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 | May 29, 2014 | Chamber | House Session

Full MP3 Audio File

The House will come to order. Members, please take your seats. Visitors, please retire from the chamber. Members and visitors in the gallery, please silence all cellular phones and electronic devices. The Sergeant at Arms will close the doors. The prayer will be offered by Representative Holley. Members and visitors in the gallery, please stand, and please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Good morning. First of all, I’d like to thank you, Lord. Thank you for allowing all of us to wake up today and to be here, a day that you have given us. I want to pray for our families, people that are very close to each one of us individually. Pray for the soldiers that they continue to protect us during hard times. Pray for our constituents as they are the reason that we are here. And pray for each other that we live healthy and are strong in this process. I want to offer a special prayer for someone that I think highly of. One of your gifts that you gave to, to us. No, not a minister. No, not a politician. But a woman, a normal woman, a everyday woman, everybody’s woman, Maya Angelou. Pray for her family and thank you, Lord, for bringing her into our lives to expound your wisdom, virtue, civility, and grace that she has given us all. We are here because we’ve been elected by our districts. But we are here to represent all the people of North Carolina. Help us keep this in mind as we make these decisions. Open our ears, mind, and hearts as we debate the issues to make sure that first we do no harm. We have been given the responsibility of being stewards of your Planet Earth, something that we love, and we cherish, and we try to protect at all cost. As we make decisions and decisions that will be made today, dear Lord, please, make sure that we do it with a pure heart and with you in mind. Dear Lord, let all our decisions be clean and made with civility, and love, and in your spirit. In Jesus we pray. Amen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America. And to the republic, for which it stands. One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, the Journal for Wednesday, May the 28th, 2014 has been examined and found to be correct. I move its approval as read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore moves that the Journal for May 28th be approved as written. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed no. The ayes have it. The Journal’s approved as written. Petitions for memorials or papers addressed to the General Assembly of the House. Ladies and gentlemen, the Chair would like to extend courtesies of the floor and a welcome to the doctor and the nurse of the day. The doctor of the day is a friend to many of us in the chamber, John Williford from Charlotte. And the nurse of the day is Amanda Cannon from Wilson. Thank you for serving our chamber today. [APPLAUSE] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Re-referral of a couple bills. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, we believe that Senate Bill 101 general statues ?? Act, 2013 be removed from the Committee on Rules Count and Operations of the House and refer to the Committee on Judiciary Subcommittee B. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection, so ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] An additional motion. It looks like Senate Bill 477. No set fee, non-covered vision services be removed from the Committee on Judiciary A and placed on the calendar for next week. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection, so ordered. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, if I may have your attention for a moment. We’re going to be reading in some committee reports and a couple of introduction of bills and resolutions. If you would look at your calendar on the first page, the two local bills. Without objection, I’d like to have those voted. Those are voice votes as a group, if you’ll look at it. If anyone has any objection, I’ll

...as for that momentarily. Representative Stone and Warren are recognized to send forth community report. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Stone and Warren for the Government Committee. House Bill 1033, Authorized Fee for Repairs of Dam. Favorable and re-referred to Finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Bill will be re-referred to Finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1044, Township TDA changes. Favorable and re-referred to Finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1080, Watha Deannexation. Favorable and re-referred to Finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1114, Elk Park/Deed Transferring Property. Favorable and re-referred to Finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Finance. Representative. Gentleman may proceed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stone, House Bill 1045, Town of Elkin/Regulating Municipal Elections Schedule. Favorable. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1096, Union Count/Contracted Ambulance Service. Favorable. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1113, Bent Creek Property Sullivan Act Exemption. Favorable. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1099, Unmanned Aircraft Regulation. Reported without prejudice and re-referred to Judiciary. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The bill will be re-referred to the Judiciary Committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives McElraft and West. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives McElraft and West are recognized to send forth committee report. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives McElraft and West for the Environment Committee, House Bill 1081, Reform Agency Review of Engineering Work. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1166, Clarified Gravel Under Stormwater Laws. Favorable. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Calendar. Introduction of Bills and Resolutions. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives S. Martin and Farmer-Butterfield. House Bill 1244, Wilson County Occupancy Tax Increase. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Hardister and Faircloth. House Bill 1245, Pleasant Garden Voluntary Annexation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Government in favorable. Finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Conrad, Hanes, Lambeth and Terry. House Bill 1246, Armed Detention Officers/Forsyth County. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Judiciary Subcommittee B. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives McGrady, Fisher, Moffitt and Ramsey. House Bill 1247, Asheville Regional Airport. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Government. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Tine. House Bill 1248, Authority to Remove Abandoned Vessels. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Government. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Whitmire. House Bill 1249, Brevard Meals Tax. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stevens, Burr, Lewis and Stone. House Bill 1250, Amend Definition of Dangerous Firearm. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Judiciary Subcommittee B. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Moffitt and Ramsey. House Bill 1251, Buncombe County Fire District. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Government. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Brisson and Waddell. House Bill 1252, Unneeded Ambulance/Bladen & Columbus. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Judiciary Subcommittee B. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Tine and Steinberg. House Bill 1253, Exempt Time-Shares/Rule Against Perpetuities. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Judiciary Subcommittee A. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Special message from the Senate. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Special message from the Senate. House Bill 1050, Senate Committee Substitute, Fourth Edition, of bill to be entitled an Act to Amend the Revenue Laws as recommended by the Revenue Laws Study Committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion pertain to the counter. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, move that House Bill 1050, the Omnibus Tax Law Changes be added to today's calendar for immediate consideration. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Objection. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Objection having been raised. The gentleman is recognized to state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this bill, House Bill 1050, passed by a considerable vote. I'm thinking it was somewhere around 80-something votes, I don't recall.

This is a time sensitive matter, it affects a number of the things. One of the things it also affects has to do with Moore County and the tax issue there and with the US Open only days away it is indeed a time sensitive bill. The bill has been thoroughly vetted, I think Chairman Howard is prepared to present it on behalf of the finance committee and Mr. Speaker I would ask the members to vote green on the motion to add to today’s calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Ladies and gentlemen just to call your attention, the motion Representative Luebke objected to having this added to today’s calendar without objection at some point we will take a vote on the motion which requires a simple majority. Representative Luebke please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] First Mr. Speaker would Representative Moore yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Moore does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Moore you just said there was something in the bill that was time sensitive for the US Open and my understanding was that’s why we took up the bill last week that we did. The senate bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The bill is back from the senate with two unengrossed amendments that need to be adopted as well as then a vote on a concurrence at that point. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Luebke if you would indulge the Chair that your question may be better directed to Representative Howard if that’s okay. I think Representative Howard is prepared to provide an explanation. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Yes, Representative Howard would you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Yes sir. Your question? [SPEAKER CHANGE] My question is Representative Moore indicated that one of the reasons we had to take up House Bill 1050 immediately, this is a bill that was changed, and the senate members should know, was changed in the senate and we’re having no opportunity whatsoever to hear the bill. Typically on a bill like this it would go back to the finance committee for a review and we in fact have no opportunity to know what the senate has put in this bill that has changed it from what it was when it left the house. Representative Howard has indicated to us that she thought there would be some changes that could be then negotiated. Now, today we are being asked to vote immediately on the bill so my question Representative Howard is why today are we being asked to vote on this bill when previously the discussion had indicated we would have a chance to see the senate changes and debate the senate changes? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Luebke, give the opportunity I intend to fully explain the three changes that the senate made to 1050 and you are correct, we did use senate bill 241 as a backup provision for the occupancy tax which does actually affect every event in the state in North Carolina. The one that is the most time sensitive today as Representative Moore explained is the US Open event which is right on us and we do need to get that provision passed if we could today so the governor can sign the bill hopefully this afternoon, but given the opportunity Mr. Luebke I intend to give full explanation of the changes that the senate made, of which they are not material changes so therefore the bill does not really need to go back to finance. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Speaker too, speak on my objection? [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Members of the house, we have bad procedure. We have a bill coming over with no opportunity for us to read the bill, to study the bill. The fact that we get an explanation right now is not sufficient, it is not the same thing as having the bill come back, giving us the opportunity to read the bill, to have some questions about the bill. Having a bill come back without any consideration for us members to participate is just wrong and members I would urge you to vote against the motion to hear the bill today. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Further discussion, further debate? If not the question before the house is the motion by Representative Moore to add the Senate Committee Substitute to House Bill 1050 and its unengrossed amendments to today’s calendar. All those in favor will vote aye. All those opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. Eighty having voted in the affirmative, thirty-five in the negative. The motion passes, the Senate Committee Substitute for House Bill 1050..

...1050 has been added to the calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Clerk will read the, actually, House Bill 1050. The Clerk will read and the Clerk will read the amendments. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Committee Substitute for House Bill 1050, Amendment to. Senator Rucho moves to amend the bill on page 7, lines 9 through 25, by rewriting the lines to read Amendment 6. Senator Rucho moves to amend Amendment No. 2 on page 1, line 1, through page 3, line 4, of the amendment by rewriting the lines to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Howard. Please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To make a motion and debate that motion, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized for a motion and to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, I would move that we do concur to the Senate Committee Substitute with the unengrossed movements number 2 and number 6 and to debate that motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When the bill was sent over to the Senate, I thought we had a good bill. As often happens, the Senate put some touches on it and this pretty much what they do. It doesn't do anything really harmful to the bill and doesn't really have a grave impact. There were three things that made some changes. The first being they removed Section 8.4 and this is the section that would have exempted from sales and use tax the 50% of the sales price of manufactured and modular homes. Secondly, it substantially changes part 12 under the Senate Substitute. The local privilege tax authorized is repealed effective July 1, 2015 and the local privilege license tax authorized for 2014 is limited to those businesses that have a physical location with that city's jurisdiction. And third, it removes part 11. That part would have reinstated the ability of any school of medicine affiliated with the University of North Carolina and the University of North Carolina Healthcare System to be able use the set-off debt collection to collect unpaid bids. Those are the three changes that the Senate made. Actually, the amendment that was added, there were two amendments and the second amendment is purely technical and it was just simply the way that the second amendment was drafted. That amendment number 6 was passed today. Number 6 provides that first time farmers would have an opportunity to become certified and get a sales tax exemption when they are starting into business for the first time. And that's a good thing. But again, none of the amendments are material. There is no reason that the bill should go back to Finance because if I did believe it needed to go back to Finance, I wouldn't ask you to concur without making that move. So I would ask that we vote to concur. I'll be glad to answer any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holly, please state your business. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like to be counted as having voted no on the last thing. I made... [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady be recorded as having voted no on the motion. Representative Luebke, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] See if Representative Howard will yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Howard, does the lady yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For question, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Howard, first of all. You talk about these being minor changes but let's take just the one about modular homes, which is not minor to people who are buying modular homes. What we did in the House...

Bill is to cut that tax in half. Is that not true? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So the Senate restored it to a full tax. In other words, the Senate increased taxes on modular homes compared to our bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well actually the original bill was 998 and that bill did not have this provision in that bill. We were trying to get the exception which we sent over to the Senate and they did not accept in this bill. However, I believe given the time you will see that provision in the budget bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Howard we had a long debate in this chamber and a considerable amount in the House Finance Committee over the fact that local government cities were losing revenue as a consequence of this bill. One of the things that the house did in its bill as a way of helping the cities was to put a cap of $100 on each business. Is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the lady yield? Lady yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is it also correct that the Senate changed that from $100 to 0? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’s what they chose to do Representative ? and in looking at the cities that choose to do an occupancy tax, it’s a very limited number of cities that even implement the occupancy tax. The Senate just felt that that was not anything that was going to be advantageous to the municipalities. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Howard, it is true that in defense of the House Bill 1050 when it was on this floor, that you and others indicated that the $100 privilege tax was a good idea. Is that not correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We will felt that it was a good option. Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mrs. Speaker to speak on the. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman recognize to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion to concur. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the house just look at the two items that I mentioned. The modular home tax, sales tax, cut in half by us restored to its full amount by the Senate. No opportunity for us to debate. No opportunity for us for the bill to go to conference so that it could be debated in the conference. Secondly and more importantly, we had the debate over the privilege tax. Along with a loss to revenue to local governments because of the cutting of the privilege tax to $100. Now as Representative Howard has acknowledged, the Senate has cut that out altogether. So that in terms of the revenue coming from the $100 per business, there’s now 0 revenue coming. So our cities are losing even more and more importantly, we are about to adopt a bill that takes away the revenue that was a part of our bill. We handed in our bill and there was a consensus in this body that we should keep the $100 there. It is wrong to have a bill come back not go to a conference committee where we can debate the question of whether the cities should be able to have $100 per business or nothing per business as the Senate did. It’s wrong not to go to conference committee. It’s wrong to take it up right now. I focused on just two changes in the bill that were important to us and I urge you to vote no on the motion. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative ? please state your.

