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 | February 5, 2013 | Chamber | Session

Full MP3 Audio File

was to sign-2000 seen the following CD player and a steadily session until July house of representatives of the higher than it has placed a Times' business environments chambers on some of these was enormous numbers because there's no way sounds also involve time one finalizes are tired of sitting on interest and this is an hour and riled person was recognized the state of java, February 4, 2036 am, the correct amount spree was right person for Mason jar overcame time you present policy there's a lot while president has sent several times three visit our estimate was just a dozen White House ?? raised a house in Cher might seem odd as invaders that night time and is embracing all of 1980 premier night free services chamber tough time ?? that if this if it hasn't happened, and in that house and senate for ?? house resolution before 2030, proves how I'm able down ?? interest bill Fresno is partly President Carlos Salinas solution. The buyer for workforce development at Redondo residents, and 80¢ on estate contract belongs on its resident card house bill because of television programs of seeing support preparations the time our house building inning of a grassy received a call of the audience timecard house bill would not eliminate safety inspection commission inspector one ?? rape case and stable finance rights and Howard house bill 65 for Indian cultural center property rolls down their operations best times and collard house bill 61 report in design; the tables on its Representative Richard Il 62-column usually work area snowballing transportation residents are stalling house resolution 6° so warm activator while where 63 impression of the a ?? worker offer for house was it for you to transportation and firewalls one is now 63 roles, reaches the house ways and the loss of the more hostile resolutions time or one a state legislative building stadium number $3.00 and 1230 to 84 ?? increase its resident by the art, idea of the homes for small parts of the initial actions house bill 69 elections Winston west of an acre in Timor Hospital since its activity lives and prevent ?? rolls down operations as ?? that if I hadn't an outstanding member on the city's maintenance to a student of your house in the meantime, sees password and resentment, a citizenry go out on that no one request of the thought I'd share is not where the requested part there are ??...............

a set from the chamber and it was the headline in all the members was timed in one elements of Biltmore Hartley the defense into the house bill for a building, address and I'm interested in adopting to: small airlines unemployment insurance program with the claimants at Tyler Johnson of over one and personalization purpose Citibank and he'll do is recognize made no mention was made and then said, we have any good as they have a major has come alive and I'm concerned enough about one-on, and soon and that any other hand, CNN said Wednesday he praised one hand, [in good times and the citadel of the NSA and bill outside the fact we financed today that me and the fact that people are person plays for PlayStation purpose was taken to the time of the loss of two over and done it for has made on only recognize time and pager-speaker and members of an item with some of the city's four on Friday Tom Hayden, ensued into the purposes is the only once and for those in the late 1980s are committed to anything, dry limits of human status is also not just another acre ranch of what it was sent out comments, because I did a presumptive perspective of the one thing from my son below was time , but hopefully it was as if one Whitewater and have the funds as a defense lawyer for corporations and businesses as opted out that each 1:00 AM pleased that sharing of one of these hearings representing times before meals reparations up of those issues were issues of that, supports substantial presence, that are substantial, and not because of a sellout of the time those cases promised to prepare to your business decisions our web page: a part in any of those cases in overtime gave up opposition recommended and one of the property that of ice and is it was a comment before the forested and, as chairman of the other thing to their people inside the house representatives, given outlasted times managerial experience does is to be one of the sake of the significant overhaul and service of peace. Time all that needs to come to play on what is a major change in North Carolina wall at a time when his wife, Cynthia of the desire to do this agreement, some of the cycling and lighters and hour, 40 rights act is long overdue and privately that no one was an indication the study time for applicants operates the city of Anaheim stadium shore, and then a report dated of a series of employment services and more efficient of composition of the restyled army in a civilian firm that the current debt problem at the address trial and that is represented loss at no good options exist on the battles the city of options out why the option of them were banned, and some headway and were considered effort to resist a different people reject ??, I made the day of my colleagues on this out of a defense and spoke on the ballot counts of different options in a supportive of that, although some of its ?? because I wanted a better balance more compassionate option the sense of how to start is to I also understand that reasonable people can visit time we split up tax rates and schedules and benefited thousands in the context of this at the water, disagreed with the refusal to adopt it, all extension evidence that was introduced last night after a stint, relied on to recover to dampen seeking wrong way and one thousands of white-owned the time of the topic of laytonsville everybody but for most seriously company with a door ??............

And think much more damage is going to be done than we've talked about, either in Finance or here because of it. I am going to talk about the substance of law of eligibility of benefits that changes under this act. And I believe the act encompasses an acrobatic leap that my friends in the majority should have had the prudence to restrict and resist. But I think before I talk about the amendment and I'm trying to do it all in one, Mister Speaker, it's really helpful to return as I try to do to the legislative history and the history of this state as it relates to the act because I think it's important. North Carolina, unlike a lot of states, has a special interest in unemployment compensation because it was one of the few states which pioneered the investigation of the causes of unemployment. I went back and looked in the old journals and in 1933 during the depths of the depression, the General Assembly authorized the Governor to appoint a commission to investigate the causes of unemployment and Governor Ehringhaus appointed a commission to do that. That commission met and developed a report and at the same time that was happening, in 1935 Congress passes the Federal Social Security Act which we know provided the requirement that there would be assistance for the unemployed provided that the state passes an appropriate statute. And in order to qualify for the federal grants, the state had to establish the agency and levy a tax on employers in order to create the fund. North Carolina did that by special session right before Christmas in 1936 on December 10th. And the General Assembly attempted then to utilize what were extraordinarily harsh lessons of the depression to prepare for future lean times of high unemployment due to the unavailability of work by setting up an insurance fund composed of federal contributions and the employer tax. And what I think we've missed to some degree in the debate is the declaration of state policy that was contained in that act and has survived until present law with just a few amendments and changes. Because when we're making very tough decisions, we ought to resort back to the reason the law exists in the first place. So, a provision that we're keeping, in even the rewrite, is 96-2, the declaration of state policy of the unemployment act. And although it's only a paragraph and I'm not trying to read to everybody but I do think it's really important. Here's what it says: Economic insecurity due to unemployment is a serious menace to the health, morals and welfare of the people of the state. Involuntary unemployment is therefore subject to general interest and concern which requires appropriate action by the legislature to prevent it's spread and to lighten the burden which now so often falls with crushing force upon the unemployed worker and his family. The achievement of social security requires protection against this greatest hazard of our economic life. And it goes on from there. Consistent with that purpose, the scheme has been set up and although it has been amended a number of times it has served this state through a number of recessions, finish of the Great Depression, and for the most part until the last few years through this recession. And consistent adherence to the guiding principle and all of those amendments passed in generations has been that the system has been designed to alleviate human suffering caused by the crushing force of economic insecurity and short as well as long term unemployment highlighted by exactly what happened in the Great Depression that caused this state to pass the act to begin with. I think it's important to say because an argument can be made, well that was then and this is now. And so I went back to look at what happened in my first term as a legislator here and Representative Linda Johnson can speak more eloquently to this than I, but that was the Pillowtex situation. Those of you who live in that part of the state know better than I. But on July 30, 2003 Pillowtex, based in Kannapolis, filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy and announced the cessation of all United States and Canadian operations at 16 plants, laid off 7,600 workers, about 5,000 of which were at the Pillowtex facility in North Carolina. It was the largest mass layoff in the history of the state. The state had a little bit of warning and through a lot of efforts, including those by Representative Johnson and former Representatives Barnhart and colleagues, with Senator Hartsell as well

the city of thing about that, I'm the last time commission dislocated workers rapid response unit and catfish and it not only to find the time the house and the numbers were defective of 430 secondarily affected the performances of hearing because of lost eight of support services that they were all and I think that's important because of-the site of a time now of the democrats oppose workers were if the person and by small it average age was 40¢ will have a major speech in 220 11th time in unemployment benefit the speech was 73 and $408 he anticipates peoples Bancorp teaches was between two and $10,000 in within two weeks of lime 43% reported me the Continental Mortgage payments in 10% or to receive the time for pollution by 3% said they could afford Health Care this is the time in the response team of parents can the same class as a result of medieval evidence of what was on the one time with his opponents of this example that North Carolina rapid response team organized by USC and others including this legislature China OPS-operations systems broadcasting information or to the definition of related expenses for retraining of those workers offer the opportunity for all of the changer and riled at an access to additional weeks of unemployment insurance for the workers were in trading as a result of losing those jobs with the Federal government in ways that was time for bringing the systems I hate to have an was once was black, once it's the act of dry lightning developments examples rates is enormous consequences of one of state of the sassy and Aston Martin stated that I must interrupt its integration of what happens in including improving its state was it region's economy ?? of schools bill and a person's dignity of you sometimes the other evidence in this chamber, less time of the world of Beaujolais the people who have either points which are ??'s U.S. robotics, the city controller's order the times of patient to patient user that are the event, statement, the foes as general and because that is not marked our friends drivers are of-business sessions made abundantly clear the stage is the smell test in one part state that was the arms of the change in a few weeks, indignation and for months or years and no fault of their own ?? backpacker-minded and the issue this will force us to speak does recognize important partly as same time as an adult age 23 138 copyright luxury it does recognize made on a speaker employment security for bus driver of all the influence of the Whitewater and the fact that causes it was dry weather was one of receiving benefits would cause major reason for rejecting why I'm just a reasonable for reasonable person end of the department willingness to work its way without the health of Westwood one share of the time of year to throw with the wishes of the employer caused employees only that were at his part and parcel of the closet section was created many many packets the ?? is still has it won the division of related of all was major purpose of killing of the investors will probably represent hours, the copy of it so many in the time of this wasn't as the laws of the all-race is wide open on a clipboard and still qualify for unemployment benefits the stewards and I met was named best ones she has been a leader of ??.............

