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 | April 2, 2015 | Committee Room | Rules, Calendar and Operations

Full MP3 Audio File

As somebody who repeats himself regularly anyway, the House Committee On Rules will come to order. The Chair would like to thank all the members for being here this early, at 8 O'clock. The Chair would like to thank the Sergeant-at-Arms for their hard work, and welcome our pages if they're here, Stewart Haines, sponsored by Representative Martin and Caroline Hoyles, sponsored by the speaker. With that, the Chair is going to yield the chair to Vice-Chairman Stam, and we will move into the discussion before the committee. And Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recognized for a [xx] Representative Lewis is recognized for a motion to submit a proposed PCS towards the purpose of discussion. Members, there's a proposed committee substitute. It was emailed to you last night before 9 O'clock, I would move that it to be before the committee. Discussion to the debate, if not, those in favor say Aye. Aye. Opposed say No. What's before us? Representative Lewis is recognized to explain the Bill for the Resolution. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will be as brief as I can. Everything in these rules empowers members more than the current temporary rules that are in place. All the changes in these rules do that. I will go through them as fast as I can, in the direction the chair yield to the questions, and I know that there is one technical amendment that we will need to send forward, but I will go through it real quick. Page 2 line 41, this addresses the reading of representatives personal, excuse me, adds reading of statements of personal privilege to the order of business. Members have asked for the number of resolutions to be cut down. We've done that this year, but we've still accommodated members needs to honor special events in their district, by allowing you to submit a written statement of personal privileges. It's signed, it's spread upon the Journal and the Principal Clerk mails it out the speaker will also recognizes you and other members that designate to speak on special events you may still file memorial resolutions and house still concerned joint resolutions with the senate. But we've done this as to start a session at we done pretty well. Page three line 24 again just explains the procedure for issuing the written statement of personal privilege. Page 4, lines 33 and 34 this was a suggestion, from representative Kaufer[sp?], this defines that the use of mobile devices is allowed on the floor, just not for the use of conversation. Otherwise, you can use your phone to text and tweet and correspond email with your constituents, but you can't talk on it, that's too [xx] page nine line 26 this is a new section but it's not a new policy what this does is that the chairs of appropriationsare also so 30 members of the committees of the policy area of appropriations you remember in years past, we've had appropriations and said sub committees the chairs could all vote on sub committees this is not a change in the practical application, just a change in the way it's written. Mr. Chair you'll take them. Representative Jackson,  question on that point point? [xx] that we used to have when the Democrats were in charge? Representative Jackson, this is simply, you remember at the start of session we re-classified at the appropriations policy area committees from sub-committees to full committees. At that time, the Chairs had voting rights on the sub-committees, this just gives them voting rights on these policy committees. So, they're not floaters in terms of being able to go to all the committees and do whatever, it just read it re-writes the practice that's been the practice of the House since I've served up here. They could always just be handed to the committees anyway. Representative Jacksons. I guess my question would be sub committee's budget time.  Will three or four additional members be able to show up at a committee meeting to vote on a sub-committee's budget, and if so, will the Democratic representatives be given an additional representative for the committee balance, stage, and the appropriate percentage? Well, Representative Jackson I appreciate your inquiry. The practical effect is that if we don't do this it will go to Full Appropriations to be changed anyway. Again, this has just been the practice since I've served here. Think Representative Burr may have had an inquiry. On that question,  Representative Burr is recognized. And if it's [xx] I think we're both 50% right