See if Representative Howard will yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Howard does the lady yield? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Howard I want to be perfectly clear about something on the Privilege License Tax, if we do not vote yes to concur then the tax is done this year? If we vote yes to concur then the municipalities that do institute this tax have at least one more year so isn’t the choice here cutting it off now or extending it for at least another year? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Glazier please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To see if Representative Howard will yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Speaker and thank you Representative Howard. I thought I understood this provision and now after the two dialogues I find myself maybe not so I know you can clarify again back to the Privilege Tax. My first question, so I understand that what the Senate did was repeal the unintended repeal from last time and said we’re not going to deal with capping it until this year so whatever a city’s Privilege Tax is for 2014 is going to be allowed and then we’re going to end it all 2015 absent discussions and agreement in between with one major change and that is the physical location limitation that they’re putting on the cities. Is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGE] That is correct, yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Follow up Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGE] The lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGE] So then absent an agreement later the zeroed out as Representative Luebke says would happen in 2015 but would it be correct to say there’s a hope that there will be negotiations between now and 2015 on some tier or other system that might come to fruition? Is that at least the Chair’s goal? [SPEAKER CHANGE] That would be an option, absolutely. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, one final question Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Can you tell us though with the, and thank you Mr. Speaker, with the change the Senate made where they did place the physical location limitation, what amount of revenue cities are losing as an amount of that restriction? [SPEAKER CHANGE] That would be rather hard to instantly calculate Representative Glazier but I did just put a hand out on your desk and that’s about the best calculation we could make on a short notion but we did find, and many people have heard this discussed, and I don’t want to call any particular city in mind, but I wills ay that there was one city that has used this provision egregiously and we found that over nine hundred Privilege License will be taxed in even foreign countries by this particular city so when they begin to operate legally as they should have been in all of the years gone by or under these new guidelines, that will have some impact on the amount of tax that they have been collecting, but in the opinion of everyone they should not be reaching in to Vancouver British Columbia and taxing entities there. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you. May I ask one last question Mr. Speaker on the chart? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Speaker, thank you Representative. Looking at the chart in the last two columns I understand the second from the right column that says fiscal year ’15-’16 repeal, that’s what the cities’ would lose come that year if we don’t do anything and it zeroed out. The column to the right, the far right that’s labeled ’15-’16 with HB998 and Amazon local impact, is the difference between those two columns the 62 million and the 48 million approximately what the cities will lose on the change the senate made on the change on physical location? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Not exactly. Not exactly. Actually the far right column ’15-’16 998 and Amazon those are enhancements..

That the cities will receive under the Amazon Settlement and 998. Those are new monies, legal monies that go to the cities. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So my last question then, on the chart, and I'll... Truly the last question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Representative. So the chart has a number of pieces of information on it but one it doesn't have, there's nothing that I can read that will tell me the change the Senate made on physical location, exactly what the cities will lose. That's, that's not on the chart. Would that be accurate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. And we absolutely don't have all of those numbers. We know a lot of the numbers that a lot of entities that are being taxed that should not be. But we do not have a calculated number on that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Representative. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stamm, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I plan to vote to concur. I would like to express some thoughts about the third change that the Senate made. That is the leading a provision that this House has passed twice, I believe unanimously. It's a, I believe, a $15 million dollar issue of additional revenue to the State's institutions. Which means, of course we have to give 'em less money if they have that $15 million. And it's not taxes. It's for money that is already determined to be owed by people. And unlike other money, it's already collected. It's already in our coffers. It's already with the Department of Revenue and all we need is just the authorization to get the money. So the reason I mention this, is that when the budget, the House budget comes back, I am certainly hoping that we will capture that $15 million dollars for whatever needs have the highest priority. And I would ask for anybody who can fin--, I have asked a dozen senators myself, the rationale for throwing that money away. And I have not gotten an answer at all much less a coherent answer. So if any of you can find the answer to that question, I will give you a dollar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Larry Hall, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ask Member Howard a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Howard, does the Lady yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Representative Howard, thank you for yielding to the question. And I heard you respond that you thought the Modular Home Exemption that was taken out would be able to be put back in the Budget Bill. Is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Lady yields? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And so you're asking us to vote for this or to concur with this on the presumption that something that we considered in the House that got removed will have some percentage of possibility of being in the Budget Bill. Is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Another question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is there some reason why if the Modular Home Exemption is expected to be in the Budget Bill why we could not vote against this motion to concur and push for the Local Privilege Tax Solution to be in the Budget Bill and not vote on that today? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hall, again I'm gonna go back to a very time-sensitive provision that's in this bill. And each and every day, it was not the fault of the members of Moore County and what happened down there. And without being testy on the floor, I'm gonna tell a little bit of history here. When the National Democrat Convention was coming to Charlotte someone who did not have authority to do so posted a memo on the Department of Revenue's website saying that folks did not have to collect the source tax which is tied to the Occupancy Tax. And that was in 2012. Again we are trying to fix a mistake that was made over at the Department of Revenue. And you can't hold that person accountable because they are no longer there.

And how you would them accountable, I’m not even sure. But that’s what happened and that’s what has brought the issue of the occupancy tax to the front burner. We are just trying to repair that damage and this bill is the vehicle that is designated to do that. And we’re trying to get it passed as quickly as we can and get it sent over to the Governor to sign this afternoon. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speaker on the motion Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentleman without objection rule 12D is suspended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentlemen ?? to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker and ladies and gentlemen of the House. It appears we’re kind of being pushed up against the wall by the Senate again and we know we tried to deal with the Moore county occupancy tax issue in a separate stand-alone bill so this would not happen. So all of the work that the House Finance Committee did in getting this matter straight; and the work we did on the bill, is now being short circuited and we are not being given an opportunity to really respond and provide the issues in this bill that we talked about. The hope that’s laid out there is that we’re going to rely on the Senate to treat us with respect. This time, in the budget overall, since they put us in a vice on this bill. And I don’t know, I’m not sure that confidence is justified. I don’t have any percentage of success. We do know what happened with the Moore County bill and I’d ask you to really think about whether or not we are just, in fact, given away. The mobile home issue regarding that tax reduction for them and whether or not we’re really giving away the privilege tax issue as well because we find ourselves back in the same position. When the budget comes and we’ll be asking this question again. So I would recommend that you vote against the motion to concur. Let’s go ahead and deal with this issue. If we have to have a finance committee meeting and do that, let’s do that. And draw on the experience and intelligence of all the members here. They’re on the finance committee and send this back or not concur with it today. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Carney please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Representative Howard a question. [LAUGHS]Friendly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Howard. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the lady yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker and Representative Howard. Just for clarification for myself and others. I was trying to scroll quickly. Did the Senate keep in there on the vapor products Representative Fulghums amendment that classified it as a tobacco product? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes ma’am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative ?? please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Lady is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would ask members please to vote no on this motion. The other day when we had the debate on the impact on UNC hospitals and ECU hospitals. We had a consensus I thought in this chamber. It’s a 15 million dollar loss to UNC hospitals. We don’t need to be putting that kind of loss on any health facility now with the Affordable Care Act rolling out. And so many unanswered questions and additional expenses that are coming our way as well as additional savings. So we need time to reconsider this point especially. Also I had understood that there was some discussions about replacing options or expanding options for local governments so that they would have some other options in addition to the sales tax and property tax to raise money for the local government. Our local governments have very few revenue options. There are some that are available to a few counties and a few cities. We could expand that list and help offset the loss to our cities and counties. But this is not the time. Passing this bill now will prevent us from doing that. So I hope you vote no on this bill. It gives us an opportunity to fix this right now. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not the question before the House is the motion to concur and the Senate Committee Substitute House Bill 1050 has amended. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The cleric will open the vote.

that that’s evident. So if we would prescreen I 'm not saying we not going to frack because I know that there’s enough numbers here to pass this bill but we can get it right for the communities that its going to impact. We can get it right by putting in some health assessments prior to the companies coming in that way we would have a base line to look at if water contamination occurs, if air pollution occurs after the fracking and after the companies leave the site. I ask for your support on the amendment for the people of the state of NC in these communities because there are already several water leaks and water wells that people are drinking water from in at least five other states where fracking has taken place and these people have huge, huge health risks that go along with being within that thousnad feet. Water contamination has been found within less than 600 ft I put in the amendment the 1000ft. Please consider the amendment. Thank you. [speaker change] Rep. Hager please state your purpose. [speaker change] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Debate the amendment. {speaker change} The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [speaker change] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ms. Cunningham appreciate the amendment sent forward and I’d love to work with you on this. We got formative health and public house working on this also and I’d love to include some of your issues in to this. This goes far beyond some of the things we see or potentials that we see on the energy exploration issue. Right now with in the bill we’ve got presumptive liability for well testing before they drill then 6 month, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months would go within the bill. So this does, the bill as is in front of you, does deal with water issues. What i’d like to propose, I’d like to vote this bill down but work with Representative Cunningham and get her involved in the MEC and the division of public health and see if we can include some of the issues she has with in our MEC rules. [speaker change] The chair believes the gentleman meant to say to vote the amendment down not the bill. [speaker change] I did sir. And I think I said energy exploration. [speaker change] Representative Cunningham please state your purpose. [speaker change] To speak a second time [speaker change] The lady is recognized to debate the amendment a second time. [speaker change] First of all I wanna thank Representative Hager for those comments they were very kind and I’d love to work with you on that cuz I know that after they come in and drill or whatever they do to the land even after they leave and the gas is all gone then 50 to 100 years there's going to be an impact on that water on that environment and if we don’t have something in place for the next generation we don’t know what their capabilities for living a very quality of life in those environments and I appreciate that but I still ask for support on the amendment. Thank you [speaker change] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment? If not the question before the house is the passage of the amendment set forth by Representative Cunningham for the house committee substitute of senate bill 786. All in favor vote aye all opposed vote nay. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 45 having voted in the affirmative 69 in the negative. The amendment fails. Representative Reivs recognized set forth the amendment. The clerk will read [speaker change] Representative Reivs moves to amend the bill on page 16 line 31 through page 18 line 45 as amended by amendment number one by rewriting those lines including amendment number one to read [speaker change] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment [speaker change] Thank you Mr. Speaker and ladies and gentleman of the house I’m asking that you support this amendment. The amendment basically is following the light and engine commission in last year’s set up the local government regulation study group that group came back with recommendations Oct 2013. What I’ve done is, what i hope is just streamline section 14 which is streamlined to the point that allows local ordinances to still be written and still be produced in their normal course of business. It allows them that opportunity. At this point in time with the way I read section 14

To speak on the bill SPEAKER CHANGES The ?? right now to debate the bill. SPEAKER CHANGES Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members of the house what this bill does is when there is a petition for abuse neglect or dependency in a district court, the judge is to consider whether jurisdiction is proper and whether the petition has been properly filed to begin with. What happened is there was a case of a ejudication that went all the way up to the Supreme court who turned around and said nobody check the verification it's not right, everything you've done's wrong, start over. So we're just gonna put a burden back on the district court to make sure, that all of the qualifications have been done and that's all this bill does. I would ask for your support. SPEAKER CHANGES Further discussion, further debate. If not the question before the house is to passage eleven oh three on it's second reading, all in favor vote aye all opposed vote no the ?? will open the vote. SPEAKER CHANGES ?? recorded the vote. One hundred and sixteen having voted affirmative, none in the negative, House bill eleven o three has passed it's second reading without objection will be read a third time. SPEAKER CHANGES ?? of North Carolina next SPEAKER CHANGES Further discussion, further debate. If not the question before the house is passage eleven oh three on it's third reading, all in favor say aye SPEAKER CHANGES Aye SPEAKER CHANGES All opposed no. SPEAKER CHANGES No SPEAKER CHANGES ?? have it. House bill eleven oh three has passed it's third reading will be sent to the Senate, House bill eleven seventeen a ?? reading. SPEAKER CHANGES House bill eleven seventeen ?? law of governing the pledge of joint accounts and credit unions, savings and loan associations saving banks to the law of governing the pledge of joint accounts and banks is recommended by the general statuettes commission. Johnson of North Carolina next. SPEAKER CHANGES Representative Wyse please state your purpose. SPEAKER CHANGES Speak on the bill Mr. Speaker..-- SPEAKER CHANGES The gentlemen right now is to debate the bill SPEAKER CHANGES Thank you Mr. Speaker members of the house this is a very special bill that's out of the joint...out of the general statutes commission. It simply is putting language for savings banks, savings associations and credit unions to comply with the same language that we did for banks, two years ago in the big banking reform bill, it just simply provides when there's a joint account. Any one of the joint owners can pledge that account as collateral for a loan and each of the other joint owners are bound by that unless there is an agreement in writing prior to the loan, prior to the pledge. Such a pledge binds those other joint owners and survives the death of the one joint owner who pledged the collateral. I know of no opposition, I'd be happy to answer any questions, I appreciate your vote. Thank you. SPEAKER CHANGES Further discussion, further debate. If not the question before the house is the passage bill, the passage of house bill eleven seventeen on it's second reading all in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The ?? will open the vote. Quote ?? machine will record the vote, one hundred and sixteen having voted affirmative, none in the negative. House bill eleven seventeen has passed it's second reading without objection will be read a third time. SPEAKER CHANGES ?? of North Carolina next. SPEAKER CHANGES Further discussion, further debate. If not the passage before the house is passage of house bill eleven seventeen on it's third reading all in third favor say aye. SPEAKER CHANGES Aye SPEAKER CHANGES All opposed No. ?? eleven seventeen has passed it's third reading will be sent to the Senate. House bill eleven fifty three the ?? reading. SPEAKER CHANGES House bill eleven fifty three ?? to authorize the ?? administrative hearings to allow documents in a contested case to be filed electronically as recommended by the joint legislative administrative procedures oversight committee, General ?? of North Carolina in acts. SPEAKER CHANGES Representative Maffett please state your purpose. SPEAKER CHANGES Send fourth an amendment. SPEAKER CHANGES The gentlemen right now will send fourth an amendment the clerk will read it. SPEAKER CHANGES Representative Maffett ?? knows to end the bill on page one line ten by deleting the... SPEAKER CHANGES The gentlemen is recognized to debate the amendment. SPEAKER CHANGES Thank you Mr. speaker members this is a very technical amendment on line thirteen, we'll be adding quotation marks around the words electronic filing, on lines seventeen we'll be adding quotation marks around electronic filing service provider. On line twenty we'll be adding quotation marks around electronic service. On on line eighteen, we'll be replacing the letter "E" with the word electronic in two places. I appreciate your support. SPEAKER CHANGES Further discussion, further debate on the amendment. If not the question before the house is the passage of the amendment sent forth by Senator Maffett for the house bill eleven fifty three all in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The ?? will open the vote.

