people that we are going to [xx] in the car and put them on the side of the road actually have an insurance we had an innocent person on it, on the second part about this advantageous tab by identification absolutely if you have a valid phone and a credible identification that is very beneficial to us as just on truck to stoke and also if they are on accident or in a capacity we need to get to the next as we can representative Dollar do you have a follow up? Okay representative Harrison did you wave off representative thank you Mr chairman, and I have a question to the bill sponsor have the Governor or his office issued a formal possession on this bill? Not to my knowledge is there someone from the Governor's office here that can speak to the Governor's position? Thank you Chairman Broly, am at the Office of the Governor. Gentleman recognized to ask this question. Yes, Thank you. My question is, has the Governor or through the [xx] office made a formal position on this particular bill? Thank you for the question Representative Bradford. Yes the Governor has, he is opposed to this bill. He is concerned with the provision, providing driving privileges to those who are in this country unlawfully, and for that reason does remain opposed to the bill. Follow up. Thank you Mr. Mentor Rep. Stam. Well a couple of points cost always cost but the goverment usually forgets to offset it by the advantage to citizens. Every district differ. In my district the main complaint I here is people driving about license insurance, people get injured and there is nothing to get fro them. This assented $2.3 million cost be versely overwhelmed by the amount of damages caused to our citizens by uninsured people. Second, impounded cars. It is quite a bit limited under the current bill, but they forget to offset the cost of impounding by the value of the cars that will be sold. Thirdly, the bill has a lot of criminal misdemeanors, and felonies there is a

lot of law enforcement in it. My Chief of police urgently asked us to pass this as a safety measures, law enforcement measure, there are misdemeanors, there are felonies, but there are also crimes against logic, and they should be and in this case the opponents commit the I won't give you a [xx] the fallacy of the 4th term, that is, the word driver's license, is equated to what is being given to these folks, which is called a permit and I would agree that linguistically, it doesn't matter what you call it, but this license is so different, than the license that you have in your pocket that entitles you to all things and cost you very little. This permit, if you want to call a license it's fine, cost a lot of money for the people to requires background checks, fingerprinting, it's only valid for one year, requires insurance paid in advance for which you can't get a refund, if you drop it. It's not the same thing, so I would ask the opponents to be honest when they talk about we're giving drivers license this is for the people lawfully present, it's not the same thing. Representative Hastings. Yes Mr. Chairman, to ask a question. Gentleman's recognized for a question.  Just a comment, this is not actually my question as a chairman of the committee, it's a question just to help move the process along and following up on Representative Stan's comments, do we have anybody here from the Chief of Police? Do you wish to ask them a question? If it's in order Mr. Chairman.  If you'll propose the question, I'll see if there's someone that can answer it. Whether they would like to comment, or whether they're supportive or not supportive. So the question would be, are they  supportive of the Bill? Is there someone from the Chief of  police that can answer that specific question? But you're not recognized for a statement.   Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm Fred Baggett, and I represent the North Carolina Association of Chiefs of Police. Gentleman that had posed the question, have you taken a position on the Bill and if so, what is it?   Yes we have, we support the Bill because of the identification elements contained in the Bill. As the sponsor has indicated, there are tens of thousands of drivers everyday on the streets and highways of North Carolina without valid identification or false identification. These are these illegal immigrants. Police officers who investigate crimes, victimization and so forth need identification for perpetrators, for victims, for witnesses and for many other reasons. So for the identification of all these people that are not currently identified operating on our highways, we support the bill. Follow up Well since you answered the next question and this was not my question, I did this for the committee but it did raise an interesting point and that will be regarding the privileges and immunity clause of the US constitution, and I hear this has been characterized as maybe not an actual drivers licences, but it does seen to be granting a privilege to someone who is not a citizen of the United States and someone who has not not sworn an oath of allegiance to the United States, so would that bother you, I guess would be the question, you would be granting a privilege under the US constitution to someone who's not a legal citizen. Are you asking that as a Mr. Berger Well I guess that is just an a in front compression for the committee, may you as for follow ups so I will direct that as a follow up. Mr. Berger Construction of this bill, I think what you've addressed is a policy issue for this committee Fair enough Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Representative Seth is recognized for a second time Well regarding some comments regarding the cost[sp?] I tend to trust the DMB commissioner since he's in the trenches with us everyday and this is the PCS and I'm not sure if that's the exact language when you had your multiple conversations and as being a member of finest community and  I've been here a long time or the cost of anything that was being done. That has always been a key question over any bill that passes before us, what s the cost ad regarding the fingerprinting [xx] he mentioned fingerprinting, you said