? house in dealing with and military spousal relocation. But here are the reasons that were eliminated that are part of the current law: bankruptcy, impending closure of the plant, spousal relocation unrelated to the military, and disability or health concern of the employee. My amendment will not deal with any of those because while I agree they should stay in the act, they are secondary to the last two that cause me the most concern. The two that cause me the most concern that were taken out of the act in this bill are the disability or health concern of a minor child, an aged or disabled person or parent in the immediate family or the inability of the worker to accept a particular shift work because they had to care for their sick child or their dying parent. Now, good cause allows a worker, often a committed long-term worker for a company, to maintain economic security when they lose their job due to serious, not trivial, and unexpected life events. It is, as I viewed it -- as an attorney for years in the field -- part of the societal contract that was part of the creation of this act during the Great Depression. Here's the example -- and I could give you hundreds -- but here's the example, quintessential, that this act bars: I work for a shift. I have a severely disabled adult child with traumatic brain injury as a result of a car crash. Or substitute to that: an elderly, infirm parent dying of Alzheimer's or dementia in their last weeks of care. Or a spouse dying of terminal cancer whom I provide the primary care for when I'm not at work. My employer tells me I must work the third shift. I try to find care for those members of the family and am unable to. I tell him of my situation, and I cannot work because of that at that shift. And he says, "I'm sorry. You're out of a job." Under current law, we would pay unemployment benefits to that person. Under House Bill 4, they are ineligible. The majority's decision in that drafting of that part of this bill to do that is as unwise as it is profoundly unfair, and to me, it deprives the doctrine of employment security of any value for the citizens of this state. Now, I could understand that and not be proposing this amendment if it was a major contributor to the economic issue we face. But only one tenth of a percent of the claims fall in that category of family hardship. There is not economic hardship to the state or employers to keep those provisions in the bill, but they do a profound disservice and create profound economic and moral consequences for the families that are disenfranchised from these benefits. There was no hue or cry from the public to make this change. There was no mandate. And there is no necessity to dismember the eligibility benefits of this part of the bill. Our concern consistent with the crush and burden that this whole statute was set up to alleviate should be on the most vulnerable citizens at the most difficult family time they will ever have. So I offer my amendment to place a bit more compassion in this bill and to suggest a bit more faithfulness to the purpose of the act. Mr. Speaker, with that in mind, I move the adoption of the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Ross, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentleman, this is a commonsense, good, sympathetic amendment. And if you think about who will be providing this kid of care for their family, it will disproportionately be the women of North Carolina. And so I ask you to support the amendment out of compassion and out of respect for the work that the women of North Carolina do not only in the workplace but at home. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Baskerville, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill, not the amendment, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will be recognized in turn. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Holley, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill, not on the amendment. [ENDS]

The lady will be recognized in turn. Representative Howard, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It’s definitely difficult to follow Representative Glazier, a person I have great respect for and I know is never frivolous with amendments and he thinks through what he’s offering. We spent about three full days looking at these Good Cause provisions, and we tried to go back and even do in depth research of where the provisions came from. Number Four, the Undue Family Hardship… last night, I told you that there was enough blame to go around all over the city of Raleigh. This one came from an individual that requested this. It was offered by one of the Republican Senate members. It passed in the Senate, came over to the House, and we passed it. The Family Disability or Sickness is a hard one to argue against, but the only thing I’m going to continue to say to you is over the years, piece by piece, we loaded that wagon. Somebody just came and asked me “what is the fiscal impact of these two pieces?”. They’re in the notebook in my office, and I can’t tell you today. But this is what happened. When you read Family Disability or Sickness, the next two words, “leaving work”. They were not fired. They were not laid off because there wasn’t work. I just want to remind you what this plan was originally developed to do. We sent this bill to the US Department of Labor to allow them to have the opportunity to scrutinize and tell us what we couldn’t do or could do or what we could take out. They looked at the Family Leave provision. They also looked at the Undue Family Hardship provision. Understand that the Family Hardship provision is very unique. We may be one of just maybe three or five states that have that. The other one is more common, but when we sent it to the US Department of Labor, we were told that there’s no penalty. There are other states that do not have these provisions. Part of the provisions were tied to the Modernization Grant, and if you know how those grants work, it’s called a stick and a carrot. Federal government sends you some money, and you have to do certain things in order to accept that money. This was, some of these things were part of the Modernization Grant of years gone by. I reluctantly stand again to ask you to vote “no” on this amendment because we need to keep this bill intact and let it go into effect, and then we can surely go back and look at all the consequences, and there’s going to be a lot of things that we haven’t even thought about. But the focus of this bill, remember, is to try to retire this debt, become solvent, and put people back to work. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. Mr Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier spoke eloquently about the politics…

issue, mister speaker. I was here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Question for the lady if she will yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Will the lady yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister speaker, I will yield just as soon as I finish- [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady will yield after her comment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] With the ?? ?? issue, we all did come together and of course we are going to do, when you are talking about seventy six hundred people, immediately being put out of work but, the thing we need to remember, we're going to have that happen again. It may not be ?? ??, it may not be that large group at any one time but it could be. And right now, we do not have the dollars in our fund to pay the future benefits of the next cycle of unemployment and its gonna happen. ?? We've come along way for this and I would ask you to stay the course and vote no on this amendment. And let this bill take a ?? and deal with many of the things we will see coming. I hope you will vote no on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams, would the lady wish to ask a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, I would. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady yields? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you representative Howard. You mentioned that you had some discussions with the labor department. I'm curious about the fact that we have so many women who are actually heads of households. Single families. fifty one to fifty two percent of the population. Do you have any information about what the impact would be on the women? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams, we spoke about the fact that we had sent the entire bill to the US department of labor to- for them to give us a clear ??. No maam, we didn't ask for- or they're not in that position to give us that type of information. I'm sure that we could get the information as we go along from some of the companies- some of the simulations that we've had run, we could pick out how many are female. [SPEAKER CHANGES] State your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak briefly a second time on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much and this is representative Jordan at my side. I appreciate it mister speaker. I just wanted to highlight two points in the amendment that I didn't speak to. So, just so that it's clear. One, I put a sunset in the amendment for 2015 so that if there were any unanticipated financial implications that don't appear in the data up to now on the usage of this hardship provision that we would track it. And you will see in the second section of the amendment a reporting requirement on that data that requires the data to be reported on every time this exception is used. So that if there is a a problem it can be exited out when the commission meets over time. But we wouldn't be disadvantaging all of these people and all of their families while that is happening and we're collecting the data again because only zero point one two percent of all claims fall in these categories combined. Or not combined but the hardship category. Even less when we take out the other. I can't see and I think fiscal would agree there's minimal fiscal effect here. But should that change for any reason, that's why I put in the sunset provision in the amendment. Thank you mister speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment? Representative Hollo, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister speaker. Very quickly, and I appreciate representative Howard's comment to let this go forward and- I do want to make sure we acknowledge that we don't determine what happens to this bill once it leaves this house. It goes to the senate. There's no guarantee to the bill to think about the things we think are important and there's no guarantee that they won't do some things to this bill we don't think are important. So we have it in our hands right now to address this issue that has minimal financial impact but has a great impact on the families and the communities in our state. And so, again, we have this authority in this chamber and we have the responsibility that goes with it to use it wisely.