The clerk will have the machine record the vote 116 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. The amendment passes we are not back on the bill as an amendment. Rep. Moffit please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to speak on the bill as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members this is a recommendation that came out of Administrative Oversight Committee meeting, it simply allows of the Office of Administrative Hearings to files documents on a contested case electronically and also to serve the same documents electronically. I would appreciate your support. {SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the bill as amended? If not the, the question before the House is the passage of House Bill 1153 as amended on its second reading. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will have the machine record the vote. 116 hacing voted in affirmative, none in the negative. House Bill 1153 as amended, has passed its second reading with no objection, will be a read a third time [SPEAKER CHANGES]. General Assembly of North Carolina next. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If the question before the House is the pass of House Bill 1153 as amended on its third reading All in favor vote aye or say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it. This is it's third reading the bill will be engrossed and sent to the Senate. House Bill 1170 the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1170 an act to disapprove a rule adopted by the North Carolina Board of Funeral Services, General Assembly of North Carolina next. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stevens please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you members of The House this is an important procedure. I guess we all need to learn that as rules come out of the Administrative Procedures Committee, the Rules Review Commission. We can vote to disapprove those rules, this is one of them. The Funeral Board proposed to substantially increase their rates, 10 people, general members of the public filed an objection. As we reviewed it in the Administrative Procedures Oversight Committee many of us decided we didn't like it and we have proposed to disallow that rule, I would ask for your support in that. I did hear from the Funeral Board Commission today, through their lobbyist and he indicated they had no position because they were in the process of switching leadership anyway. So I would ask for your support to disallow fees to be increased. And I would certainly welcome either of the Funeral Directors to speak if they wish. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Boles indicates a thumbs up. Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the house is the passage of House Bill 1170 on it's second reading. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will have the machine record the vote. 116 having voted in the affirmative none in the negative. House Bill 1170 has passed it's second reading, without objection, will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General Assembly of North Carolina next. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the questions before the house is the passage of House Bill 1170 on its third reading. All in favor say aye. All opposed no. The ayes have it. House Bill 1170 has passed it's third reading, will be sent to The Senate. Senate Bill 786 the clerk will read. If the clerk will hold for a moment Representative Dollar if you will step forward for ratification of bills and resolutions. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The enrolling clerk reports the following bill to be ratified for presentation, governing the House Bill 1850 an act to amend the revenue laws as recommended by the Revenue Laws Study Committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chapter bill is to be noted. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 786, if folks were wondering why we did that, originally we thought Representative Dollar may be ratifying the bills. So it was already printed and I didn't want to go the expense and time to have it reprinted just so I could sign it. Thank you Representative Dollar. House Bill 786 the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committees sits through House Bill 786. Bill to entitle an act to extend a deadline for development of modern care and management of oil and gas exploration, development and production in the state and the use of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing treatments for the purpose to an act, to modify certain exemptions of the requirements of administrative procedures ??? the rules of oil and gas exploration, development in the sate and the use of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing treatments and authorize the use of permits for oil and gas exploration development and protection...

You have to do 60 days after our approves becoming effective create the North Carolina oil and gas commission reconstitutes North Carolina environmental commission miscellaneous statutes of government oil and gas exploration following the production activities severance tax applicable to oil and gas exploration involvement and production activities and miscellaneous statutes on range oil and gas exploration and development and production activities direct study on various issues as recommended by the joint legislative commission on energy policy. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [speaker change] Representative Jones before we move into the debate on this bill does the gentlemen want to be recognized to change a vote on a prior matter? [speaker change] Yes sir, Mr. Speaker. I wish to be recorded aye on the initial vote for hearing House bill 1050 today. [Speaker change] The gentleman will be recorded as voting aye on the motion, thank you. [speaker change] Representative Hager please state your [Speaker change] Mr. Speaker [Speaker change] Please stand [Speaker change] representative Floyd please state your purpose [Speaker Change] I ask to inquire with the chair [Speaker Change] the gentleman may state his inquiry [Speaker Change] mr speaker you ask that by a one--I guess a 12:30 or 1:30--that all amendments be in [Speaker Change] All the amendments were in all 16 of those- [Speaker Change] thank you mr speaker [Speaker Change] -shiny new amendments [Speaker Change] thank you mr speaker [Speaker Change] Yes sir [Speaker Change] Representative Hager please state your purpose [Speaker Change] debate the bill Mr speaker and ask for staff-ask for staff be on floor [Speaker Change] staff are available to all members and are welcome to the floor [Speaker Change] I must admit, when the representative stood up I was hoping that he would go ahead and call the question ******laughter******* [Speaker Change] Thank you Mr. Speaker and we had a good debate yesterday there’s a couple of things that I want to outline that we may have glossed over yesterday. Guys this bill sets up the next step it doesn’t make the next step it doesn’t determine the rules it doesn’t do the mining and energy commission’s job for them. It allows the folks who have studied this for two years going on three years by the time we get the rules- it allows them to do their job. It gives them some parameters to work on. Now, Representative Jordan this bill, you know, has some good things in it. I agree with you. The one is the exempt from the hardison amendment. We can have rules in here that are stricter than the federal government for energy exploration in north carolina. it has noticed to subservice owners, mineral owners rights. It says that you go from a felony to a misdemeanor if you knowingly and willingly divulge trade secrets. There are a lot of things in here, much has been made about when we’re going to approve the rules. For you guys, some of that clicked with me, makes me wonder why we didn’t put a rule approval out there. The reason is because the general assembly doesn’t approve rules from the executive branch and we have a process for disapproving the rules and that’s the process that is outlined in the bill. So all in all, this is a great bill, guys. Last night, representative Warren and some of the folks that were here last night, and it was about eleven o’ clock, and I happened to be looking through the internet, you know you can find anything on the internet, called great devil website Haliburton, and I looked at it and I’m sure Representative Harrison has been to that site several times, went on there and clicked on the map. Its a point and click, easy for us engineers to understand, and you click on pennsylvania, it pulls up and it says pennsylvania and here are the types of fluid that we use for energy, and one was water based so I just clicked on that. And I’ve got copies, I haven’t passed them out to you guys yet, but I will before this is overwith. It showed all the chemicals that are used and fluids and their percentages. Even further, you can click on the adobe symbol and you can get the msd sheet that I was telling you guys about yesterday. So I just searched MSDs. So david lewis should appreciate this, I’ve come up on Lillington North Carolina and the prison, and they have chrome cleaner there and guess what, they had a MSD sheet on it. It’s federal law to have your chemicals to know what’s on site and first responder roles on site. OSHA mandates that. So this issue with chemicals is a non-starter, it is not an issue. So with that Mr Speaker, I as for the forward passage of this bill. [Speaker Change] Ladies and gentlemen, it’s the intent of the chair to go to the amendments before we get back to debating the bill and I do have one question, I did have the deadline I think of 12:30 which we extended somewhat because I know we had some problems with staff. I think representative Harrison may have had an amendment she was working on. I’m aware of one that was also tied up that I think Representative Arp has asked to have sent forth but only with out objection because it came in.. but oh I’m sorry it was Representative Moffitt but it came in about 10 minutes after the deadline, if there’s not objection I will have that amendment heard.

To order. Representative Carney has sent forth and recognized an amendment. The clerk will read. [Speaker Change] Representative Carney moves to amend the bill on page 2, line 20 through page 3, line 15, by deleting those lines, and on page 3, lines 3 through 51 by deleting those lines. [Speaker Change] The lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [Speaker Change] Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members of the House. What this bill is simply doing is giving us the opportunity to keep our promise that was made two years ago in this chamber. I know there are lots of things people have passed out and people have talked about, but I for one was here on that floor that night of that fatal vote for me. I've learned a lot from that mistake and I hope that a lot of other people in here have to. But, one thing about what we promised was that we would keep a moratorium in place until the Mining Commission went through and developed their roles and brought them back in October 2014, and its only May of 2014. Then, at that point the legislator would look at those roles and vote on them. What we are doing here today with sections 2 and 3 is that we are not honoring that commitment. We are bypassing, we are diluting some of the language, but when we overturn that veto, we lifted the ban on fracturing, we established the commission, we asked them to set the roles. And, I'm repeating myself on purpose to come back in October 2014, so that we could at that point, as a legislative body go through those roles, so far 120, and vote on them. I know you have on your desk where Governor Perdue supported fracking for the state. While there was also what she said when she came out with her veto, and I quote she said, "Fracking can be done safely if you put in place and have inspectors on the ground." That is what she had said in her veto, she expressed that the bill quote, "does not do enough to ensure that adequate protections for our drinking water landowners, county and municipal government, and health and safety of our families will be in place before fracking begins. She has for, stated that she thought this was something our state should look into and explore. We had the study committee who was looking into that and then we came along, in July, and lifted that ban and imposed a moratorium to continue studying and going to appoint a commission. Some of you in here bought into that. As Ben Franklin said, well done is better than well said. There's been a lot of things said we're going to do even if we vote today, but I will tell you what we will be doing if we don't support this amendment. We are taking ourselves out of the equation of the final approval. We are taking the administrative procedure act and we are changing it just for this particular mining commission that will soon become the Gas and Oil Commission for North Carolina. Are we ready to move forward with this as a state? I don't think so. I don't think all of the safeguards are in place and I know we're going to hear a lot today, but I'm asking you today if you will vote for this amendment can keep the promise we made to the citizens of this state and indeed to members in this chamber, and myself being one. That vote was heard around the world, I have the email saved for the step we took forward and we made a promise, now lets stand up and stand for that promise that we made, because the legislature-- I don't like to use members names on the floor and I'm not today, but I'll tell you there are some websites for members in here that have on there and they're members from a majority party, stated that that the law sets a deadline of October 20, 14 to have regulations in place, and it specific.

[0:00:00.0] Please stakes that no apartments will be issued until and unless the general assembly takes additional legislative action to allow it. One of the bill sponsors and that was in 2012 that was after the vote. One of the bill sponsors also was quite are the same no gas drilling can take place for at least two years until a safety provisions are in place and approved by the State Legislator. So, what you are doing today by allowing this bill to move forward without taking out the Section 2 and 3 and you are going back on what we all said and all sides of all we will vote on the final rules. We just had an example of a disapproval and that’s what you are gonna defend and say we have done and I know that one of our representatives try to make that lift in the moratorium a little easier but what we heard today on a disapproval role was wonderful come by Parson support but what we have done now with the ADA changes and that is, “We are not gonna have that opportunity. It’s quick moving. It shortens the time for us to approve or disapproval rule.” So, I’m asking you today and I will say further comments Mr. Speaker for debating the bill but I ask for your support of this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative the Chair assumes that…Well, Representative Moore please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, members of the house, confirmed with the bill sponsor and it appears that this amendment would have the effect of essentially getting the bill and undermining the intent of the bill so if I could be recognized for motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Moving the amendment lay upon the table. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion being made by Representative Moore, second by Representative Bob, the motion allows the tables not debate or the question before the house is the motion to lay upon the table, the amendment offered by Representative Carney for House Committee substitute of Senate Bill 786. All in favor vote aye. All oppose vote no. The clerk will open the vote. [Pause] The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 61 having voted affirmative, 51 in the negative, the motion passes. Representative ___[02:57] please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Collins moves to bill on page 29 lines 24 and 25 by adding between the lines. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker this amendment would add two studies to the study section of the bill, number 5 would be a study that would study the economic impact of net metering and all customers, all right payers that are paying for electricity of North Carolina and the second study would try to come up with what number is an equivalent for liquid propane is used in vehicles to a gallon of gas just like the bill does for compressed natural gas and liquid natural gas and I urge you to ratify my amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To briefly debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I believe and confined with the sponsor of bill that the amendment is not really remained with this bill goes beyond the scope of the bill and with respect to be ask to be I guess in part as soon last for recognize for motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Maybe the gentleman amendment up to on the table. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion having made by Representative Moore and duly second by Representative Berg and the motion is not debatable is to lie upon the table the amendments forward by Representative Collins for the House Committee Substitute of Senate Bill 786. All in favor vote aye. All oppose vote no. The clerk will open the vote. [0:04:59.9] [End of file…]