it's not required but if it's implemented it's still a cost and that is something to be considered in any piece of legislation because the citizens expect us to prudently spend their money Representative Warrens recognized [xx] is designed for the cost to be incurred and be carried by the applicants in regards to the fingerprint cost, the [xx] trust that we would use. [xx] currently has six various locations throughout North Carolina and the ability to open up kiosks temporarily for other permanent locations where the applicant would go directly to [xx] trust, pay [xx] trust the fee of 60 dollar fee for the running, Mofer trusts  would work with the FBI here to do the state and federal criminal background checks. I've had meeting with Mofer trust  representatives, in conjunction with from the SPI, this is not a problem for implementation and does not represent a cost to the state at all. Representative [xx], did you want to be taken off the list? Represented blast. I have a question that's really left over from last week, some, I think you were saying something to be affected. The database can't be shared. Can you elaborate on exactly what Is the difference between the database for this limited privilege, and the database for ordinary drivers licence holders in the state. Yes, Represesntative Blast, the database I believe it states in the bill, that the database can be shared with other agencies, particularly DMV, excuse me, DMV and the Board of Elections, The DHHS, but the provision you're referring to simply states that, the information that is provided for the application process to receive either restricted ID or restricted permit cannot be used to initiate proceedings against the applicant. Follow up Mr. Chairman. Follow up. Would that be true for information and the applications for an ordinary drivers licence? I have no idea. In the Viva[sp?] Bill, I believe that we did instruct all agencies to work in conjunction with the BOE, which includes DMV. Is the Commissioner DMV still in the room? Could you answer that question sir? Representative Bust is recognized to repeat the question to the Chief of DMV. Commissioner Would the information in the application for this limited privilege be treated any different from the information in application for an ordinary drivers licence? Thank you sir. Again, Kelly Thomas, division of Motor Vehicle. If I understand the draft Bill this database of undocumented persons, their information would only be shared for Law Enforcement. It could be shared with State Board of Elections if they ask for it. It could be shared with DHHS if they desired it but technically by this draft bill this is a protective database. It is not to be shared. Mr. Chairman, just recognized for a comment. The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill This is one of the provisions that troubles me. It seems like there's protections in here for undocumented persons that aren't there for the ordinary citizens and in their information and Mr. Chairman, I would like to call for the Ayes and Nos. Is the call sustained?  The call is not sustained. You have further comment Representative Blast That's it Representative Goodman. Thank you Mr. Chairman, Representative Warner, really appreciate, over here in the corner, appreciate all your work, you've been on this for a long time. A lot of people would have given it up. So I commend you on how dedicated you have been to this. But I have a question about the participation rate. It seems like the cost is pretty high, it's logistically there's some difficulty going to get a finger prints and all the background checks and that sort of thing. Plus a lot of immigrants, undocumented, don't make

a lot of money, do you have any sort of estimate about what would you expect as a participation rate in this. Mr. Chair Chairman is recognized to answer the question. That's really difficult to project simply because even a projection of 325, 000 folks being here illegally is a guess. There's two different ways you can [xx] out how many illegal [xx] are residing in any state. In doing this bill we had estimates from 180000 as much as 600000. Looking at what other states have done also which [xx] by the way sent out surveys to nine other states that responded from that as to what their response was to their programs, but you can't really weigh that against ours because ours is so different. Most states of which they've opened up an actual drivers licence without any other requirements we have for fingerprinting and criminal background checks requirements, so I was in one sense the requirements of fingerprints and the criminal background checks is going to repress or deter some folks from participating in the program, which is one of the other reasons why we have the confiscation of the vehicle, basically as a current state kind approach to get to come out and do that because and the reason we have the fingerprints and the criminal background checks and there's what we want to do in this undocumented community is to separate those folks who are engaged in criminal activity from those who otherwise are not engaged in unlawful activity. So, but to answer your question my best guess is probably somewhere between 15 and 25% which will put it somewhere around 45 I think to 55000 participants in that but again, that's just an educated guess as to how many would actually come forth on that, going back to representative Blast's statement I believe of he looks at page 13 of the PCS item K states