[Speaker Changes] And I would submit to you this is about as wise a use of your power and discretion as you could have. And this is about the best situation and the most defensible situation you could us sit in. And I would probably say if we surveyed the chamber everyone of us individually would say this is the instance where help should be rendered, where someone is taking care of family members, whether young or old in our society. So again, I would ask that you would support this amendment. Lets do the right thing by those North Carolinians who clearly, through no fault of their own are trying to support the sick and infirmed in their families. So I would ask that you would support the amendment, as little effect on the bill, has a great effect on the lives of many North Carolinians. [Speaker Changes] Ladies and Gentlemen of the house, without objection, Rule 12D is suspended. Is there any objection? Representative Richardson please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] Members of the House I would like to ask, [Speaker Changes] The lady wishes to.. [Speaker Changes] My purpose is to ask a question, I’m sorry. [Speaker Changes] And to whom would the lady like to.. [Speaker Changes] Representative Howard. [Speaker Changes] Representative Howard, does the lady yield? [Speaker Changes] Yes sir. [Speaker Changes] The lady yields. [Speaker Changes] I have sat here and I’ve read the amendment. I was wondering what would be the impact of not passing this amendment. What would be the fiscal impact on a family on another agency if this family has to take this sick person to another facility, group home, whatever, and state agency. What would be the fiscal impact of that person being there, versus the fiscal impact of that person drawing unemployment and staying home with that individual. [Speaker Changes] Ma’am, I honestly can’t give you those numbers because we haven’t looked at that. Theres always those questions, person staying at home for home care, opposed to being put into a long term home care facility. There are lots of studies over the years about those two competing things. But I don’t know. I couldn’t tell you. Is short term, long term? I honestly can’t tell you that, I’m sorry. [Speaker Changes] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment? If not, the question before the House if the passage of the amendment offered by Representative Glazier for the House Committee Substitute for House Bill 4 on its third reading. All those in favor vote aye, all those opposed vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. The clerk will opt machine record the vote. 46 having voted in the affirmative and 73 in the negative, the amendment fails. Representative Queen is recognized to send forth an amendment, the clerk will read. [Speaker Changes] Representative Queen moves to amend the bill on page 21, line 21, by rewriting line to read. [Speaker Changes] The gentlemen is recognized to debate the amendment. [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr. Speaker, I am sending forward an amendment that I ask my fellow members to consider. It connects to the story you just heard about situations in our state like ??. In my home county of Haywood, a decade or so ago, we had a large plant layoff at Champion over a thousand jobs were lost in a small rural mountain county. These are situations that our communities face from time to time, they’re not predicted. They’re quite unpleasant. And each of you, as members, if they happen in your district, you will be asked what you’re doing to do about it. And this amendment offers just in the scheme of things an option, its called the, let me put my glasses on just a second, its called the workers adjustment and retraining notification. When a company of 100 or more announces a closure or a layoff of 50 or more employees in your community, they are required to ...

file this notice and this notice would trigger this provision which would basically add, in those cases, 26 weeks would be the number of weeks of regular unemployment benefits pertaining to that case. Whenever you have a massive layoff or a plant closing in your communities you get not just one or two folks losing their job, but you get 50 to as we heard, 4,000 or 5,000 being laid off. This is a situation where work cannot be found, there is no reasonable person who could tell you you can place appropriately those folks. It is not only those individuals who are distraught and their families but it is the whole community so this is really a community response that each of us needs to have in this bill, a provision which we can work toward if this does indeed happen, which it will from time to time in the future, so I recommend this to you. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Ross, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To speak on the bill at a later time, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the amendment sent forth by Representative Queen to the House Committee Substitute for House Bill 4. All those in favor will vote aye, all those opposed vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 42 having voted in the affirmative and 77 in the negative, the amendment fails ??. Ladies and gentleman, these are the only two amendments that we are in possession of. Are there any other members wishing to put forth an amendment before we go back to the bill? Seeing none, Representative Ross, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday we did so many amendments there weren't actually that many people who talked about the bill in full other than Representative Howard who did a good job of explaining the entire bill and as a matter of fact I wanted to commend Representative Howard for doing that. So many times on this floor we will have a long, complicated bill and the bill sponsor won't take the time to tell us what we are actually voting on and she did an excellent job of setting an example what we should do when we are going to make large public policy decisions. I also wanted to thank Representative Blust for his honesty and his candor. He knows exactly what's in this bill and what a difficult choice it is to make about what to do with this bill. He might make a different choice than I do but he did not mislead this body in one sentence that came out of his mouth about what the affects are going to be on the people in North Carolina who are going to lose unemployment benefits and he shared his concern for them and for that, I commend him. But I would like to share my concern for them and what different parts of this bill will do to them. I want to remember, all of us to remember, from the outset that under the current unemployment system, nobody gets unemployment if they are at fault so everybody who is unemployed under our system had a job before and I can guarantee you, they wish they still had that job. They had a job before, they lost their job through no fault of their own. They are innocent, truly innocent, but several of the changes in this bill not only are going to hurt all people who file for unemployment but they are going to hurt a segment of our population in particular and that segment is workers who have been in the workforce, sometimes for more than 20 or 30 years and those are people between the ages of 50 and 65 and given the average age in this room, I assume everybody knows at least one of the people I am talking about

[Speaker changes.] People between the ages of fifty and sixty-five are more likely to make more money. They're in the middle class. They've worked for their careers. They're earning more than 35,40, 50 thousand dollars. They're the people who would be able to get the higher benefits. Higher than $350 a week. They're the people who would've benefited from Representative Tine's amendment. They're the people who get the $535 a week under unemployment because they have worked for this long period of time and have gotten to a certain salary. They will lose out because of the reduction of benefits. They will also lose out because of the reduction in time to find another job. Last Friday, the US Department of Labor issued a report that said that people over the age of fifty, in general, take fifty-three weeks to find employment. And only one out of six is ultimately successful...most of them end up taking jobs for less money than they were originally earning. We know in North Carolina, for every three people there is only one job opening. It is more difficult for people in that age group to get training and then get hired as an entry level person for a new job. I know not everybody here reads the New York Times. I read The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. On the front page of The New York Times on Sunday were all the statistics and the stories about what happens in this cohort???? and what they do is...many of them have some disability, they end up going on disability rather than working. They take Social Security early, at at 30% reduction. They're foreclosed on. They can't pay for their children's tuition. So I just want you to know that these middle class families will be disproportionately hurt by the changes in benefits in this bill. People who are low wage workers or younger workers, they'll be hurt some too but they generally can find another low wage job in a quick period of time. So you will be hurting the middle class and their families. So what's the balance for that? What could you do about it? Well, under this bill...$21 per employee per year, that's one penny for each hour an employee works per year. One penny. I don't know...there's some proposals around here to raise tax on medication by well more than a penny. One penny for each hour that somebody works so, if they got paid ten dollars an hour, the employer could think of it as paying them ten dollars and one cent an hour. I don't know. That doesn't sound unfair to me. What else could we have done in this bill? We could decide not to cut off the new long term unemployment benefits that were approved in Congress by a bi-partisan majority. We could allow people to have that extra 26 weeks and we could have that money come into our economy. And what would that do? Well, it would reduce foreclosures. It would immediately go to grocery stores. It would immediately go to pharmacies. It would immediately go to buy school supplies for children. I don't know. I don't think it's so bad to take that money and do that with it. It's certainly gonna help our convenience stores and our grocery stores and our Realtors. They could use that money to produce more jobs immediately. That, to me, would be more balanced. I understand that everybody here doesn't agree with that but I think we need to look at the whole picture and I think we need to put a face on the unemployed. And we need to put a face on the long term unemployed. They are us. They are our neighbors. And, after we vote on this bill, we hafta go home and look at them. I urge you to vote no. [Speaker changes.] For what purpose does the lady from Wilson, Representative Farmer-Butterfield rise? [Speaker changes.] To speak on the bill. [Speaker changes.] Member is recognized to speak on the bill. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Mister Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, I wanna tell you that I voted....

by mistake on this bill. Now that I’ve told you that, I’m going to tell you why – why it is important that I vote no today, and I’m glad that I have an opportunity to do so, although my vote did not change, would not have changed the outcome. Ladies and gentlemen, this is not a balanced approach. Without exception, people affected by this bill are unemployed through no fault of their own. Yes, I repeat, unemployed due to no fault of their own. Being responsible stewards of state money is very important, and we should make every effort to pay down out debt and avoid adding interest payments. We owe it, however, to families struggling right now, to be responsible and do so in a manner that does not devastate our economic recovery. In my opinion this bill, Julia Howard and others, will promote more people being in jails and prisons. Yes, it will increase the crime rate. It will increase homelessness, domestic violence, alcohol and substance abuse, the need for counseling, and indeed could cause more suicides and mass killings. I urge you to protect these unemployed benefit funds by delaying the implementation of this bill. There is a financial impact that has not been looked into, and I contend that that’s going to be because of the social ills that passage of this bill is going to create. Ensure the 25 million dollars a week continues to flow to North Carolina, and most importantly, be spent in North Carolina with North Carolina businesses. I ask that you vote no on House Bill 4. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, upon motion of Representatives Rayne Brown, Jerry Dockham and Marcus Brandon, the Chair is happy to extend the courtesies of the gallery to Mr. Christopher Jessup, friend and resident of Davidson County, joined by his 11th grade class. Mr. Jessup, welcome to the House. The Chair is also happy to extend the courtesies of the gallery to a group of students visiting from Ashley Elementary School in Fayetteville. Where are you all? Welcome. And upon motion of the member from Mecklenburg County, Representative Charles Jeter, we would like to extend the courtesies of the gallery to his wife, Jennifer Jeter. Ms. Jeter, where are you? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Scotland, Representative Pierce rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me this time. My seatmate spoke so eloquent, but I just wanted to share because I promised the 80 thousand voters of Scotland, Hoke, Robeson and Richmond that I would always stand on their behalf and speak to issues that affect their lives. I have the honor… I don’t know if it’s an honor, but I have… that Scotland County is the poster child for unemployment, one of the top two in the state of North Carolina for unemployment, and I see the issues that are going on at the present time, and I think about the collateral consequences that this bill will bring to the district in which I serve, and I think about somebody talked about the health and human services and how the Scotland and the areas that I served, and think about how they’re having tough times now. I know that many of you are Sunday school students, and many of you, we pray every time we open up these chambers, and we think about… and many of you who are Sunday school teachers, our students know about when the Galilean cobbler talked about when you did it to the least of these, you did it also unto me, and I think about the hurt and the pain