The Clerk will let the machine record the vote. 71 having voted in the affirmative, 43 in the negative; the motion passes. Representative Glazier is recognized to send forth a committee report. The amendment. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier moves amendment bill on page 18, line 47 by deleting the word “for” and substituting the following. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank You, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is an amendment and I hope it actually has got some consensus. Very briefly, toxic air emissions have been our recurring problem for neighbors and fracking operations in other states and the house recognized that back in 2012 and then Senate 820 EMC and later as well the Mining and Energy Commission. Now, we’re asked to explore this area and based on presentations from the state division of air quality, I believe that the new federal rule will prohibit venting of gas to the atmosphere from any wells. However, the federal rule doesn’t explicitly cover [wild cater] exploratory and delineation wells. And so, there’s this gap that may exist, we’re not completely sure in what EMC and MEC were trying to do which is to make sure that the federal regulations applied to all of our wells. What this does, is simply use the language of both EMC and MEC, variance provisions and the federal rule to make sure that all the wells are covered which was the intent back in 2012, but also the intent of the MEC and EMC. I’ve talked to Representative Hager, I don’t think, but I don’t know for sure that there’s opposition but I’ve also indicated if there are any concerns, that we can certainly review the language on the Senate side or do a technical correction but I think this is just attempting to do whatever one thought was happening but there is this potential gap language in the rule and I ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hager, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank You, Mr. Speaker. To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, since last we talked, I’ve done a little research on this and right now, I’m a big fan of ?? as I said earlier ?? did have these rules or are completing these rules, have draft rules in place and will come forth on January 1st 2015, these rules. The MEC right now has draft rules that they’re looking at in trying to determine this exact rule. So, therefore I would ask to vote No on this amendment and one of the other issues that bothers me a little bit and I’d have to talk to the ?? commission is the last sentence about a ?? [fracturing] treatment is if a reduced emission completion is not technically feasible then you don’t issue a permit. That’s the thing we’ve got to deal with a little bit more [into] and look at the technical side and, again, the MEC has draft rules. They’re working on this now. So, again, I’d ask you to vote No on this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Queen, did the gentleman intend to speak on the amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak a second time on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank You, Mr. Speaker and Thank You, Representative ??. I wasn’t going in as much detail because I thought that we were headed a different way but since we aren’t and I think it’s important for folks to know. So, all the wells whether you call them exploratory or [wild cater] delineation wells or regular wells, all pose a threat because they can vent directly to the air, using a flare which produces the toxic emissions. The definitions that you see in this amendment are taken straight from the federal rule. The EMC and MEC, I believe, concluded that they wanted the federal rule to apply. I don’t think it was clear that the federal rule exempted the [wild cater] exploratory wells. The problem here is if we don’t fix the gap right now, the end result is, the vast majority of the early wells will be designated those specific types of wells and that creates a gap. So, if you are in favor of control of toxic air emissions then you need to vote for this amendment. If you think there are wells we ought to have that ought not have toxic air emissions standards and limitations then you’d vote against the amendment. There is nothing, obviously, if we pass this that prohibits or the changes any language that was already in the variance rule nor in the rules that everyone thought applied. So, if we have a gap, it’s our own fault. If we don’t need this, then it’s obviously amendable. There are certainly vehicles after discussion, like technical corrections if it’s unneeded. But, at least from a numbers perspective, it appears to make sure that we are not passing something that does not have full control.

For the toxic air emissions, we need to this. Otherwise just understand that we may be creating the 1st couple of wells or types of wells that are open, would be specifically examed and I don't think anyone of us want that. So there is no underhanded attempt to do anything or to create any obstacle, it is simply to prevent the venting of toxic air emission and make sure we have all of the wells. Whatever we are going to call them, covered. EMC and MEC, I think, tried to do that and hopefully they did but it seems pretty obvious there may be a gap and we need to close it and we ought to vote for this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hager please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Debate the amendment second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Guys you will see a lot of amendments today that attempt to set the rules for the MEC. I was in the impression that minority party wanted to slow this down not speak it up and establish the rules now. I was under the impression that we needed to let the experts handle this and not folks on this floor that are not experts in it. So we have rules that are being drafted today, tomorrow, for the next six months, next eight months that will come forward on this issue. I'll tell you let the folks that handle it, handle it and let's not do their job for them and not think we are the technical people this fora calls engineers ?? know that we don't know this stuff. Rick knows more than probably most of the debaters on this floor. Representative Caitlin. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So voters may be down again let the mining and energy commission do their job and let's not predispose what their outcome will be by looking at technical data and the technical applications in the next six months. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment. If not, the question before the house is the passage of the amendment sent forth by the representative Glazier for the house committee substitute, Senate bill 786. All in favor vote Aye. All oppose vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 46 having voted in the affirmative, 69 in the negative. The amendment fails. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke, Please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Send forward an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke moves amendment on the bill in page 80, line 47 by deleting the word “for” and substituting the following. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Member of the house, this is a very straight forward amendment. It just adds a fifth point to what is previously there in terms of things for the commission to take a look at. This simply says that workers are the first to encounter the chemicals in the fracking process. And it asks this that where they live, their residence is be at least five hundred feet from any fracking activity. It is straight forward, no tricks to it. It simply says, protect the workers by making sure how the housing is 500 feet from any activity. Urge the adoption of the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hager, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. To debate an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. This one, guys, it seems to be a little innocuous but please don't fall into that trap. What this does is it expands the footprint of which you have a drilling site. Sometimes great ?? drill site looks like. If you want a house, folks now this normally wouldn't happen but in this case it does, it would expand the site you’d have to have more setbacks, you'd have to have more trees cut, more dirt turned over and we get in some landowner issues and even potentially some issues of how much land can you use to frack on or excuse me to energy explore on. Old habits die hard don't you guess. So be careful on what you read on this, it seems innocuous but it isn't because it does expand the area which you need to do this energy exploration. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Floyd please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, on the last vote I think I voted No, I meant to vote it Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman wishes.

Be recorded as having voted aye. And to be clear, that is on the Glazier amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] [Representative Luebke, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would just like to disagree with Representative Hager in terms of whether there is anything tricky about this amendment. It may require as he indicated the cutdown of a few trees. Moving things back a little bit. But imagine yourself working this kind of job with the exposure to the chemicals that’s involved. All this says is that put it back 500 feet. Put their housing back at least 500 feet from the fracking activity. If it requires a few trees to be cut down, so be it. But imagine yourself one of those workers. And I truly ask you, put yourself in workers’ shoes, and support this amendment. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the amendment set forth by Representative Luebke to the House Committee Substitute of Senate Bill 786. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. (PAUSE) The court ??? machine recorded the vote. 46 having, 45 having voted affirmative, and 70 in the negative. The amendment fails. Representative. Hager is recognized as set forth the amendment. The gentleman will recite the amendment number. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One minute, Mr. Speaker, if that’s okay. Amendment AR1-132 version 3. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] V 4. Excuse me. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Amendment ARI-132, version 4. Representative Hager moves to amend the bill on page 9, lines 18 through 34, by rewriting the lines ??? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This was a recommendation from the governor’s staff to basically reconstitute the mining commission. Make the state geologists an ??? official, and give the governor additional appointment on that board. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The chair- ??? The gentleman moves adoption. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Floyd, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would like to ask Representative Hager if- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hager, please state, or does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just seeing this amendment for the first time, I see you have North Carolina State University. Is anything, since ANT is a technical university, that that university in some kind of way can be included in here? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you for that question. Now NC State has the mineral lab there, which is a geologist lab, and that’s where most of our research goes on. [SPEAKER CHANGES] But, follow up to speak. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think, as Representative Glazier mentioned, even at some kind of way a technical amendment, that we can consider that ANT State University, since it is a technical university, had some skill perhaps in this area. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m not sure what the question was, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is wondering whether or not any of the other university systems have the, not only the expertise, but the resources necessary to fulfill this role. I think that that’s the proper way to frame it, is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Floyd? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that clarification. This is a historical point that’s always been there because of the particular expertise we’ve got. Representative Floyd, if you will get with me and show me, we can, we’ll talk about this. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the amendment set forth by Representative Hager for the House Committee Substitute of Senate Bill 786. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. (PAUSE) The ??? machine recorded the vote. 112 having been in the affirmative, 2 in the negative. The amendment passes. Representative Hager is recognized as sent forth an amendment. The gentleman will recite the amendment number. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You’re keeping me on my toes. Amendment ARI-155 version 2. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Amendment ARI-155, parens, v.2 represent-

Speaker moves to amend the bill on page 10, lines 36 and 37, by inserting between those lines... [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate this amendment [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. These are basically technical corrections recommended from the Mine and Energy Commission. You can go through them but basically just changes commission should have authority to develop rules addressing requirements for application. Number two is under the penalties for unlawful disclosure it adds "knowingly" and "willingly", and then on the third change it adds the fact that the $1500 will be for additional wells drilled on the same pad, and I urge the adoption. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] See if Representative Hager would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hager, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, thank you Representative. Just a quick question since these are coming pretty fast. Is there any known opposition to any of the amendments by any group? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do not know of any, Representative. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If not, the question before the House is the passage of the amendment set forth by Representative Hager to the House Committee substitute of Senate Bill 786. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 114 have voted in the affirmative, one in the negative. The amendment passes. Representative Hager is recognized to stand before the amendment. The clerk will read [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is amendment ARI-142, version 1, Representative Hager moves to amend the bill on page 3 lines 19 through 23 by rewriting the lines to read "The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment." [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. This amendment comes to us by way of the ?? folks. They want to add ?? Control Commission to that line we have listed on the amendment. I urge the adoption. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If not, the question before the House is the passage of the amendment set forth by Representative Hager to the House Committee substitute of Senate Bill 786. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. All members wishing to record, please do so at this time. Representative Wadell. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 115 have voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. The amendment passes. Representative Harrison is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Harrison moves to amend the bill on page 18 line 51, through page 19 line 4 by rewriting those lines to read... [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker and thank you for accommodating my late catch. Members of the House, this amendment does two things. As I acknowledged yesterday, it's a good thing that the bill affirmatively disapproves of any disposal of waste water injecting into our groundwater, but it still allows for the possibility of storage in open waste pits and also into our surface water - discharging into our surface water. So this amendment does two things: it prohibits the disposal of treated waste into our surface waters, and also bans the waste pits. With regard to the latter, our experience with the coal ash ponds and their toxic soup should have taught us a lesson that we probably don't want to have this toxic collection of fracking fluids that contaminates and possibly contains radiation. In other states that have had this open pit experience there have been dead animals and illnesses associated with the open waste pits that's associated with fracking. Our wastewater treatment plants as I understand it are not equipped to handle the contaminants and toxins that come from fracking wastewater. And I appreciate Representative Hager's comment about the disclosure of the chemicals, Halliburton or other of these fracking industries might be disclosing voluntarily, there is no requirement that they do. So we don't know what these chemicals are in this fracking fluid that the wastewater treatment plants are supposed to be cleaning before they discharge that into our surface waters. I also would like to respond to Representative Hager's comment about the fact that we ought to let the MEC do this: I think the MEC...

educated on this particular issue, and if this body feels that it's important that we not allow waste water to be kept in open waste pits, then we ought to make that policy directive to the EMC and just decide here as a chamber that we don't think that's going to be a good practice. There are public health consequences associated with this highly contaminated water, so I urge your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To briefly debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman's recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. In conferring with the bill's sponsors, it appears that this amendment would have the effect of undermining the rules provisions of the bill, and would significantly undercut the bill, so [SPEAKER CHANGES] If I could be recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman's recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Move this amendment ??? on the table, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The motion having been made by Representative Moore, duly seconded by Representative Burr. Question before the House is the motion to lay upon the table the amendment set forth by Representative Harrison to the House of ??? Substitute of Senate bill 786. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The court clerk will record the vote. PAUSE [SPEAKER CHANGES] The court ??? machine recorded the vote. 61 having voted in the affirmative, 54 in the negative, the motion passes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative. Fisher's recognized setting forth an amendment. The court clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Fisher moves to amend the bill on page 18, line 47, by deleting the word "for" and substituting the following. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, this amendment seeks to give the House members, the people who were elected here, the responsibility for really recognizing what is being used in the fracking process. And one of the things that we are concerned about are prohibited substances. Things that may prove to be radioactive. Things like asbestos. Materials that are used to increase the viscosity of the pumping process for this fracking process. So really all this amendment seeks to do is to be clear about the materials that should not be allowed in this process, or to at least account for those materials that will be used by the companies who are engaged in fracking in North Caroline. One of the interesting things to note about some of the brands of drilling muds that are used in this process, one who's brand name is Flurisol and then another one called Visbestos. Those are two materials that are frequently used that are really, that have the potential for harming not only the people who are working in the process, but then has the potential for harming their families. Some oilfield workers, for example, in the Pennsylvania mining were heard to have said that they remember using a flaky white additive that came in 50 pound bags, and they mixed this asbestos into the drilling mud without any breathing or safety equipment. And they then in turn could also expose their spouses, their children, their families, to the same material. And I guess what I'm saying to the body is that we, as elected representatives, ought to take responsibility for protecting our citizens from things that we know already to be harmful. Things like radiation. Things like asbestos. And so I really urge your support of this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hager, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman's recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is another one of those issues, if you look at number one on the prohibited substance activities, MEC ??? already has this list. They are already working on it and has a draft rule already. Number 2 is clearly an issue that DHHS already has rules and regulations again. Yet we see this body trying to do things that the experts need to be doing. DHHS