that division the division means DMV is to ensure that cards are not used to obtain public benefits, the division shall work with other state and local agencies and an ongoing to ensure that restricted ID cards are not used to taint public benefits for which only citizens and lawfully present persons, are eligible, I hope that answers your question representative Jenns. Thank you Mr. Chair. I have a question it goes to page 11, line 12, at section X under section 6D and I am just going to read, this is a state agency or official [x] use of any information so related as part of the application process for restricted driver program to see the removal from the United State or the African authority in purpose other than the issuance of a straightened rubbers permit, no share in the state agency official release information pertaining to the raise some status of an African [x] restricted [x]. My question is when you are formulating the Yes are you aware of any president in the law currently you see as their keys as state agency or official that is knowledgeable than a person (x)in this case they are breaking the law within the state to keep them in improvising private(x) that information, and you're not be able to use that information for an express purpose? Representative Warren Yes Thank you. I'm not aware of that that again if you continue reading the whole section instead of just a selected part, you'll see in conjunction with the part that I just read, Section K, it actually instructs the to use the information to ensure that illegally present folks do not get access to benefits or registration to vote for things that are not for not being a citizen, privileges that are reserved for citizens. But it goes on, the section that you are reading goes on to say that this information can be shared if an individual is charged with the crime. So it is opened the law enforcement the tent behind the legislation is again, to encourage more folks to come out and tell us who they are, where they are If gentleman would suspend for a moment, the Chairman is going to ask staff to weigh in. Miss.

Griffin and Mr. One example of a per law where people might become aware but not be able report it, would be an unauthorized substance tax stamp so we have in chapter 105 provision that we not make criminal referrals when someone goes and buys drug tax stamp. So if you are a drug dealer, and you want to actually purchase a stamp for your drugs then you could go to department of revenue on civil bases, and purchase drugs tax stamps and then the fact that you purchase those stand ups in your identity is not shared law enforcement because obviously the only  reason to have those stamps is to evade the drug tax although I believe the walk of this start mass will be sold at stamp collectors but there is a provision in the statute that says that that handle them the civil and is not referred as a, the department then doesn't refer these people to be investigated Thank you, we only need that, follow up Representative Johns  I'm making a comment not question and I was vaguely aware that there were perhaps some provisions in the law perhaps the staffs members describe how therouse crusious say to while the bill sponsors refer to that as president for their current the bill this is the comment I just would like to say for the record that they are committing a crime by illegally being in the United States, so when we say there is a provision that says well if they are somehow committing a crime the information should be shared out, I think that a crime for being illegally present, just briefly we discuss last week, I would would like to commend the sponsors, I don't think if we had, and then they work very hard hard and I generally respect that, but then is form I believe this is not a last solution I think the best amendment that we voted on last week could have made this into a bill that could have been acceptable could have been a better solution that the senate would have taken up the governor would sign as it is I don't believe that's the case Mr Chair I would ask for division by show of hands since we do not have the address. So the gentleman is calling for division is out of order at this time it can only be made after the chair had called for the yes and No's and solve the voice vote is in question so we'll take that up at that time, representative Dollar. Just for a quick comment Mr Chairman one it does seem to me for those who are concerned for illegal immigration clearly no state can do what the federal government should, could and should be doing currently which is controlling our borders and we all at least a lot of us in this room agree with that and do not believe that federal government is fulfilling its responsibilities and and constitutional obligation currently and wish for the day they will do that, but as far as being a state is concerned and what it is in our foreview and things we have worked on over the years it does seem to me that what this does is document the undocumented learned about people who aren't documented this gives us documentation we can actually know who somebody is and where they're, what their identification is. The insurance commission Miss representative Stem mentioned can be very critical you get hit by somebody coming across the inner state, and you loose an arm or leg, which actually situation, already in a year. This injuries and the like, it's something when you have to take all that chance on yourself, your insurance has to pay, instead of the other driver who maybe, 100% at fault so the insurances of future, and again I thought it was very clear from law enforcement today that come a minute, being able to have identification and know who you are dealing with, on our roads and in our communities, is extremely helpful piece, to our law enforcement.