and we will bring these families, that this bill hits the Governor's desk, and he signs it. And I don't know sometimes how we can really go to sleep at night, knowing that we have affected so many families. And as Dr. Adams said the other day, sometimes we have to put people before profits, and I think sometimes we have overlook people are hurting, they're hurting now. They're going through difficult times now with the unemployment check. Can you imagine the ones, if we can get to July, that will know that there will be cuts. I think we could look at that ladies and gentlemen. We really need to think about what we do, and we're all fine members, there's no doubt about that. But sometimes I think that we put so many other things ahead of people. And the thing is, when we're campaigning, we promise folks we're going to do this, we're going to do that, but as soon as we get in these golden doors, how soon we forget about those folks that we talked about. And how is it that we're going to go back home, and be able to walk passed some of those folks. How are we going to passed them and know that they're hurting, and know that they're going through some difficult times. But even though we have people who are poor, who are facing poverty issues, a lot of them are still proud people. And as so many have already said, they are unemployed, and will be unemployed, no fault of their own. What appears that why it is no fault of there own, because so many businesses, when they think about how they can make more money, how they can close their doors, how they can take jobs to other places, they soon forget about those workers who labored with them for many years, and they have no, they don't think about that. But the collateral consequences of this bill are going to be dire, it's going to be very difficult in our communities, and I just ask if there's any way. And I'm going to appeal to the Governor, I'm not through with it yet. I'm going to ask if there's any way he can think about his commitment to the citizens of North Carolina. But I want to encourage you, and I would ask, I voted no on Tuesday, or Monday, and I would vote no again. Thank you Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES]For what purpose does the lady from Guilford, Representative Adams rise. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you Mr. Speaker, to speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The member is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you. I'm joining to join Representative Garland Pierce in voting no again. But you know, I had an opportunity, ladies and gentlemen, to see a few more people today, heard from a few more people today, had an opportunity to listen to some stories, which really disturbed me. And we talked about how long would be able to wait. I think currently when you lose your job, you wait a week, then you can apply for unemployment, and then you wait another week, so you're really 2 weeks before you're able, maybe past 2 weeks before you're able to even get anything. But I was told, for example, people who worked for a private company, and I'm thinking about a bus company now, Wolfline, where employees who served that company, for example, when school is out, for 2 months, they can currently, with the way the law is now, they can draw unemployment, and of course that helps them to maintain their families. Now, the way this bill is drafted, and what's proposed here would mean that those individuals would no longer apply, and I suspect there are probably many, many companies, many other employees across the state who will be impacted in this way. So this bill requires a 2 week waiting period, so you're really talking about 3 weeks and beyond. And if you can imagine not having any income, and in some cases for some these folks, this is all that they have, and they'll not even have that. So I just want to appeal to you again today to have some compassion. This bill does add to the financial hardship of families who are already unemployed and who have to endure that hardship without having a job. We say that we want to be competitive, but it seems to me that people are beating people down who already sunk to the bottom. This bill in my opinion is short sided, and it has been said, these are individuals who use these dollars for the basic necessities, each and every week to provide food, clothing, medicines, and those kinds of things. And so, they're putting that money back into the economy, so you could think about this as a bill that basically has sort of a

The fact that it's also going to impact employers to that degree,but to take a $175 cut from $500 which gives you $300 or $350 that is really severe for some people. A reduction of 26 weeks to 20 weeks that is severe. Total elimination of the federal emergency funds is also severe. Now I received, I'm sure you did as well, a number of emails about what were about to do today. About the devastation that were gonna cause on a lot of families and I've had some mail, some mail, that is quite disturbing. I wanna just share a couple of comments with you and this one individual writes that she was recently layed off due her first week of compensation $520. I whole heartedly agree that $520 a week for being unemployed certainly sounds like a lot of money at first, however once I pay my rent for a two bedroom and $850 utilities and $100 car payment, an insurance at $400, I'm at $1350 a month before I buy any food or put gas my car so that I can get to job interviews. That leaves me with $650 a month to live on to pay the remainder of my monthly obligations. Quite simply she says cut the compensation to $350 a week I will be evicted from my apartment very quickly. To me that's a sad story. This woman says that she wants to earn her way in life, she's had a job all her life, she doesn't want things given to her and she realizes that some people take advantage of the system sometimes, but she goes on to say, please to punish the innocent many for the sins of a guilty few. This person along with others who've written to me have indicated that losing 32% of their unemployment money would basically make them homeless. Again I would appeal to you to think about the people of this state who sent us here who are not doing as well as some of us. They have to provide for their families and what were doing to them is cruel, cruel, and unnecessary. There trying to make the ends meet. And I would ask that you vote against this bill and again let's put people over profit. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Baskerville is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. speaker. Thank you representative Howard for taking the time to take up this very important issue, it is a very important issue and it's a tough one to discuss,but is one that needs to be addressed and that's what the minority party attempted to do with the amendments that were put forth, putting forth the minority's best ideas forward to match with majority's best ideas to protect workers and business. Now yesterday my colleague, representative Duane Hall, proposed a very, very reasonable amendment, one that did not increase taxes in the bill, did not eliminate the benefit cuts in the bill, while we were working down this debt. Very reasonable and yet his amendment received no majority support. Today, representative Glazier purposed a very thoughtful amendment and received no majority support. Now may have received one vote ??? three votes. Now I'm a country lawyer by trade know when to negotiate, know when to compromise, know when to reach out to reach an agreement, but in order to do that both sides have to want to make a deal and the way that this current bill stands it is a bad deal, a bad deal not only for the minority party, it's a bad deal for workers, ti's a bad deal for families, it's a bad deal for these little children sitting up in the gallery today, it's a bad deal for their parents, it's a bad deal for the state of North Carolina. Now when you have individuals that want to find a way to say yes, but are shut out at every single opportunity they cannot in good faith . . .

00:00 a bill now the way that I see it the majority does not have in it monopoly on good idea and neither does the minority the voters send us here to work together obviously that's why there's not a 120 member majority we have to work together and we can work together we can debate we can dialog without all of the bluster and name calling now in that vein I want to thank my colleague from [??] where representative Steinberg for the tone and the nature of his remarks over the phone last night and in closing there will be several more thoughtful considerate democratic amendments put for maybe not on this bill but on bills in the future and I just ask that you give them the proper and careful consideration that they deserve thank you Mr speaker. representative Hawley is recognized to debate the bill. thank you Mr speaker and my colleagues and representative Howard for explaining the bill so [??] she said several times that this was a business bill and she was right it is a business bill but there's some things about business that we have not thought about and that is the [??] for business and is called the human capital now I spoke with a number of people last night who were equally upset and one of them said tell them about the american dream I don't know if you all heard the american dream most people in the american dream says they wanna work hard they went and got their education they take care of their families and they taught their families how to be self sufficient and they give back to their community well these are the many people who're caught in this unemployment process right now they're the ones who are trapped in this goal a friend last night said [??] tell my story of losing my job I have a masters degree I'm 52 years old this what she said she said first went the house then bankrupting now you're asking me to make a decision between taking my diabetes medicine or giving my son a pair of shoes that he's going out of rapidly for he could continue to go to school when the majority community is in a recession my community is in a depression when your community is in depression my community is in [??] and this bill is putting people into [??] so let's look at the cost of bankruptcy the cost of [??] the cost of healthcare in the emergency room as part of this bill let's look at the price of what it would cost these people to be put on public assistance for housing and food we're not saving money we're just shifting it from one part to another let's call it what it is let's keep them and allow them to have their dignity unemployment is a hand not a handout and let's keep in thinking terms of those things while we're trying to do things with some of these people now who've been caught in the mix and please vote against this bill thank you for your time. representative William Brawley please state your purpose. thank you Mr speaker to debate the bill. the gentleman's recognized to debate the bill. and I would ask that if someone has questions for me that they hold them to the end of my points and I will accept questions at that time this is a tough situation I am really wish that my little girl was right when she used to put on a tiara and pick up a stick and say it was a magic wand and she could go biing and solve anything but I don't have a magic wand so we have to make some tough decisions part of the difficulty we have is that the benefits we currently pay with the situation we have are not sustainable and we have to make some tough choices we will reduce our average benefit under this bill to 291 dollars the maximum will fall from 525 but currently to qualify for 525 you had to be making 56 thousand dollars a year or more so the least of us are not being touched by this it's only those of us that are a little better off and I [??] should've said. 05:00