Experts in radioactive issues and waste issues. MEC has experts and the issues of drilling mud and those things. So, unless we as a body want to continue do these technical things, I think we let the folks who know how to do it, do it. The HHS ?? and the mining and energy commission. So, I urge to vote No on this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment. If not, the question before the house is the passage of the amendment sent forth by the representative Fischer for the house committee substitute of Senate bill 786. All in favor vote, Aye. All oppose, vote No. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine to record the vote. 43 having voted in affirmative, 66 in the negative. The amendment fails. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jordan, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jordan moves to amend the bill on page 2, line 19 through page 3, line 41 by deleting those lines. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Similar to the concerns that Representative Carney had about the administrative procedure act. I had a number of those concerns yesterday as well and prepare this amendment to remove those changes but after looking further into this issue in great detail, I am satisfied that we are not trying to fast-track, we are trying to prevent flip dragging which could come up next year in the session. Based on when these rules come out and at this point I would like to withdraw this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The amendment is hereby withdrawn. Representative Martin, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative G Martin moves to amend the bill on page 13, lines 31 and 32 by rewriting those lines to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. Members, this is one of those amendment when you look at the text. It’s not really apparent what it deals with. So, I’ll tell you upfront, this deals with the issue which is called forced pooling. And to explain to you briefly what that is, when you go into frack, you establish what are called drilling units. That's a collection of property which I'd gonna feed in essentially to a well to drill. We've got a North Carolina law of provision that deals with this and let me read to you what it's says. When two or more separately owned tracks of land are embraced within an established drilling unit. The owners, they may agree ?? to integrate the interest and develop their lands as a drilling unit. Sounds good so far. Landowners break out on a shared verse of Kum ba yah, but that law continues where however such owners have not agreed to integrate their interest. The commission shall for the ?? of waste or to avoid drilling of unnecessary wells require such owners to do so and to develop their land as a drilling unit. That's what force pooling is, ladies and gentlemen. Now most States actually do have some provision for forced pooling but it is something that is absolutely not necessary to engage in fracking. So even if you are a fracking supporter, North Carolina can move ahead with fracking even if we don't have forced pooling. In fact, in Pennsylvania and West Virginia believe that they don't have force pooling for fracking. Now some folks will say when we do our rules or if we were to even do something crazy like put it in the statute, that you can set a half threshold, say 90%. Owners of 90% of the land have to agree before you can actually force the owners that remaining 10% into a force pool. That sounds like it's almost fair, unless you’re one of the 10% that's gonna have the government tell you that you’ve gotta engage in this. But when you apply that 90% threshold say, I actually owned to a map on the ground in place like Lee County. You find that it's possible that up to 55% of land owners there may actually be forced into a drilling unit and I would like to think that's not a result that anyone of us would like to see in North Carolina. So in the end this amendment here is not whether you support or oppose fracking. I think I’ve made my opposition to it clear. This amendment though is about whether or not you think the government should be able to come in and force North Carolina land owners into a forced pool and participate in fracking. I’d urge you to support this amendment.

Representative Hager please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Speaker. To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Guys, Representative Martin was exactly right. This does remove the law on the books from the 1940s of compulsory pooling. That may sound all great but I’m going to tell you the end with that is a due process in how you ??? in that 1940s law. That 1940s law is decent but it will be changed greatly and that is going to be the basis of which we work. There’s a due process in there, there’s a way to go about how you do it, and it’s an insurance policy. Many of you and I have talked about this. When this law was built, energy exploration, horizontal drilling, those things weren’t thought of, it didn’t come until about 1947, 1949 in Texas. Two and a half million wells across the world have been done this way and what this does is this assures that if you’re in that area and when they frack, they basically break the rock and the gas comes out, that you’re assured that you’ll get paid for the gas if you’re the mineral rights owner which most folks who are surface rights owners are mineral rights owners. So again and DENR has said ‘listen we need to study this’. You look at the end of the bill, there’s a study for forced pooling in determining what we want to do with the law we have now, how do we want to modify it, what do we want to do with it. All this amendment does is reset DENR on those issues so that we have to start over. We have to say okay we don’t have anything to build from, we don’t have anything to look at, we don’t have any history here. So because of that this would greatly set back, the bill we’re talking about today, has got a study involved in it. DENR’s ahead of it, they’re looking at it right now and we’re looking at what’s happening in other states so I would urge you to vote no on this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Jackson please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, every session that I have been here we always hear an imminent domain bill and it’s in a response to a decision in the United State Supreme Court called KILO. This bill forced pooling does exactly what most of you sign up every year and say you’re against. We are allowing a private owner of a drilling company to come in and forcibly take someone else’s property. That’s what forced pooling is. If there’s someone who has property and they think gas is too cheap now, it’s $2 per cubic foot or whatever, in ten years from now it might be $20 per cubit foot and they want to hold out and wait. This bill says no, we’re going to let that gas company as long as 90% of your neighbors, or whatever percentage we decide, around you. We’re going to let them take your private property rights. That’s what would be allowed to do under forced pooling. To me it’s just imminent domain, it’s just another type of condemnation except this isn’t even for the public use, this is for a private company. I’d ask you to support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Stam please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] I would refute the argument that this is akin to what Representative Jackson said. Think of this as a river. We had the same discussion three years ago if you’ll recall. You may own the river but if that water goes off your land, you don’t own the water that went off your land. What forced pooling does is allows because of the pressure from the extraction of gas on person A’s property, the gas moves to person A’s property from person B. That is no longer the property of the owner of B because it’s not under the land anymore, but what forced pooling does is to give B some of the money from it so it’s an advantage to the person who is force pooled. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Torbett please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Speaker. For an inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Would it be an appropriate time to record a vote at this time? [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman will be recognized for that purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] With full respect to Representative Fisher, my thumb hit green when my mind was looking for red. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman will be recorded as having voted no on the Fisher amendment. Representative Brandon please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To change my vote on the Harrison amendment where I voted, whatever I voted I needed to vote differently. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman I believe was recorded as having voted aye..

Representative Floyd, the chair understand that you had voted aye on the prior bills and now you've been recorded as voting, aye, aye. Representative Grier Martin, please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] Mr. Speaker. [Speaker Change] Yes, sir. [Speaker Change] To change my vote, I mean, to speak a second time on it. [Speaker Change] Did you also mean to debate the second time. [Speaker Change] Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman from Rutherford talked about the due process thats built into the process to force people into pools. Ladies and gentlemen what sort of process would be acceptable to you, to have an out of state corporation come in and ask the North Carolina state government to force you to participate in that. I can't think of anything that would be appropriate, that I would feel like I had gotten due process and had been treated fairly by the government and by the corporation. So, if that offends you like it does me, I hope you will in fact support this amendment. The gentlemen from State Representative Stan, talked about how this is necessary, because of the nature of fracking. Of course when I asked him how he did fracking back in the time of the Norman invasion and the Magna Carta, a few centuries later. But, again let me point out that whether you think what's going on in Pennsylvania is an absolute disaster or you think its been an economic boom, the point is those states are doing it without forced pulling. If you want to move forward with fracking I think North Carolina can move forward without doing forced pulling also, just like Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Indiana, what it boils down to is if you don't want out of state corporations to be able to come in and get the North Carolina government to force you to participate in this, you'll vote for this amendment. [Speaker Change] Senator Stone state your purpose. [Speaker Change] Speak on the amendment. [Speaker Change] The gentlemen is recognized to speak on the amendment. [Speaker Change] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, we realize how controversial this issue really is. If you look back at what happened with the mining distribution in [inaudible], they've came forward with several recommendations. At one time they were looking at 95% participation, or 90% participation and that was only 50% of the land owners. Look at what happened in Pennsylvania, which you spoke of where there's no forced pulling, but if you look at other states where they do a grid system. So, it is not one size fits all. Over the last three years, we looked at it and tried to come up with something where we could get everyone to the table to agree on. What we did agree with is that it needs to be studied more, it needs to come back with a recommendation that one size will work and that we can do drilling in a safe way. So, I would recommend that we do support this amendment and move forward. Thank you. [Speaker Change] Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] To debate the amendment, please. [Speaker Change] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [Speaker Change] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The definition has been said, but I think a good definition of compulsory pooling is that it simply allows a company once it is signed a number of landowners to leases, to force neighboring landowners against their wishes to be on board as well. As good a definition as I have seen. Although we have heard on the floor that we are going to study this, we all know it is impossible for both the company and for the landowners to set appropriate values on any leases if we don't know what the rules about forced pulling are. So, to say that we're creating a study on this issue, multiple years into this I think is unfair. No one should leave this floor without a doubt that as a result of a failure of this amendment that there will be forced pulling in the state, property rights will have changed, and in fact we will end up with landowners being forced, to give away, effectively their right to control their property, as they have historically had in this state since its conception, as a result of this. We so only, as a result of the greed of a few companies in this regard, and that is the end of it. If it were not true, the one possible good thing out of the Pennsylvania experience is that we don't have to have forced pulling. But, we have clearly by the temporary rule that we have we have clearly decided that we are not going that way. So, no one should leave here without a shadow of a doubt that we are transferring and changing the property rights of the citizens of this state that we are adopting forced pulling and that will henceforth be the law of the land. Thank you. [Speaker Change] Representative Blust, please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] To see if Representative Glazier will yield to a question. [Speaker Change] Representative Glazier, does the gentleman yield? [Speaker Change] I do. [Speaker Change] The gentleman yields. [Speaker Change] Representative Glazier, I'm trying to understand this myself, I don't think I fully do, because like most people I think, in terms of the surface and what we've got here is gas deep, deep below the surface. My question is how, if you've got.

Say a neighborhood with several locks and there's gas deep enough beneath the surface. How do you tell who specific piece of property that gas came from once its piped up thousands of feet to the surface. How can you even determine that. [Speaker Changes] Thank you Representative [Bless] for the question. It's a matter of all you go home, you turn on your hose. Hose pipe as we like to call it and it flows from where your pressure is to where the pressures not. Right, you got waterfowl. That's the same as natural gas will do. It'll flow to where you have the lowest pressure. What we can determine is by the geology and Doctor Warren can espouse for days on this. If you know the Geology you can tell within a certain area of where you think the gas you think will flow from. You're pretty careful with that. And what we want to do by studying this force pulling is determining what that geology looks like. How far do we think it will go, we may not need it in North Carolina but we may need it. It all depends on what the geology tells us, what the pressures look like, how much flow you can get from [??] this floor that says you know what, I would love to see the data. So I think that's why the study is needed. That's why we need to leave things as they are. Let the study become effective. [Speaker Changes] Follow up Mr. Speaker [Speaker Changes] The gentlemen [??] [Speaker Changes] Representative Hager, are there states that do have fracking that do have the force pulling. [Speaker Changes] There's thirty eight states that do have compulsory unionization as it's called. Thirty eight states other than us. We make. [Speaker Changes] One final question Mr. Speaker [Speaker Changes] The gentlemen yields. [Speaker Changes] Where there's been force pulling and you had an owner of surface that did not participate but was forced to by force pulling. Has there ever been such an owner that turned down a check for the gas that came, that was determined to have come from his property. [Speaker Changes] Representative [Bless] in the times and places we have talked to and I've been to Pennsylvania. Representative Stone has been to Arkansas. Some other folks have been to Texas, I'm not sure where all they've been. There we have not talked to any, the problems that we have seen are the ones that didn't, did not get involved, didn't get a check. That's been the biggest issue we've seen so far. And all that data we need to take in. I mean all that data we need to absorb with the Geology to determine what is the right answer for this. So thank you for your questions. [Speaker Changes] Representative Stam, please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] To speak on the amendment [Speaker Changes] The gentlemen has recognized to debate the amendment a second time, [Speaker Changes] A second time and I encourage you to vote no on the amendment. Representative Greer Martin inspired me to Google things there and actually Representative Martin there is a president a couple hundred of years after the Norman conquest and I'm ganna make this about a two minute expiation but you inspire me to much it might be the full fifteen minutes. So don't inspire me. Okay we've always had joint ownership of property. And in merry old England if the daddy died it all went to his oldest son. You all know about that right. Primogeniture. But if all he had was daughters then they took equally. They were called co-parseners. Co-parseners, and they could have a division of the land and that's in our statutes today. Chapter forty one, but then there's a problem. What if you divide the property but by dividing it you make it less valuable and so we have partion by sale. It if can be shown for example a dwelling house is owned by a family. Obviously you can't assign one bedroom to one daughter and the son gets another bedroom so there's a petition for partition by sale. And we actually had five years ago, an effort in this house that failed thank goodness to make that almost impossible to do. There was currently a states Senator who was really pushing this that you should never be allowed to sell joint property because someone has more emotional ties to it than somebody else does but our law has been for hundreds of years that to prevent loss to everybody, there is a procedure for a force sale even if there is co-ownership of property, Even if it's private property, Chapter forty one. And that's the situation here, you have individual lots perhaps from the surface but down deep below the all gas is mixed up and nobody knows where that molecule of gas comes from so as long as you're not.