It does seem to me that those who are concerned with illegally immigration actually ought to be very much in favor of many, of the key elements of this legislation. Further discussion, further debate? Representative Moore. Representative Martin. I need a [xx], thank you Mr Chairman. Took the question for the bill sponsor, a lot of the concern I've heard is that, this is a potential to be a magnet and attract. A lot more illegal persons took a say if we provide this restricted permit, and I know it is different than a license, and it does have a lot more course in verification, and so am not sure that I believe that, I just wondering if you can comment on your thoughts of what that will do. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chair that is an brought up in the various times [xx] concern. That concern I believe was born in the experienced North Carolina had back in the late 1990s early 2000s where the state had just [xx] open up the doors for valid North Carolina driving licenses and we're the for a valid North Carolina ID or a valid ID. Of course it drew a lot of people down. This is not the same situation, currently there are nine or 10 other states the District of Colombia, Podorico. There's other places that are offering driver's licence [xx] and permits without the strict requirements that we have and for longer duration of time and for a lot less money. Excuse me. Closest to us right now to us we have Ellanoy, Maryland District of Columbia, Connecticut, Vermont are all offering some type of driving license or permit which again is a long duration of time and less expensive so I don't believe that this will attract folks to come here simply for that, simply for this. As I said last week, what drives immigration is the to find employment so it's not a matter whether I should get this valid ID. What we currently have without this is folks driving without any impunity so the challenge is can we get folks come out and get advantage of this which is why we have the more punitive sections of the bill in there if they don't. Representative Herger is recognized for a motion. Thank you Mr. Chairman you know as I wrote my name down I see that sir, but that's okay, we know who you are. For just a quick comment Mr. Chairman, if that's okay with you, since I've been quiet this whole time which is unusual for me, I know, you know, this is a [xx] fortunately or unfortunately we look at it, this is a conversation we have to have. This is not something that's going to go away. It's not something that the Federal Government is willing to fix it doesn't look like is something that we are going to have to continue to deal with and I know there's passion on both sides, and I appreciate that, I really do he coming from a rural district where most of the rural folks are, and it's a tough vote for everybody in this room I'm sure but I do think it's a conversation we have to have and I think it's a conversation we need to talk about. We need to do something about it eventually, whatever that decision is with that [xx] favourable PCS 328 [xx] The motion before the committee is approval House Bill 328PCS unfavorable to the original Bill. So many as favor the motion, say I, I. Those opposed, No, No. I think I'm going to have to call for it. Would everyone whose a member of the committee resume his seat, please, and that would include you, Representative Warren and Representative Jordan. Okay, I ask the sergeant-at-arms to keep the well clear, with those members voting in favor please stand. Please take your seats. Those opposed please stand. The vote is 22 in favor,

11 against, the bill is reported favorably. This meeting is adjourned.