Some money be used to supplement our unemployment and also would tend to be higher skilled individuals that can gain employment more quickly. But there’s also the question of the interest. We’re paying interest on this. Currently at the rate of 2.6%. I’ve done a little calculation. That’s 65 million dollars a year 178,082.019 cents a day or 7,420 dollars, nine cents an hour. Or to put it another way an hour in committee and the three hours that we will have spent on the floor debating this bill we will have incurred interest expense on our debt of twenty-nine thousand six-hundred eighty dollars thirty six cents. Folks, that’s a job. And that’s part of the problem we’re facing here. Unemployment is a transfer payment. It is true that people who receive unemployment benefits spend the money and it echoes through the economy and creates demand. Unfortunate we leave out the part that the people who pay the money in that is used to pay that benefit now have less money to spend and that lack echoes through the economy and the two cancel each other out. But the interest that we pay on the debt leaves us for Washington so we are in fact worse off the longer we leave this debt accumulating interest. The other problem is while we add these expenses to businesses that means the total labor cost for the current workforce goes up to maintain costs, to keep to keep the business open . that means by raising even more what businesses will contribute we will cause some people to lose their jobs and we will say it is through no fault of their own and it will be true and it will also be no fault of the business but it will be the fault of ours because we took that money out of the funds available for payroll. There are two groups of people that are hurt by decisions like that. One; the people in jobs who’s marginal productivity is so close to cost there in danger of being laid off and also those with the lowest skill levels who are trying to be hired and cannot be because the additional cost of adding them to the payroll is greater than the benefit they can bring to the business. And the answer we truly need are not higher unemployment benefits we need higher wages from, or more wages from employment by people who can get jobs paid for by the money no longer being pulled out of the businesses for other reasons. The thing we are trying to do is not penalize anybody but to increase the number of jobs that can be created so that people who are currently drawing unemployment benefits for less than their weekly wage can have a full weekly wage and not have to worry nearly as much at all. Thank you Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. Speaker I have a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holly, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the lady wish to ask a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] yes, I wish to ask a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Then the gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] At what point, we’ve been told this is a jobs bill. When do you expect to see jobs from this bill materialize? One year? Two years? Or when the debt is paid off or how many jobs are expected from reduction and savings to businesses. When are they gonna materialize. The people want to know. [SPEAKER CHANGES]I can’t trace you the specific jobs but I can tell you that macroeconomics scales well. If you and I are the only two people in the world and you are drawing unemployment and I am paying it, the net money between the two of us is the same. If at the same time I’m paying interest out, the total money available to both of us is less and we scale that up I will concede I cannot trace every resulting transaction but I do know that businesses that are losing money

Eight people off. That businesses who are expanding need more people and they hire, and the, anything that we’re doing that makes it harder for businesses to maintain the working capital they need to continue employment to even bridge small gaps will increase unemployment. And that as businesses are able to expand their business expand their workforce they will. Specific numbers I cannot give you. But I believe in the effects that I have put forward and in the numbers I have given you today. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Queen please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] As a freshman of this body I have a little history within the General Assembly because I have really been in the Senate for some time. So I was here whenever we had opportunities to raise the tax or to raise the insurance premiums for our businesses. But there was never really a consensus to do that. Not from, not from the Republican party or not from the Democrat party because we were basically starting in a big recession. And we felt the better approach the wiser approach and I still think it was the right thing to do was to, to ride this out and see where it goes. Cuz none of us could predict how deep and broad and difficult this great recession has been. And we’re still in the recovery of this great recession. In, in appropriations we, we heard the day that there is 180,000 fewer jobs today than when the great recession began. We’ve heard from our research folks that there are about half of the people, a little over half of the people that have been receiving benefits under our existing plan exhaust their benefits before they find a job. This is a hard recession. I have lots of constituents that are, that are struggling in this recession to find a job and to make things difficult, that make difficult things better for themselves. Why I want to speak to is the social contract that we’ve had in this state and in this country since 1935, since the social security act and the unemployment act were in, were conceived to, to deal with the crushing burden as Representative Glazier alluded to and spoke to so eloquently earlier. The crushing burden that sometimes falls upon citizens from economic forces that they have no control over. No control over at all. Well what we have done in this bill that social contract was that unemployment insurance would be a responsibility of an employer to provide for their employees. It was an obligation of an employer in this country, in this state, from 1935 on. It wasn’t, and it wasn’t great. I’m an employer. I’ve been paying $42 a year for each employee I have in my staff and business in my home, my home county. $42. It’s doubled to $84 now. And it will, it, it could double again if we didn’t do anything and just let the, the, this, this rabbit lie and let the, the, the plan that the federal unemployment tax has in hand/g, it might, it might double again to be $168. And then it would go away. $168 to protect an employee’s right and to a decent unemployment insurance situation if I as their employer go south for some reason to, to no fault of these employees which I feel a great obligation to because they have made my business what it is. I don’t think $168 and that’s at the end of this, that’s the last time is, is a significant amount. I think we did, we have done some good things in this bill. We’ve raised the state tax just slightly. But we have changed the contract. It is no longer the employer who provides this insurance as modest as I contend it is. We have now shifted it entirely to

almost entirely 100 to 1, with the obligation that we have. 2 billion, 700 million dollars worth of this loan repayment comes from workers benefit cuts. $24 million, we add at the state level, the feds discontinue their program as it's been all along. So, I contend that this is not fair and balanced. I contend that it is not smart economics. I appreciate every member of this body, Republicans and Democrats want to do the best they can for their citizens. But we're putting the burden entirely, almost entirely, massively 100 to 1 on workers and worker's families and not just ever worker, but the workers that are in the greatest distress with the crushing burden of unemployment. This has an effect. It really is a shift from the employer, which I would contend tend to be wealthier, to the worker, who tends to be poorer or lower in the economic ladder. So this is really one of those equity issues we are hearing more and more about, that have real social consequences when you change the social contract. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. And that's just exactly what we're doing here, and we do have options to not do this in this harsher way. I plan to vote no on this bill again because my fundamental tenet, a tenet I share with most of the members of this body. It is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," or if you like the negative, "do not do unto others what you would not want to be done unto you." So I ask you to vote against this bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Stevens, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the House, I did not plan to speak, so everything you hear is going to be somewhat impromptu. I am from an area where there was lots of mill jobs, and there have been lots of job losses. We've suffered them regularly for the last 12 years. I will vote in favor of this bill. I wanted to dispel a few myths that I've heard both in committee and on the floor, that there are no jobs out there that people will not take. I've talked to employers who say, "I'm a little bit tired of the people who come in and say 'Will you just sign this and tell me you don't have a job? Because I really don't want one. I'm going to continue to draw my benefits.'" That's not anecdotal. That's directly from an employer. I have talked to people who are drawing benefits who have been given job offers and they say, "I can't take this job. It's foolish for me to take this job at $10 an hour when I'm making $500 a week for staying at home. And I really have to do that. And I do know people who have done that. The last thing I'm going to say to you is that do you think that we in the majority don't understand this concept? Do I know the faces of unemployment? My husband has been long term unemployed twice in the last 12 years. And I'm talking a year and a half, 2 years at a time because of his limited skills. I do understand the face of unemployment. And I have talked to various people in my community since this bill was filed, who said "Wait a minute, what are you going to do, cut unemployment benefits?" But when I discussed the problem with them and where we need to go, they then respected that opinion and undserstood that I was doing what's best and what had to be done. It wasn't easy, it wasn't an easy decision. The easiest thing would say, "Let's just spend more money. Let's just print more money." But that's not the responsible, sensible, community thing we were hired to do. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Mobley, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I don't very often get up to speak in this chamber, because I learn by listening what others say and how I can respond to my constituents from time to time when I return to my community. I received a call on yesterday from one of my constituents about this particular bill. He stated that he is being outsourced after 38 years on his job. The job was going out of the country

Representative: …now he may not have much of a problem because he could possibly retire; he could possibly receive the maximum benefit allowed per week: $500 and some, which is still not a whole lot of money, but I think about those folk who cannot receive that amount. Who will receive w$100-200 a week, trying to support a family of 3-4 children, husband and wife. Then, I reflect back and think that I have been blessed, as many of you have, who have not ever had to received unemployment: that is a blessing. Who have never had to receive from any of the programs that are offered: that is a blessing. A lot of this is being cut out, and people are being turned away,. You listen about the devastation that is taking place in our state, and in our U.S., with regard to children and families. I don’t know how I would react if I was told that I no longer had a job. I have always worked. Those of you that are sharecroppers children, or grandchildren, as I have been, know what it is to work, and appreciate work. But I tell you, it hink that I would just love to hear of a time when we could actually talk to one another across the aisle and agree on some things that we have not been able to agree on these past couple of days. You say that of the amendments, some of them are good; you can support it, but then turn right around and vote against it; not only from across the aisle, but some of our very own. So it is not a matter of voting with your party all the time, but a matter of voting for what is the best for your constituents. I, like all of you, made a commitment that I am going to vote for what is in the best interest of the people who voted for me to come here. This tells me that it is not good for the people of my community, therefore, I will be voting against this bill. Thank you. Speaker: Representative Lukegate, please state your purpose. Representative: To speak briefly on the bill. Speaker: The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. Representative: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members of the house. We had a great debate , I think, on this bill last night, and in many ways, today, because of the eloquent statements from those who know about people who have been in such dire straights because, already, before having even looked at the implications of this bill or others after July 1. I just want to share – what I would like to do is follow up on that, and just share two comments that I received this morning when I was in a convenience store. There was a news observer there, so I picked it up and showed it to one person and actually, she was the clerk in the store, and I asked her what she thought about it, i.e. the jobless benefits being cut? She said that well, there are no jobs out there, so why are they cutting benefits? That was her comment. Then, as I was walking out the store, another gentleman walked in, and I just thought, okay, I will show him the paper too. I did, and I told him what this was about – I showed him the headline. He said that was a bad idea. Now, that is not a scientific sample. It is two stories, but I think that most people in this state are. In terms of the vote, we saw the votes overwhelmingly along party lines, and I would say, my friends on the republican side, you have the votes but you do not have public opinion