Touching the individual owner’s property from the surface of the earth to the center of the earth to the heavens. As long as you’re not touching that property but you’re just sucking it out by differential pressure, same as water, it’s not their property, but to be fair to them we’re going to pay them for it anyway whether they like it or not. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Stone please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Speaker, to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen I want to try and make this a little bit simpler for you so we can really bring it down to what I experienced when I traveled. The reason the forced pooling is so important because what we realized was they could actually drill around your property and never drill under your property and sometimes they could get the seepage of the gas. So why is that important? Because the wealthy people always had the means to get the help they need. It was the poor people that was taken advantage of in some form or fashion even though the law was never broken. So if we care about the people in the state of North Carolina we will make sure we do extensive studies to make sure we take care of the ones that don’t understand the law, that don’t understand how this is going to impact them. This stands up because we don’t want anyone on our land or under our land. It has far reaching effects, farther than we can realize, after we traveled to many states we have seen that did it and you know that there are many different ways to do it in every state so I would suggest that we vote against this amendment and let’s make sure that whatever we come back with with the study protects the people then they make a rational decision that will affect them the rest of their life. I can tell you when I was in Pennsylvania, there was a gentleman that said “you’re not drilling on my land”, they drilled all the way around his land, they got the gas, all his neighbors got rich, he got nothing. He came back years later and wanted them to go drill under his land and guess what? They didn’t. He was left with nothing because he didn’t understand what he was about to do and we have a lot of people in rural sections of Lee County and the state of North Carolina that we need to make sure that we fully understand what we’re about to put forward. So there again please let this be studied, come back with a recommendation so we can protect the weakest ones in our community to make sure that they make a good decision and I ask you not to support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Jackson please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Speak on the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Speaker. With all due respect to my colleague Representative Stam I really don’t see the difference. In KILO we were talking about redevelopment, I don’t know whether it was on the waterfront or just a particular part of town. One lady didn’t want to sell her property and the government came in and said ‘well all your other neighbors they want to sell their property to build this fancy new development and you’re holding this up so we’re going to take your property, for the good of all your neighbors and the good of our community and so we can get a larger tax base.’ That’s what KILO is all about, that’s what all you have signed onto and said you’re against and then you’re doing the exact same thing to these people in Lee County who all their neighbors around them might want it but they don’t want to sell, for whatever reason. I believe in them, I believe that they will consider that and consider the amount of money they’d get and make that decision. I don’t think the government should force them to sell if they’re unwilling to sell. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative McGrady please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I’m pretty well recognized as not supporting this bill but I join with those that oppose this amendment. I note that I am the primary sponsor of the eminent domain bill and I do not see this as a question of eminent domain. It’s really as Representative Stam and Representative Stone have pointed out, you’re talking about water or you’re talking about gas, you’re not talking about property in the same sense here. Forced pooling is intended to protect a person who has a lot of drilling done around them. The gas being taken moving to that point, and them suddenly not getting anything, it’s an equity matter and I think the way the bill has handled this in terms of studying is the appropriate way to handle it and therefore I urge that we do not accept this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Insko please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To ask the bill sponsor a question, the amendment sponsor. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Grier Martin. Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Martin I..

Distant information from people. I don't know. I keep hearing about forced pooling and I'm under the impression that what it means is I own the property, I want fracking done on my property, I drill straight down and because I drill and suck up the gas so much that it just pulls from everybody elses properties. Is that the case? Or, can somebody come and drill on my property and then turn horizontally and drill on the property next door to me, or even more doors down? [Speaker Change] Senator ??, I'll refers to experts who know more about it. I don't see anything that would prohibit that form this also. But, in the end it's irrelevant whether we're talking about real property, land, or personal property as Representative McGrady was talking about, whether there's gas that flows from here to here or the land stays. While the law treats those differently in many respects, in the end what this boils down to is that it is the government coming in and taking your property from you. Whether its real or personal. [Speaker Change] Representative Floyd, please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Inquiry to Chair. [Speaker Change] Okay. Gentleman, may state his inquiry. [Speaker Change] Mr. Speaker, we started off, I think you indicated we had 16 amendments? [Speaker Change] Yes, sir. [Speaker Change] How far down to this, Mr. Speaker? [Speaker Change] We have, the Chair believes, four left. [Speaker Change] We have four left? [Speaker Change] Yes, sir. We've had a couple withdrawn. [Speaker Change] Thank you, 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 Grier Martin to the House Committee Substitute, it's Center Bill 786. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will go out and she will record the vote, 44 having voted affirmatives, 70 in the negative. The amendment fails. Pages, if we could please have you come forward to the front of the chamber. Pages I'd like to thank you for your service to the legislature this week, on behalf of all the members I hope that you had the opportunity to get to know each other a little bit better and also have a better understanding of the legislative process. I hope you'll carry these stories back to your families and friends and encourage them to come and serve with us, as well. Members, please show our gratitude for their services. Thank you. [Applause] As this is Thursday, you're also off work. Have a great summer. Thank you. You're dismissed. Representative Queen will send forth an amendment, the clerk will read. [Speaker Change] Representative Queen and most amend the bill on page 11, line 4 through 12, by rewriting those lines to read: The gentleman's recognized to abate the amendment. [Speaker Change] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment does essentially two things. It makes the information on the chemicals that will be pumped into the groundwater of this state public information. We've heard from Representative Hager that this is already been taken care of. That the MSDS stuff will take care of it. That companies do this all the time. They do not have to by the way this bill, 786 is currently laid out. It should be the publics right to know should take precedence over corporate secrets and assigning criminal liability as part of the effort.

To keep the public in the dark about what chemicals are being pumped into the groundwater that they and their children, and their families, and their future are expected to use in North Carolina should be known. People have a right to know. It's a known fact that this bill is going to pass. The Governor and this general assembly support of it is evident, what's not known is will this be a bill that protects the future of North Carolina, our water, our citizens interest? So, with this bill . . . [Speaker Change] Mr. Speaker? [Speaker Change] Known. [Speaker Change] Representative Stone, please state your interest. [Speaker Change] If this gentleman would yield for a question. [Speaker Change] Representative Queen, does the gentleman yield? [Speaker Change] I do, Representative Stone. [Speaker Change] The gentleman yields. [Speaker Change] Thank you, Representative Queen. Do you know if the MSDS is a requirement of the state or federal government? [Speaker Change] Federal, I think. Is that right? [Speaker Change] That's correct. [Speaker Change] Approximately, I believe, just about half of the chemicals are even required to be published, so it's by no means a complete list. But, the public, in my opinion have a right to know what's being pumped into their groundwater. Local government should know what's being pumped into their groundwater. If we have a spill from one of these fracking operations, of these fluids, the clean up should be known. We should be prepared in advance, because we will have them, over time. So, the publics right to know is essential, and then going along with that the bill also decriminalizes the releasing of any of these chemicals. It does try to protect the trade secrets, but it does give the public the proper information. I think this is a good bill to help North Carolina get closer to doing fracking right and I ask for your support. [Speaker Change] Representative Hager, please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] Debate the amendment, Mr. Speaker. [Speaker Change] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [Speaker Change] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill, just to kind of clarify a few things that I'm not sure folks may know. In the initial outlay of trade secrets emergency management in those areas will know what they have on sight. So, they will know how to do their planning. If an emergency happens, the local first responders will have the data, as an emergency is needed to do that. The other thing though, the thing that's most grievous about this amendment is the last line on the first page. If you read it, penalties for unlawful disclosure of confidential information established by this subsection shall not apply, going onto the next page, disclosure of confidential information that concerns chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing processes. Again, this is an issue that applies for trade secrets everywhere else. We have rules and penalties for trade secrets in North Carolina, but now you want to exempt this industry because they don't like this industry. This is actually being worked on. I'm trying to find my set of rules I was just given. This is in the Mind Energy Commission's rules right now. These things are in there, its in our bill on who gets to trade secrets, who doesn't get to trade secrets, how will first responders know, the MSDS is, as Representative Stone says, out on site. We've talked about that several times, but this amendment wants to say, no we don't want to do that, we just need to give them to everybody. That really is a bill killer for us, if you have a software company, if you have another company that you want to trade secrets, you don't come to North Carolina and say, you come locate in North Carolina, you create jobs, you spend some money, it doesn't matter we're going to let your competition know what you're doing. It doesn't make sense to me, guys and there's no penalty for it so, I urge you to vote no on the amendment. [Speaker Change] Representative Grier Martin, please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] To debate the amendment. [Speaker Change] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [Speaker Change] Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Members this is an excellent amendment. The gentleman from Rutherford, I agree with a bunch of what he said on trade secrets. I think the essential function of government is to protect businesses and protect their trade secrets. Without a doubt, it is fundamental to ensuring that we are a friendly place to do business. When your trade secret enters my daughters drinking water, it becomes my right to know. Support this amendment. [Speaker Change] Representative Queen, please state your purpose.

To speak a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Again, this is the people’s right to know and I will ask my fellow members to not abdicate their constitutional responsibility so I am going to quote two sections of the North Carolina constitution. The first one is article 1, section 2: “All political power is invested in and derives from the people. All government of right originates from the people. It’s founded upon their will only and is instituted solely for the good of the whole. The people have a right to know.” The second section, from article 14 section 5, conservation of natural resources: “It shall be the policy of this state to conserve and protect its lands and waters for the benefit of all its citizens and to this end it shall be a proper function of the state of North Carolina and its political subdivisions to require and preserve parks, recreation, and scenic areas and to control and limit pollution of our air and water.” This is our constitutional obligation. We do not need to abdicate it, to any process that’s speeding this along. We do not need to short change our local government in their constitutional obligations as set forth here in this article. I urge you to support the amendment and respect the people’s right to know. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Stone please state your purpose [SPEAKER CHANGE] Debate the amendment one more time. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen this is exactly what we have dealt with over the past several years of trying to come up with good rules and regulations for the state of North Carolina. We went through debate after debate of many times someone coming to my door only to bring us in a new opportunity to shut down the process. You look at last year’s chemical disclosure and I’ll challenge anyone in this room to tell me this chemical disclosure is not a hundred times or better. This is complete disclosure to our state emergency personnel, our local emergency personnel, our hospital doctors. It gives detailed information on the material data safety at every drilling pad of what’s in there. We also have frack focus you can go to and look and see what the chemicals are used in any well in the United States. So there’s been a lot of work done, but for some of us there will never be an end until we find a way to shut it down. We all understand how important sensitive information is and we’re not trying to deny it, we’re just trying to allow the operation to move forward so we can do it in the safest manner possible protecting the people in the state of North Carolina and I think this amendment hurts this process sand I think what we have in the bill is a great way to go so I would ask you to vote against this amendment and let’s move forward with drilling in North Carolina [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Harrison please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To briefly debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I think this is a really important amendment. These fracking chemicals are making people sick all over the country and to send a doctor to jail because he tells his patient this is why his patient’s sick is unconscionable. These chemicals are not publically disclosed. The trade secret language is written in such a way that it can make a single constituent chemical a trade secret so I urge you to support this amendment. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Millis please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Ladies and gentlemen, there’s been a lot of rhetoric that’s gone back and forth about this but a wise man once said that rhetoric is no substitute for reality. The reality is and the rules that I hand to you right now is that the public does have the right to know and they actually know what the ingredients are from all aspects. Representative Stone actually spoke about that they would actually know the ingredients by way of frack focus. These rules are actually in multiple..

places where the pulpit will know. It's just that the trade secret will not be known until the other aspects, the deeper aspects of the rules, they actually protect the industry. So again what is the rhetoric that has been actually shown you here today actually is in line with what the rules are. So again I hope that we all have a little bit of aspects for the reality of the rules that are truly protecting the health of our citizens, the water of this state and I urge you to vote against this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of the amendment sent forth by Representative Queen to the House committee substitute of Senate Bill 786. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 46 having voted in the affirmative. 68 in the negative. The amendment fails. Representative Jackson is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jackson moves to end the bill on page 14 lines 37 and 38 by inserting between those lines. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and Gentlemen, this amendment I thought was very important to go after Representative Martin's amendment that he offered and I think you heard in that debate where people said well we weren't going to, these people who were being forced into it, that we're not going to be bothering their property on the surface. We're just going to be going to get the gas underneath and making sure they see some of that benefit. What my amendment does, deals with what is called a split estate. Approximately, 9,073 acres in Lee county alone, the mineral rights have been severed from the property owners, surface rights, and so what my amendment would say was that if you're going to get that gas before you disturb the owner's property, the surface owner's property, you have to get their written permission. That's what it says. If you're going to come, bury a line in their yard, put a well, do anything, run through their driveway, whatever you're going to do that's going to disturb the surface area, which is what we just talked about earlier, said we weren't going to disturb. My amendment just clearly says, any disturbance to the surface area, you have to get the owner's prior written consent and I ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Briefly debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you. Members, Mr. Speaker, this amendment appears really has some constitutional problems based on conferring with staff and with the bill sponsors. It would actually change and abdicate many, many years of common law with respect to property ownership and really goes beyond the scope of this bill. So if I may be recognized for a motion? [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman is recognized to state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. Speaker, I move that the amendment do lie upon the table. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The motion having been made by Representative Moore and duly seconded by Representative Burr, the motion is not debatable. Question before the House, is the motion to lie upon the table the amendment sent forth by Representative Jackson to the House committee substitute for Senate Bill 786. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 58 having voted in the affirmative. 53 in the negative. The motion passes. Representative Cunningham is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Cunningham moves to end the bill on page 16, line 30 and 31 by inserting the following between those lines. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment simply allows the citizens of North Carolina, that live within a perimeter of 1000 feet of a well head site to have pre-environmental health risk assessments performed at no cost to them, but to the company. And the reason I'm putting forth the amendment is because there's no studies out there where pre-assessment for health conditions that are caused by well leaks. There are a couple of chemicals such as, benzine and methane, and we know that benzine is linked to lymphatic cancer, leukemia, and multiple

That’s evident so if we would ??? I’m not saying we’re not going to frack because I know there’s enough numbers in here to pass this bill, but we can get it right for the communities that it’s going to impact. We can get it right by putting in some health assessments prior to the companies coming in. That way we will have a baseline to look at if water contamination occurs, if air pollution occurs after the fracking, and after the companies leave the site. I ask for your support on the amendment for the people of the state of North Carolina in these communities because there are already several water leaks in water wells that people are drinking water from in at least five other states where fracking has taken place and these people have huge, huge health risks that go along with being within that thousand feet. Water contamination has been found within less than six hundred feet. I put in the amendment the thousand feet. Please consider the amendment, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Hager please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Representative Cunningham I appreciate the amendment sent forward and I would love to work with you on that. The department of public health is working on this also and I’d love to include some of your issues into this. This goes far beyond some of the things we see or potentials we see on the energy exploration issue. Right now within the bill we’ve got presumptive liability for well testing before they drill then six months, twelve months, eighteen months, twenty-four months we built within the bill so this does, the bill you have in front of you, does deal with water issues. What I’d like to propose, I’d like to vote this bill down but work with Representative Cunningham and get her involved in MEC and the division of public health and see if we can include some of these issues that she has within our MEC rules. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Chair believes the gentleman meant to say to vote the amendment down, not the bill [SPEAKER CHANGE] I did sir, and I think I said energy exploration. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Cunningham please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To speak a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The lady is recognized to debate the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGE] First of all I want to thank Representative Hager for those comments, they were very kind, and I would love to work with you on that because I know that after they come in and drill or whatever they do to the land, even if they leave after the gas is all gone in fifty to a hundred years there’s going to be an impact on that water, on that environment, and if we don’t have something in place for the next generation we don’t know what their capabilities of living a very quality life in those environments. So I appreciate that but I still ask for support on the amendment. Thank you. [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 Cunningham for the House Committee Substitute of Senate Bill 786. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. Forty-five having voted in the affirmative, sixty-nine in the negative. The amendment fails. Representative Reives is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Rieves moves to mend the bill on page 16, line 31 through page 18, line 45. As amended by amendment number one by re-writing those lines including amendment number one to read. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Speaker and ladies of gentlemen of the house I’m asking that you support this amendment. The amendment basically is following the mining and energy commission in last year’s set up a local government regulation study group that group came back with recommendations in October 2013. What I’ve done is, what I hope is just streamline section 14 which will streamline it to the point where it allows local ordinances to still be written and still be produced in their normal course of business and it just allows them that opportunity. At this point in time with the way I read section 14..

. . . read I think. It takes a lot of that authority from them. As you'll note from my amendment that it still keeps the important, main purpose of Section 14. The main purpose of Section 14 is so that no local authorities will then attempt to present any ordinances that would directly stop fracking or anything of that sort. So, we're just asking to streamline that process, to look at it. This is something that is supported by the League of Municipalities; this is also something that I've got, at least from my home counties, bipartisan support on. I'm hoping you'll consider supporting this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: To briefly debate the Amendment, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: The gentleman is recognized to debate the Amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Mr. Speaker, members. Conferred with the Bill's sponsors on this particular amendment, and this amendment would have the effect of undermining the rule making process that's set forth, and really would go beyond the scope of the intentions of the bill. So if I might be recognized for a motion, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: The Gentleman may state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: I move the Gentleman's Amendment do lie upon the table. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Representative Moore having made the motion, duly seconded by Representative Burr, the motion is not debatable. The question before the House is the motion to lie upon the table the Amendment sent forth by Representative Reives for the House Committee Substitute of Senate Bill 786. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. Sixty having vote in the affirmative and fifty-three in the negative, the motion passes. Ladies and gentleman, I have been advised that an amendment that was sent forth by Representative Hager earlier had a technical error in it that the staff has identified. Therefore, I am going to allow what is effectively a perfecting amendment. Representative Hager is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Representative Hager moves to amend the Bill on page nine, line seventeen by deleting the term “seven”, and substituting the term “eight”. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you Mr. Speaker. As we added the second appointment for the Governor it went to eight members on the board, not seven. We just need to correct that. Please vote green. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Further discussion, further debate on the Amendment? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the Amendment sent forth by Representative Hager for the House Committee Substitute of Senate Bill 786. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. All members wishing to record, please do so at this time. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. One hundred and nine having voted in the affirmative, three in the negative, the Amendment passes. Ladies and Gentleman, that is all of the amendments; we are now on the Bill. Further discussion, further debate? Representative Larry Hall, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you Mr. Speaker, and appreciate the indulgence of all the members to listen to what amendments we were able to discuss. One thing that is absolutely clear is that for some reason, in this Bill we're afraid of the public having the right to know. And unfortunately, I spoke yesterday about the fact that we didn't effectively deal with the waste from power manufacturing and utilities here in North Carolina, and of course our communities and citizens are paying the price. |And now in this Bill, we're doing something that was already done. You know the federal government made a specific determination at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina that they would not disclose, and let the public know, what was is the water. And for forty years, the darkest chapter in the history of the Marine Corps happened as we continue to promote cancer and cancerous deaths among marines and their families because we did not disclose. And yes, there were regulations there; but they did not disclose to the public. Yes, some people were well-meaning; but they did not disclose to the public. Yes, some of the officials looked the other way; but we did not have that ultimate safeguard of public review. And so, we've already tried

at this federal level and North Carolinians have already paid the price for failure to disclose. So I would hope that you would vote against this bill and let's have full disclosure. Let's go back and fix these items, some of which we didn't get a chance to discuss today, but let's don't repeat the mistakes of Lejeune, let's don't repeat the mistakes of coal ash bonds, let's not do it. We know better now. We should do better. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Davis, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On the perfecting amendment I accidentally hit red rather than green. If I could please be recorded- [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may record his voting now on the last Hager amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hamilton, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To ask a question of the bill sponsor and to speak on the bill [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hager, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Hager. Just a quick question, does anything in this bill provide for the possibility of fracking offshore? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No ma'am, that is in federal lands and we have to have federal acceptance to do that. As far as I know. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much. If I may I would like to speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Yesterday you were quick to mention the jobs that the fracking industry would bring to our state, in the amount, I think, of about 389 jobs. But so far this body has refused to consider the impact of the 4,000 clean jobs are brought to North Carolina and are already here in North Carolina that have a positive impact on the state and local economies. Those jobs are associated with the film and television production industry. Periods of great economic growth are ushered in by industries that are perpetual, not finite. Industries that provide an important outlet for innovation and profitability. Industries like film production. America has seen economic expansion through innovation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House will come to order and the lady will be sure to limit her discussion to the matter before us and the Chair has given some latitude but the lady should be mindful of that as she proceeds forward. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly, Mr. Speaker. That's the intention. America has seen great economic expansion through innovation and creating industries for the future, not the past. Fracking will not move North Carolina into it's next great economic period. New industries have taken America from great depressions into prosperity. These new and innovative industries have provided American families with jobs and incomes that allowed middle class families to buy a home, a car, take vacations, and contribute to America's economy. To oppose the film industry or any other 21st century industry that has a proven track record for entrepreneurship and innovation- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dixon, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, inquire the Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is the lady following the instructions given to her previously by the Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is treading into a grey area that may result in her debate being ruled out of order. The lady may proceed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] My intention, thank you, Mr. Speaker, is to compare 4,000 clean jobs in North Carolina that are already here to the creation of 389 jobs associated with an industry who very likely has the potential to pollute our drinking water. South Carolina, Georgia, and Louisiana recognize this. In this chamber we always talk about being competitive with neighboring states in creating jobs. Why are we willing to give up our competitive advantages in certain industries and our natural resources? South Carolina and Georgia are watching us. They want our 4,000 jobs in film, hoping that we make these regressive measures and decisions so that they can continue to recruit industries away from North Carolina. I urge my colleagues to vote against this extremely rushed, unproven, and dangerous plan to create temporary jobs that will hinder our safe drinking water. North Carolina citizens deserve better than that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bill Brawley, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First, I would like to express my appreciation for how patient you all are with a nerd like me because I read one of the amendments and as I went down through it I saw americum-241. Well I had been around a facility that dealt with americium-241 and I consulted with our resident chemist and we're not sure if americum-241 is a new transuranide element artificially created or if it's just become a common misspelling but it points out the problems you have when legislatures are getting deep into science rather than turning it over to the engineers. And I've noticed to

Today, at least the way I understand things, there's alot of confusion or maybe some spin. Forced pooling. The guys being forced are the guys doing the drilling and they are forced to create a pool of the money and give some of it to the people next door who aren't drilling because they are getting some of their oil and gas from those non-participatory owners and they're being forced to share. Public's right to know. There is a requirement that anyone wanting to do drilling in North Carolina disclose all of the chemicals and all of the recipes to the mining commission, to the state geologist, to ?? They can apply to have some of their information and recipes treated as trade secrets, but it doesn't default to trade secret. They have to ask for it and receive it. If it is classified as a trade secret, all of the components, all of the information of that chemical will be released. The state geologist will maintain all of the proprietary information as will the Department of Environmental Natural Resources and the Emergency Management Commission. And at the request, any hazardous materials responder, fire chief and medical facility will be given the full information including the trade secrets. Having been in technology, I've had situations of bidding on contracts for governments and sometimes they will require that a vendor deposit the source code for computer-based systems with the government. And I have had several vendors who refuse to do this and we end up just walking away from the business. It is not uncommon for people to want to protect their intellectual property. We've heard talk about open waste pits for the water such as coal ash. Well, I can certainly understand the frustration with decades of regulation that didn't really protect the coal ash, especially when a pipe that's rusted through was laid when I was a young person. Regulation didn't catch that. I know that I'm concerned somewhat about the drinking water that my daughter drinks from Lake Norman and Mountain Islandv where coal ash pits have laid as long as I have been alive. Last but not least, we're talking about the disposal of the water after it was used. We heard comments like, "We don't want to dispose of water by treatment." Do people think we're pouring this down the drain and sending it to the waste treatment plant? Disposal by treatment is the people doing the construction will treat the water and then reuse 99% of it. That's basically where we are. We're going to hear alot of frightening talk, about things that aren't in this bill. We're going to hear a lot of fear, about situations that don't exist in this. And I read the bill. It ain't great, but it is what it is and I'm gonna support it. [CHANGES SPEAKER] Representative Glazier, please state your purpose to debate the bill Mr. Speaker. [CHANGES SPEAKER] The gentleman is recognized to make the bill as amended. [CHANGES SPEAKER] Thank you Mr. Speaker and I recognize that I suspect there will be a time that technology will allow us to frack. I also recognize there is no gain without some risk involved in any endeavour in life. The question is always one of balance which is, in fact, precisely our role as the government. In the protection of the health and welfare and safety of the state as well as trying to propel it foreward in an economic way. But what we do know, from the experience of other states is that no state has done it particularly well yet or particularly safely yet. So, I think in some respects, I disagree, I don't disagree at all with Representative Brawley's comment just now.