..The stories that have been told here have primarily come from Democratic members. [??] There has been tremendous silence on your side, even though I am sure many of you have stories to tell just as poignant as many of those we have heard today from the Democratic side. And so, the question is, where is that concern? Where is the ability to empathize with the cuts? Remembering that the cuts are, as has been said today,and that has been said yesterday,last night, are a hundred times more serious. 2.7 billion on the unemployed, and 24 million in terms of the [??] suda acts the state unemployment tax increase between now and the end of 2017. So where is the compassion? I am disappointed that it's not there. Apparently it's not there in terms of the vote. But I did do a little research on the vote from last night, the second reading, and it does tell us that sometimes representatives do know how hard it's hurting their community. Or at least they get in touch with how hard it's hurting their community. There were three of my Republican friends who voted, "no", on this bill. One from Gastonia, one from [??] Cheroville, and one from [??] . What do those three Representatives have in common? Freightliner. They represent in their districts, many workers at Freightliner. And if you have been following the news, Daimler Benz, Mercedes Benz out of Germany has made decisions, major layoffs at their plants. Rowan County and in Gaston County. [??] right next to that plant in Western Rowan County. So, I say, we do have some folks in the Chamber on the other side who know exactly what will be the situation after July 1. And recognizing the direct impact, because it is a large lay-off. They have seen fit, and I applaud them, to vote no on the bill. It's not as easy for the rest of you, because it's on a point here, on a point there. It's not focused on one corporation. I say to you, think about all the people in your district who are going to be hurt by this bill. Whether Republican, Democrat, unaffiliated, voter, non-voter. Lots and lots of people will be hurting after July 1. And I urge you to have the courage to vote "no" on this bill. Thank you. I certainly am voting "no" on this bill and I urge you to do so as well. Representative Steinburg please state your purpose. To address the bill, please. Gentlemen, it is recognized to debate the bill. Ladies and gentlemen of the Assembly. There are those of us who are supporting this bill who understand very well, what is at stake here. Many of us have visited with constituents who are unemployed. We have heard the stories. We see it first-hand. But, how many of us have actually lived it? How many of us have seen it in our families? How many of us have actually seen the pain, the embarrassment, the frustration? It can often end in death. In 1975, my father had been unemployed for about 10 months. We in the family who loved my father -- my best friend-- could see him deteriorating. Every week, every month he was failing. There was an opportunity, a plant that was moving to our town. And he felt like he had a shot at getting a job. He said to me, "Bobby, I am a good man. I know this company will hire me if they can just hear my story". Well, we went to the plant, and I decided that I would accompany...

care and love and I am as sexual encounter shares was active in swaying in one with forest drivers from some of the measures and with this process, when the opportunity to work tiled end of this life, that he wanted to work his life-sustaining me and my father is this operator time of 53 years all of these works all of this one end of this, as she and I managed well-to-one waiting for the harsher than just enter the hall to be able to show that the time for the three-shot send-mail women and four-and I have shown that the application ?? that we live in, and when father that comedy set in, but he said, the time their hired a woman said that the rational-half of the land on the other 7/31 and-spending and business and a columnist of a seven shuttle and women's fashions-for-life into defenders that that's all this trial will hi, Sonya three days after the times faster the company, for a form of other land and heart in this time to listen to an it has something to offer ?? NHL-of a dish and, of icy that this international a decision the inventors have some friends and have a ?? life sentence and that has determined for that, except that we are, that when that happens, just about all the data than five decision I made that decision about the panthers and many of the stand this idea of a lot of smaller stores to share our land for this to person doesn't weigh station per ?? she got up because recognize made no its daytime-Jamal has never been like it was in the Showtime well is determined soon reach war rejected a development that he will the lifetime of people have been a few things: you only do channels everything was specially of the national policy is that he inseparable from Pendleton to so that this judge of the conference time India is continually demand irony is that one in the right style weapon or his seat in the last two days of Al this mission ?? ID 81 in listening to the Rafael times heels and the mother said he's a share times articles in on all of us with the decisions I am using an activity has been reading the e-mail his company and continuously from updated, north Carolinians, about is the only thing including with the not too long for ?? ?? ………………

Representative: …and, I firmly had to conclude, that one of the reasons why I cannot support the measure, revolves around the fact that every amendment, offered by my democratic colleagues, to soften in some form or fashion, the terrible blow that is going to befall the unemployed when the maximum benefit goes from somewhere in the neighborhood of $500 all the way down to somewhere in the neighborhood of $290. There is o way that we can put a bow on this and make it seem better than it is. It is a devastating change. We will have tried, from my side of the aisle, to suggest many, many things that could in some form or fashion, help to make that blow less devastating. I am not going to recount all the various proposals that have been put forward, but the bottom line is that none of those proposals have been found to be something the majority would accept, or dare say, negotiate over, but the majority has decided that this is what it is going to be. Now, I understand politics, and I understand that some of you have sat in this chamber in the past and had measures raiulroade that you did not like. I know that it hurts ot have a train run over you and you have no chance of winning, but this is not about party politics, this is about the people of NC that will lose when you win. That is what I want you to think about. In many of these debates, folks have been talking about the business community. Well, businesses are made up of people. Sometimes businesses win, sometimes businesses lose. Sometimes people find themselves, through no fault of their own, on the wrong side of unintended consequences. The benefit that this measure is going to en shrine in law is an unfair outcome for the citizens of NC. I urge you as you sit at these desks, to rethink this proposition. We are early in our session, so this train does not have to go shooting out of here today. The people of our state will be better served with a more humane change in our unemployment compensation scheme than that before us today. I will be voting no and hope that some of my GOP colleagues will join me in voting no. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Speaker: Representative Hastings, please state your purpose. Representative: MR. Speaker, to see if Representative Glacier will yield for a question. Speaker: Representative Glacier, does the gentleman yield? Representative: Yes sir. Speaker: The gentleman yields. Representative: Representative Glacier, are you an attorney? Representative: Yes sir. Representative: Follow up? Speaker; Does the gentleman yield? Representative: Yes sir. Speaker: The gentleman yields. Representative: Were you referring to this member earlier when you mentioned Cherryville? Speaker: Representative Hastings, it was not the gentleman who referred to the members who voted. Representative: I am sorry. Mr. Speaker, may I ask if Representative Lukey will yield to a question. Speaker: Representative Lukey, does the gentleman yield? Representative: I do. Speaker: The gentleman yields. Representative: Representative Lukey, were you referring to this member earlier when you mentioned Cherryville?

he is not up to the three members even against men have on our time since Wells up and it down into a dozen U.S. ?? president of the extraction fight fire when you were referring to the IDs are less that was the time, is that she person amazing so we're debating the bill Simon also use questions and interaction of the subject and all the Chairman Richard Ault its ?? all questions coming into question the ??'s arm, use your wedding right into the party charitable input on China user has the code of a directory assistance you are unsure of time that I have an estimated cost to the Fremont might invite difference in the coming down for all of the difference was that all three of these volatile uses the last night from their districts are very close the FreightLiner plans where the city's business announcement will be layoffs as well as the comment to one time the data was members are the only effect August in students and what he would deal with U.S. West down times and they're just dust rate wire with eight or NT there are some time since it's your present starting times it makes up his own bills submitted a bill that would stop shares now lives in the company refer it does represent no doubt was made a point guard in a villager with a question of replacing the one that was the times figure of residents receive has been running at full-scale me say is I have never spoken to represent with you about this bill ?? had never spoken here about 31 of your smoke and you about charitable in a letter to persuade you have no idea if it all comes to the novel site is the time you owe income residents, strewn share the chair or procedure called it's OK all happy reading a ?? has anybody ever spoken to the only one of years with the media about this bill person casings didn't want to share appreciates the emotional time was being made to share his Encino and will incessantly enforce the role of doctors in on time and using the dangers here is a partner with a score as chamber to conduct itself and may continue debating the substance of the no ?? all I do appreciate much bigger picture given the option to pay the bills itself party that the Chinese would I have never spoken with us that they're mistaken day rephrase the question the site of the more certain personal tax implications about this deal ??, in fact is that many other unemployed people hostage one can not to spray water, dominated the displays more time than 120 degrees of that contest and riles and Orangevale for his way to clarify that to the speaker and the government in person Apollo space station purpose but that does recognize me time in a DOS of one of them as a whole other not unilateral cicadas and if you don't receive a call, is not just the latter tells me I'm upset that his lack of qualified applicants some of these unemployment compensation sales of domestically 88 as only a small piece of property to the days of the finance committee and by the recession in 2000 can drive a lot about the thinking straight out of ones that was the one constant: is not in sight on ice-quarters of a similar deals the default was accompanied to St. Louis riled up points in the U.S. dollar site of invasive in fines of people who take johnson's war with the raiders it's a big win at any stage for Boston have any serious incomes of 49-the latest ?? ?? ……………..

of any city and Pers addresses, I'm one of a dollar dollars on-one of the last week for 16 months of civic light-weight as possible on the floor and I. And of the I'm just a guess: how they operate as 1/4 week of the audio and houses also would rather read those earning an estimated by some of the people that system has a one-on positions museum of salami is a while and 202 of the feel of a Somali of us to stop when you need not recall, hostile one of one another's it's in the final on Sunday when Cole Weston, argues that the happens when uniting have the best contest was promised I'm not in the back of the Rockingham avenue estate investor was that we have working to another reason from: North Carolina time was amazing, house minority is available before the sun is the is that employers by the end of that one of 4800 twenties and line-up and riled, employers will consist solely for the next six years the bank, 9001 and all the facts so we're not exactly the same time causing if we do not have a comment on the North Carolina: fight hard in time and increase the cost of finding employees will have the colors of North Carolina you know of any use of the center to serve the person went out to conceal it had one has accused him of all time since, has been sending only they can RE-alls anyone remember them all and you can run as a black colleagues in the state Health Care, and would be like us to obtain has a different from Thailand, estimated last two plus years and has a higher being about the stations might be that some people in this hall and as for the rich and I'll send it across the political adviser, has signed a person only have one final time off, citizens and eight others on top of a man that a way of encoding: is regarded as the class, for which isn't on the trading in the times higher as the commonly known as the reason for permanent: innocent pollard and ½-open in 41, is it also requires is not an easy task of finding in the middle of all three were helping it was situation as long, and also about business owners infused into the time the celestial harmonies order, site of Sunday's game with 1000 others until the decision of his gun was the standard chamber in a few of the end of the message was the force of exporting involving the only times higher taxes and businesses operate as axes and we just needed a more taxes and, when Monday-gems that in the city's last time of those people with a Serbian saxon of men Sundays are somewhat Washington with his posture that you're the facts and one of the time, people that are installing them off as-as-and-white people, although it would not have not tested on patients for a longer period, for more money for not working out has a lot more cannot afford and the White House-was-I-41 reason is putting on Friday, 10, but not with the story of the month at the bottom of the bios bills would end of the end of the second, he recalls, but the movie was hired as the time and we just throw out this one made up his schools, was designed, has not happened with the eighties with a good situation more and more as done for the more people, and none has not been located outside the advance was being personable it is a station purpose is to call tile -canceling the man page and on his way up to one. Snow and I'm adding that the up the event was in and out of the DS of funds inch wide and full ?? zone on ??..................

205: Speaker1: Not just in the last few days, as we have witnessed in the last few years, now about three or four years, right at 10 percent unemployment in the state and I would submit to you that neither side of the aisle is pleased with 10 percent unemployment. Yes, we all agree on how to arrive at lesser employment and more employment and higher wages, but we all are in this together. We are here together. And it is more or less the educational philosophy that would say if we keep on doing what we have been doing we keep on getting what we have been getting. And that’s not what any of us want. We all want to do better. We have had great ideas on how to do better. I just wish we could collectively do better. We have had some amendments on this side some that x difficult to support some that should have been easy to support. But the one common element has been that they have all been turned down. So I am xx to feel that it’s going to be an operation not a sense of co-operation. And I wish that we could get more co-operation as we attempt to solve this dilemma for our state. Thank you. Speaker changes: Representative Cunningham please state your purpose. Speaker changes: To speak about the bill. Speaker changes: The lady is recognized to debate the bill. Speaker changes: I usually would not say anything but I am a registered nurse in the state of North Carolina and I have been unemployed three times in 2010. I put in six applications in those three months and got a job just because I am a registered nurse. We are needed everywhere, everywhere all over the state you hear people saying they need nurses but they don’t need everybody else like that. We need job re-trainer so that people can go to work. But I would let you know in 2009 and when I first took my lay off to take care of my sick husband who was sick for two years, and then my mother got sick she had glioglastoma cancer she died in five weeks; my husband dies two months later. That’s why I can always withstand it, the sadness, that we are just going to turn our beds and walk away. We can fix some of these but we don’t have to get it all the way. Can we fix it some of it, a little bit at a time, poverty in the state our children our future what are we going to leave ? what are we going to have ?; people can’t buy Asthalin, people in the Emergency Room, children can’t get asthma medicines because it costs $200 dollars anyway. I will vote no and will continue to vote no because my compassions are for the people of the state of North Carolina that are employed, unemployed , poor and still be unemployed and to some jobs come in here. Let’s continue to vote no. Thank you. Speaker changes: Representative Robert Brawley please state your purpose. Speaker changes: To speak on the bill. Speaker changes: The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. Speaker changes: Thank you Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentleman this bill here has created a lot of discussion around the Brawley household; we are very fortunate, we have five children . My baby is thirty nine, my grandchild is , that’s how we wanted but much younger son forty one years old got married the past year and moved into a new home. And because his daddy told him to speak up when he has a problem, I’ve been hearing about this bill for at least last two weeks every Sunday when xxx told the employees xxx because my son works for xx. So I know what’s going to happen out there. But I also know what is going to happen if we don’t get this economy turned around and start creating jobs. And it really bothers me that I keep hearing this, the unemployed are paying the bills. This is an unemployment anathema??

benefits don't pay for anything. Those benefits have to be paid for through a tax on employers and those same employers are being taxed a percentage of their payroll to pay off the two-and-a-half billion dollars in debt that we already have. Now, well I appreciate what Freightliner has brought to North Carolina. They've done a very good job but they've got some smart people over there too, and I bet you they've look at the fact that that tax is based on their payroll. And when they lay these people off the burden on the rest of the employers in North Carolina is going to go up a little bit because we've already lost the payroll from one employer. Lets think about the total impact and lets see if we can't do something to encourage people to employ people and put people back to work and see if we can get out of this mess. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Representative Blust, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: To speak on the Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: The gentleman is recognized to debate the Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. We've had a lot of debate on this. Certainly, it's an important subject. It should get a lot of debate and I understand the angst. I don't feel totally comfortable with my vote. I don't think there is a way to handle this subject in a way that would make anybody totally comfortable. We've got a terrible problem on our hands. A debt of 2.5 billion has been run up and it's got to be re-payed. Now, if we do nothing, the way it's gonna be re-payed is the Federal Government is this their proclivity is going to come in and they are going to heavy-handedly take the money through a scheduled increase in feudal taxes. Feudal tax is a tax directly on employment. So, if you want less employment in this State there's an easy way to get it if you want to talk about the causes you can tax something and you're gonna get less of it. That's an economic fundamental and part of the problem is in this country and in this state we've gotten away from sound economic fundamentals. Now, what this Bill is designed to do is to keep those huge taxes on employment from happening so that some certainty is restored to our business community so when they project they can feel more comfortable about hiring. Now most of the benefit provisions are prospective. They don't occur unless someone is becoming unemployed after July 1st of this year. We don't know who or whether those people will be unemployed or who they will be, but we know from history even if the economy is good there's always some new unemployed people in an economy. So, the idea that somebody's benefits who's on unemployment their suddenly gonna lose some money just isn't factual from the Bill. I was disappointed to hear again that 100 to 1 figure recited and that troubles me to hear that again when its been debunked. It's not accurate but so much of the debate in this country is no longer accurate and you can't seem to make a fact anymore and get it accepted as a fact. So, it isn't that out of balance. I don't know what the exact correct balance is, probably 120 people in this Chamber if they chose independently the balance would fall 120 different places, but the main reason I rose was to deal with facts, self-appointed, we're putting people above profits and you meanies over there just aren't doing that. You don't care. Some people said we look over there we don't see any compassion. This was said to be causing suicides and mass killings and all sorts of other things, and that's another thing about the debate in this country that I hate is that so much is designed to try to provoke an emotion instead of a cold analysis of the reality, and lets look at that people above profit because that false notion that some are putting people above profit is, I believe, the very reason we have the economic problem we're in. People above profit was the notion that we're gonna get everybody into their own house whether they can pay it or not, whether they can pay the payments or not. We're putting people above profits so everybody should have a house in our world