Not the greatest bill, but it is what we have. Well, it is what we have, but it doens't have to be, of course. There are a number of amendments to try to make it better today and they were all, all defeated or tabled because we didn't want to be on record voting one way or the other. That's a shame, because some of the amendments would've made it a far better regime, and might have given better confidence to the public about what we're doing. You know, I live in an area of the state that at least until a few weeks ago I didn't think was going to have any direct fracking, but you never know. It is going to be part of the state that could be effected if things go wrong. 24 percent of the state's population's drinking water comes down the Cape Fear, and the biggest fear in my community is what could happen if things go wrong. Is that an unreasonable risk? Well, I've tried to associate and look at a risk benefit analysis. Representative Hamilton had it right that there is some benefit to be had here, but under any reasonable doctrine that exists in scenario of economic data, it's not a lot, and it's not right now, given the economics of the industry. Is there a risk? There's a big risk, because if one thing goes wrong badly, it really goes wrong here. I look at that and say, "Whether the risk outweighs the benefit," and I cannot for the life of me see that the benefit here outweighs the risk. The risk is still great and we see it in Pennsylvania, and we see it in Ohio, and we see it in Arkansas. There are things to improve substantially, and we didn't do some of those things today. If we care deeply, and I think the body does on either side of this issue about toxic air emissions, the limitations on the use of radioactive chemicals, the issues raised both by Representative Stone and by this side on the issue of pulling. On the issue of local government having some control over the infrastructure in costs and safety and health of their communities. On basic worker safety, which we know is an issue in other states. We punted on all of that. Then most importantly on representative Carney's amendment. You know, Representative Hagen I think is right on the minute and the details about what should be done by the commission and what should be done on the floor. When we say we're giving things to the commission and then turn around and by the part of the statute that we're creating, abdicate our ability to review those rules, that is wrong. We then give up the final authority. How we can then turn safely and confidently to our public, I think that's a sham. I think we cannot do that. It is one thing to have done the argument today to defeat the ?? in saying, "It should be left to the MEC," but it is another thing to say that and then turn around and say, "Oh, and by the way, given the rule making that we've just changed, you're not going to get a realistic chance to do anything about it. That's perhaps the worst vote of what we did today. You know, in the end as I suggested, there may be a time when this technology is something for this state, but I'll tell you right now, I'm going to vote against this bill because where we are with the technology, where the shale is, where the aquifers are, what the potential risk is scares the absolutely heck out of me. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of prime motion of the gentlemen from Lincoln County Representative State and myself, the chairman would like to extend the courtesy to the gallery to cheif district court judge, Larry Wilson of Shelby. Judge Wilson, if you would, we'd like to welcome you, and glad to have you here today. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentlemen from Haywood represent ?? ? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentlemen has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I just rise once again, things have been said and been said very eloquently about the cautions that we should all keep in mind. What I would just say to each of you, you've heard the sort of risk assessment. Most of you who were in business understand risk. This is a big risk for a little gain, a really big risk. The water for our future is at risk.

Health of our citizens is at risk. There is no reason to rush. This Shell gas has been there a million years, it will be there in a few months. Lets try to get this right before we put it on a fast track. There is just no common sense to fast track something as consequential as this bill. We're asked to punt, to kick things down the road, to let em study it. We don't know what these final rules will be. The public does not know what the final rules will be. Our sponsors they're so vague because [??] work. Well, lets let them finish their work. Lets give them an opportunity to flush out all the necessary issues to get this right for the people of North Carolina. You're [??] forward, lets go forward right. We have a sayin in the mountains, that this is a pig and a poke. We don't know what we're gettin. We're asked to kick it on down the road but the follow up on that little metaphor is, when the pig gets out the citizens of our state are ganna be left will a hole in the bag and that's not a pretty picture. I ask you to take time.Lets do this right. Lets make North Carolina proud and lets protect the future of our citizens drinking water and health. Thank you. [Speaker Changes] For what purpose does the lady from Guilford, Representative Harrison rise. [Speaker Changes] To briefly debate the bill. [Speaker Changes] The lady has recognized to debate the bill. [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the house. I won't repeat all the points I made yesterday but I do think it's really important to think about this in the context of why we're rushing this bill. The proponents of it have said it's about North Carolina needs the jobs and America needs the energy. Three hundred eighty seven jobs and twelve days of gas does not seem like it's worth the risk to our natural resources and to our public health. There's so many problems associated with this industry. We have plenty of time to get it right with the cost of natural gas being what it is and the nature of our resources being so limited it makes all kinds of sense to wait and not rush this bill. I can't for the life of me fathom why we are breaking our promise to the people of North Carolina that we were not going to green-light fracking until after the rules have been adopted and developed and brought before us for final review. Nothing about this process makes any sense to me. There's so many problems associated. I was doing some research last night and found even more that I failed to mention yesterday that you can't, some places are not offering mortgages to houses that do not have the mineral rights and they're insurance companies that are not insuring its fracking damage. There are all kinds of consequences to this industry that we can't even contemplate and we are not a state that has a history of extracted industries so we all have a track record to base these experiences on so there's all kind of reasons to wait. I encorage us to vote no on this bill and pursue this with a little more of a deliberative pace. Thank you. [Speaker Changes] For what purpose does the gentleman from Henderson, Representative McGrady rise. [Speaker Changes] Mr. Speaker on the immediately previous to this discussion vote on the Hager amendment, I hit the wrong button. Could I be recorded as voting I. [Speaker Changes] Madam Clerk, does the clerk know which vote that is. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman will be recorded as having voted I on that last amendment. For what purpose does the gentlemen from Lee, Representative Stone rise. [Speaker Changes] Speak on the bill. [Speaker Changes] The gentlemen has recognized to debate the bill. [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, it's a been a long, long, hard road. A lot of work as we have discussed many times. It's been over three and a half years of getting to this point so when we here people talk about rush and you can understand there has been a whole lot of work over three and a half years. We don't know if we feel rushed or just wore out. Today, we're about to take a historic vote. We're about to decide if North Carolina is ganna get any energy business or not. It's a twenty first century vote for North Carolina. And we [??] jobs, indirect and direct. And it's very important because it does a number of other things. It reminds us of the message we're ganna see and not only to the industry but all our state agencies. It's ganna tell Deaner to start to prepare, to get ...

It's gonna tell the industry to prepare to come to North Carolina and look at our rolls so that they can make adjustments. It's gonna tell our cities and counties that the next year, or slightly after that, we're gonna be prepared to drill in North Carolina, and you need to make the necessary arrangements to be prepared. So we've got a lot to do, and this bill passed that sends a clear message to everyone for us all to get prepared to do energy in North Carolina. Now, I'll say again: We worked hard, and there's been a lot of discussion today, some good amendments, and some amendments that we're probably gonna discuss further in energy oversight, but with saying that, I think, now more than ever, we need to move forward to say North Carolina is in the energy business, and with that I ask you to vote for this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from Mecklinburg, Representative Carny Rice (Becky Carny on the list?)? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and ladies and gentleman. I know we all want to go home, but I just want to rise and just say this one thing just as a reminder. We broke a promise. We broke a promise, and you get to go home and say that, but I will tell you I am not convinced and the debate was not allowed on the amendment to look at whether we really are going to have that opportunity as a body elected by the people of this state that are going to be impacted by this bill. What is a shame to me is that we didn't debate that issue on the floor. Are we or are we not going to get to approve these rules as they come out from this mining commission? It's been cut short, we didn't debate it, and I know a lot of you in this chamber wanted to support that. You want to go back home and say, "I'm gonna be able to vote for or against these rules as they are developed for this state going forward." And I leave you with this: It's done. I know how the process works. I've been here 12 years, and we'll all walk out of this chamber, we'll go home, and it'll be a great weekend, I hope, for every one of us, and we'll come back, and we'll deal with the next issue. We have to do that, but I hope that you will all take a look at this chamber on the wall. I wasn't real excited about all these paintings being here when they first were hung. I was happy with the chamber the way it was. We come in and do the business, but I've sat in here yesterday and today, and I really looked at these paintings, and I hope you'll look at them now because what we are about to vote on today could potentially impact what you see here with our water and our air. It's a visual that speaks louder than the words and louder about which vote, which number, which, excuse me, which color you vote here today. I am astounded that we're all willing to move forward and say, "Let an industry, let a mining commission comprised of the industry representative move forward and develop the rules, put them out there. We're moving forward, permits are being issued. It's our responsibility, and, basically, what we did today when we shut down the debate was to say that the bill is all about refusing our right as legislators to see the rules. I ask you to vote "no." [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? Allow a moment for the members to enter the chamber. If not, the question for the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute, Senate Bill 786, is amended on its third reading. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. Sixty-four have voted in the affirmative, 50 in the negative. The House Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 786 is amended. It has passed its third reading, the Bill being grossed and returned to the Senate by special messenger. Ladies and Gentlemen, we are about to go to notices and announcements, and in adjournment I would just call your attention. We will be adjourning in memory of three individuals.

Some of you may or may not know that we have some members who have lost parents over the past week or so. Representative Starnes father passed away earlier this week. Representative Fulgham's mother passed away recently, and Representative Stone's father passed away. So, please keep these members and their family members in your thoughts and prayers. Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] To refer to the bill, Mr. Speaker. [Speaker Change] The gentleman is recognized to state his motion. [Speaker Change] House Bill 1232, the short title sales tax exemption for certain coins, needs to be removed from the committee of banking and referred to the department of finance. [Speaker Change] Without objection, so ordered. [Speaker Change] Representative Grier Martin, state your purpose. [Speaker Change] For a moment of personal privilege. [Speaker Change] The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [Speaker Change] Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Members I'll making this announcement on behalf of Representative Hastings, who had to head out a little bit early. But, he wanted me to notify the body that we've got a North Carolina National Guard Unit going down range and we just want to ask that you keep them and their families in your thoughts and prayers. The 621st Survey and Design Team of the 505th Air Combat Battalion is the unit and we wish them a safe trip. [Speaker Change] Representative Harrison, please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] Point of personal privilege. [Speaker Change] The lady is recognized for a point of personal privilege. The House will come to order. [Speaker Change] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is sort of rare for me, but I did want to acknowledge that we had the Green Tile Awards on Wednesday evening and we had a bunch of winners in the house. So, first of all, Representative of the Year Larry Hall. We had a number of Rising Stars, Representative Nathan Baskerville, Carla Cunningham, George Graham, Dewayne Hall, Yvonne Holly, Bobby Richards, and Evelyn Terry all won Rising Stars. Then, finally, our colleague Joel Tolleson was awarded The Joe, named in honor of Joe Hackney, as an outgoing leader on Environment and Energy causes. So, I hope you'll join me in congratulating them. Thank you. [Applause] [Speaker Change] Representative Bill Brawley, please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] For an announcement. [Speaker Change] The gentleman is recognized for an announcement. [Speaker Change] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Committee on Transportation will try again next Tuesday, at noon, in room 243. [Speaker Change] Representative Hager, please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] For announcement. [Speaker Change] The gentleman is recognized for an announcement. [Speaker Change] Republicans Dukakis is right after this in 1228, just for a few minutes. [Speaker Change] Representative Pierce, please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] Make an announcement, Mr. Speaker. [Speaker Change] The gentleman is recognized for an announcement. [Speaker Change] Members of the Legislative Black Khakis and Democratic Khakis, we have a meeting in the press conference room immediately after session. Thank you. [Speaker Change] Further notices and announcements? Representative Moore, is recognized. [Speaker Change] Mr. Speaker. [Speaker Change] Representative, the house will come to order. Representative Floyd, please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] I know Representative Moore is getting ready to do the adjournment, but for planning purposes, is he going to do that again next week? [Speaker Change] There will be a no vote session at 4:00 pm on Monday, and thank you Representative Floyd, I should of clarified that. Because, we will be in possession of the budget, the chair anticipates later afternoon sessions, probably around 3:00 or 4:00 with limited amount of time in session. So, we can allow the Associations Committees to take on the work. [Speaker Change] Mr. Speaker? [Speaker Change] Representative Grier Martin, state your purpose, if the members will please be seated. [Speaker Change] With a Chair mind instructing, what Representative Floyd that some of us are trying to get home to our families and don't want to stay here as long as he does. [Laughter] [Speaker Change] I did find some irony in Representative Floyd being the only thing between us and adjourning, but we do appreciate the question, Representative Floyd. It was important. [Speaker Change] And, Mr. Speaker. [Speaker Change] Representative Stephens, please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] As just a follow up question to what you were saying. Should we schedule any regular committee meetings next week, or is the entire week going to be devoted to the budget? [Speaker Change] The Chair would ask any members, next week, that their planning committee meetings to consult with the Senior Chair of Appropriations, Representative Dollar to work out the timing, so that we can minimize conflicts. Representative Michaux, please state your purpose.

My question’s along the same lines. You said that we’re going to have a late meeting. That’s on Tuesday, is that correct? A no vote meeting on Monday and late meeting on Tuesday. Does that mean that once we receive the budget, will we have any committee meetings on the budget, or will it go directly to ?? appropriations [SPEAKER CHANGES] We’ll certainly have committee meetings. In pursuant to rule changes since 2011, the budget will not be voted on adequate time has been posted and made available. Further notices and announcements. Representative Moore is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, subject to ratification of bills, messages from the Senate, committee reports, conference reports, re-referral bills and resolutions, appointment of conferees. I move that the House now adjourn in memory of Ray Coolidge Starns, Margaret Rae Stanton Fulghum, and Eugene Stone to reconvene on Monday, June 2, 2014 at 4:00 p.m. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore moves, seconded by Representative Hager, that the House now adjourn in memory of Ray Coolidge Starns, Margaret Rae Stanton Fulghum, and Eugene Stone subject to the ratification of bills and resolutions. Receipt of messages from the Senate. Receipt of committee reports, conference reports, re-referral bills and resolutions, appointment of conferees, and modifications to the calendar to reconvene on Monday, June the 2nd at 4:00 p.m. All in favor vote aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed vote no. The ayes have it. The House stands adjourned.