World if you don’t like that then you’re for profit above people. So we lost sound economics and we created a trillion or two trillion of bad housing debt that was spread throughout the economy. It was repackaged by Wall Street and the risks were spread about the economy. And then a panic hit and the credit market stopped functioning and so layoffs started. That’s when our debt started running up. So we had this bad situation we had the uncertainty but the people above profit false mentality is the reason we’re not coming out of this. We wanted people above profit so we didn’t let the housing correct like it should have and find a bottom for four years. I can name you instance after instance where the people above profit false mentality is the very thing that’s keeping our economy from bouncing back and it is ironic and it is tragic that some of the very people that purport to represent the people above the profits are the ones who are hurting those people and creating the conditions in which so many people are suffering and if we were really serious we would know that people really need profits. If not one person in here would have an article of clothing on if there weren't profit. There wouldn't be desks in the chamber. There wouldn't be a chamber if there weren't profits. Mankind would still be hunter-gatherers. And we've made profit into a bad word and we've created policies in this country and in this state because we think that’s bad and then we reaping the whirlwind. We’re reaping the bad realities. And this bill is a small step toward getting back to the real reality and not taxing additional employment and not causing future unemployment and future people to suffer so I stand proudly supporting a bill that I believe is going to stop more economic misery than it effects and I understand it will effect some people. I wish there was a way to structure it to what there would be no person in this state adversely effected but there’s no way to do this but I think this is going to stop even more misery from being created in the future and I think it’s something we have to do given the debt that’s been put in the laps of the general assembly so I urge a yes vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, it is the intent of the chair to allow any member who wishes to speak on the matter to speak on it. However, we have two in the queue now. It tends to roll up after we get to one. If we go beyond four-fifteen the chair is considering a recess. Representative George Graham. Please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] to speak on the debate sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much Mr. Tillis, Speaker. I just want to say that I’ve just gotten here, a freshman. I've served as a county commissioner for the past thirty years. My resignation was effective December 31st and ever since the election was over I’ve been excited about coming to the General assembly, coming to Rawley, to be a part of the decision making process. To do good things for people all across North Carolina. I couldn't wait to be a part of this awesome body. But I witnessed over the last couple of days that we have some serious issues. Some issues that definitely need to be addressed if we’re going to continue to move North Carolina forward. Now back where I come from our way of life had been corn, tobacco, soybeans, and livestock. People made a living and we have seen our county or counties transform themselves by hiring people, by training people, by creating jobs. Although we are in the poverty belt we have a very high poverty index and we have that all across North Carolina. In the western part of the state in the eastern part of the state. People need to work. People need jobs. We've created ten thousand jobs over the last ten years and we've lost ten thousand jobs because they've gone overseas. That’s no fault of the people. I’m here to say to you this afternoon we need to make certain that our citizens are trained and retrained. We need to continue to do what we are doing in economic development to try and bring jobs to our counties??

and have decent places to work. But more importantly, we, as a body, need to come together and have a clear understanding of what the needs are and recognize that poverty runs deep in eastern and western North Carolina. Now, my mother worked at a shirt factory all the days of her life with an eight grade education. She raised her children. And you will find that all across eastern North Carolina as well as western North Carolina. People have sacrificed. Have tried to make a difference. Have done well. And we need to be that body that continues to strengthen and uplift our citizens. I beg of you, do the right thing. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Insko, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak briefly on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the house, this bill isn't going to bring a rush of new jobs into the state. Already, North Carolina is ranked very high in one of the best places to do business. We already have a very high positive business ranking. We all support our business community. I do think we shouldn't talk about business before, or profit before, people so much except that just like there are welfare queens there are also Bernie Madoffs. Just like there are probably people who misuse the unemployment insurance, there are also Ken Lays. The housing industry probably partly started by profits over people because of the London inter bank offer rate. They kicked up mortgages and caused a lot of people to have too high mortgages. Then lose their house when they couldn't pay their bills and they lost their job. The thing about this bill is that it could be better balanced. We have a committee process so we can take a bill there and work through a bill in committees and make them better. So when they come to the floor we don't have these big long debates. We have a lot of really good amendments that were offered that would not hurt the business community but they have been rejected. And I think for that reason, many of us can not vote for this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion? Further debate? We will allow a few moments in case one or two members need to return to the chamber. Representative McManus, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was confused about this bill in the beginning and I realize this bill has been out there but there a lot of freshmen in this chamber who have not had the opportunity to read a seventy page bill. And I still haven't found slides and documents that were supposedly attached to it. That's probably a freshman thing and they are there and I just haven't found them but I'll get there eventually. But what confused me most was where the jobs where coming from in this bill. And I honestly ask someone to confirm that the only part that was going to create jobs was reducing tax, unemployment tax, on employers. I'm an employer. It's a small business. It's all women except one difficult man that I'm married to. But I manage this business. And it takes a certain number of employees in this business. And I know pretty much what that takes. Occasionally, we have to add on someone part time but it would never occur to me to do with less employees because of my unemployment tax or to add employees because I'm paying less unemployment tax. It's not even a function in the way small businesses work. Maybe large businesses but not small businesses. I heard a lot of talk about freight liner which I found really interesting because I'm from Gaston county originally and I still have the majority of my family in Gaston county and I have extended family members that work for freight

[Speaker Change] Lost jobs. And one extended family member that was hired to go to Mexico to train Mexican workers to do Freightliner jobs. It wasn’t because of the taxes here. It was because they could pay people such low wages in Mexico that Freightliner decided to outsource their jobs. I don’t think unemployment taxes were going to figure in significantly in that one way or another. It was they could pay Mexican workers so much less. What they discovered waste workers they were paying so much less were also not doing a very good job and so they brought a lot of jobs back. It’s probably oversimplifying it some but it still didn’t get down to taxes. I still don’t quite see how this unemployment tax difference is going to create very many jobs. I think it one of those areas where, we as employers just bite the bullet. We pay a little more. We’re happy if we pay a little less. It doesn’t make me hire more people. And it doesn’t make me fire people. It’s just part of being an employer. You roll with it and you make adjustments in other ways. I still struggle, and I’m hoping somebody can really help me see how this will make a big difference in jobs in this State. Thank you. [Speaker Change] Further discussion, further debate. If no the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute for House Bill four on its third reading. All in favor will vote aye. All opposed no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk [??] machine will record the vote. Seventy seven having voted in the affirmative, forty two in the negative. The House Committee Substitute for House Bill four has passed its third reading and will be sent to the Senate. Members before we go to, that completes the calendar. Before we go to notices and announcements, for those of you looking ahead to tomorrow session, we will be bringing up the debate on the permanent rules. The time will be at two. I understand that from my Rules Chairs and from all my Committee Chairs that we’ve been able to reach on the floor that we could meet at ten am Thursday. If there is any member in this Chamber who was not aware of that or presents a problem and would like to delay the session on Thursday till a later time, please raise your hand at this time. And stand up. So we will have, we will have session at ten am. There may be some committee meeting afterwards. I understand there may be one at noon. Thank you Representative Cleveland. But, but I think for the most part we can get you on your way by midday and that’s why we thought we’d do that earlier. The Chair does not anticipate a lengthy session. There is an appropriations meeting that begins at eight thirty. Notices and announcements. Representative Torbett, please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] Thank you Mr. Chairman, for an announcement. [Speaker Change] The gentleman is recognized for an announcement. [Speaker Change] Senator Tillman asked me if I would read this and invite members of the House to a dinner in honor of Senator Don East, Senator Ed Jones, and Senator Jean Preston. Dinner will feature some food and it’s going to be located at one six two seven Navaho Drive, Raleigh North Carolina and it’s from five to seven thirty. Thank you Mr. Chairman. [Speaker Change] Representative Hastings, please state you purpose. [Speaker Change] If it pleases the Speaker, about thirty seconds of personal privilege. [Speaker Change] The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [Speaker Change] Mr. Speaker. [Speaker Change] The House will come to order. [Speaker Change] On the behalf of the Cleveland Delegation, Representative Moore, I just wanted to mention that a Shelby High Sophomore, Nancy Bridges won the two A state individual tennis championship. Also on behalf of the Gaston Delegation, Representative Bumgardner and Representative Torbett, I wanted to recognize Jason Walford who is with the Cherryville Fire Department, for receiving the Western North Carolina Association of Firefighters Officer of the Year. And one final. I also wanted to recognize Dillon Hastings who was the pitcher of the American Legion team in Cherryville and he received the area for Player of the Year. And we’ve prepared certificates on the Houses behalf, your behalf, and my behalf.

Thank you, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] An announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We will continue our briefing on the budget tomorrow morning at 8:30 in room 643 and obviously, the members of the Appropriations Committee, we’d like to see you there. But all members are certainly welcome. We’ll have more time tomorrow to ask some additional follow-up questions as well. See you in the morning. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Larry Hall, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Democratic Caucus will meet at 1:00 PM tomorrow in our meeting room. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jordan, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Announcement, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee on Judiciary Subcommittee B will meet tomorrow at 10:00 AM, location 421 LOB. We’ll be taking up eminent domain and respect our fallen heroes, House Bills 8 and 19. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Samuelson, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] An announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The off-site meeting that we were supposed to have at four is obviously canceled, so everybody can go to that dinner at five. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stevens, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Judiciary Committee C will meet tomorrow at 10:00 AM in room 415. I know that’s on your calendar, but the reason I announce it is we will be taking up some bills. If they’re as non-controversial as I think, we will vote them out. I know there were a couple of people on the committee, including myself who have a conflict with Regulatory Reform, so I just want to let you know that we’re going to possibly take some votes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Charles Graham, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Interference Caucus will meet in room 1145, 15 minutes after this session. We have a guest speaker. Appreciate your attendance and support. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cleveland, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Friends of State Parks are going to have a legislative reception tomorrow evening, 5:30 to 7:30 on the first floor of the Nature Research Center. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further notices and announcements. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore is recognized for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, the House Committee on Rules, Calendar and Operations will meet tomorrow at noon to take up the Animal Captivity Bill, the Possum Bill of Representative West. We might even have a possum there, I don’t know. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, subject to the re-referral of bills and resolutions, I move that the House do now recess to reconvene on Wednesday, February the 6th at 2:00 PM. I move to adjourn. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore moves subject to the introduction of bills and resolutions and serial referrals, seconded by Representative Hastings that the House do now adjourn to reconvene on Wednesday, February the 6th at 2:00 PM. All those in favor say, “Aye.” [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All those opposed say, “No.” The ayes have it. The House stands adjourned.