on that because in the past have been capped at two chairs. So in the past four years you've only been allowed to have two of the four chairs go to a committee, so this could be now and, all of them together, so, it, there's rules, they'recertainly a lot better they're certainly a big improvements, but I think that's one thing, we're just going backwards to where it was. Perhaps to leave even half in place would be most appropriate. Representative Burr and Representative Jackson, if it would make the members more comfortable, staff could prepare an amendment to clarify that the Senior Chair would designate which two chairs can do that, I'm fine with that, again this is an attempt to rip off what we've been doing. So please to prepare that. continue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, on page 11, lines 26 and 27, this was a request from Representative Glazier. On behalf of, I think of the Minority Caucus, it simply clarifies that if if eyes and nose are called for, that the chairman presiding at the time must ask is call the sustained. To remind the members that if they want it sustained they have to stand up. It doesn't change the threshold, again it's supposed to add a little maybe transparency to make our staff work better pushing forward. Representative Floyd? And when you mean by a standard you speak to them of the hope, I mean that all the members of that particular. No sir. It is the current policy that if one fifth of the members ask for the eyes and nose on any matter that the eyes and nose will be granted. Sometimes someone will call for the eyes and nose, and the chair doesn't see that the call was sustained, doesn't ask for it to be sustained and moved on, we're just trying to say that the chair would remind the body by saying is, for instance if Representative Floyd would call for the eyes and nose on this matter, the chair would be required to say, is the call sustained? It's just to remind the members that they need to act if they want to do that. Again that was at a suggestion Representative Glazier. what I mean is that the individual or individuals have to stand individually? Representative Ford, they way its done in practiced technically you're supposed to physically stand up, I don't know any chair that I wouldn't support the rising of hands I mean I've never seen that done before. Okay, Continue page thirteen line 49 again this is just new language regarding the members with due statements of personal privilege instead of memorial law and other prohibited resolutions, doesn't prohibit resolution just again encouraging the use of this method. Page twenty nine line thirty nine this has been in the temporary rules but I want to point that again this just is a member in addition will be delivered to the Principle Clerk, were also being delivered to the Rules Chair, that's just a technical matter to make sure they're fit with the bill instead of having to call everybody to the dais and talk to the [xx] is recognized. Thank you Mr. Chairman if you could just slow down and tell us again what page you're on [xx] and neither does anyone. Representative Tucker[sp?] I'm currently discussing page 20, line 39 this creates a new subsection which says that a member in addition to be submitted to the Principal Clerk are also submitted to the Rules Chair. The purpose of this change is simply you can all recall times when the speaker said, to put the house at ease and call the members up and figure out if that amendment fits or it doesn't fit, we're just trying to speed things up doesn't do anything else than the amend. Page 23 line 29 this was also at the suggestion of Representative Cotham, it adds pregnancy and military service as reason for excused absences from the house. Page 24 line 16, this was was at the request of Representative Glazier, but overwhelmingly from the Republican Caucus as well, this says that essentially if you power bill, it goes to the senate, and the bill becomes someone else it comes back, if you find out that's not your child you can take your name off of it. Mr. Chairman As in, that also relates

to [xx] cases. and ladies and gentlemen I did not have in my notes. On page 14, if I could direct your attention, this would propose a couple of changes the first being it would extend the date to request public bills, request the bill drafting to be extended until today, this would have been more relevant yesterday but anyway it extended until today, it also extends the date that which public bills must be filed until the Tuesday after we return from Spring break, so you don't to come back next week to sign your bills follow up. And it does raise the limit on the number of public bills from 10 to 15, that was at the request again by Representative Glazier. Mr. Chairman I have an amendment to that section. We have three amendments already lets go with Representative Burr first because it's already being discussed and I'll read it. I don't think I'll need to make copies. There's on pages 9, line 26, hope you get there fast, this is about that issue of the chairs of the poll appropriations. We changed the bill on page 9, line 26 hereby written there Section F. Up to two chairs of the Appropriations Committee, as designated by the Senior Appropriations Chair are entitled to vote in all other. Further discussion or debate on that amendment. Representative Torbett? I fully support. I'd like some basis first, an explanation on that because I know this year there are some committees that four chairs? Representative Torbett, what this is just saying is again codifying the practice. Used to this were sub-committees, and up to two of the chairs, what we call the Full Chairs, could attend. This just clarifies that two of the full chairs can still attend. But only in Appropriations? Yes, but just on the [xx] Representative Burr. And I apologize. I read over it and there's one word in there. Typically it was the decision of the Chairs, it wasn't one Chair's decision as to who went. They made a decision on which of the full chairs would go, of course you're having a designated and they didn't want to make a decision it would be possible just to work towards changes maybe we could pool it. May we just have a problem here. We'll pool that. I don't have any problems with that either. Let's go ahead we've got a technical amendment here by Representative Luise, on page 14 line five, and we'll make copies of this any of these copies were needed, page 14 line five I was expected it to point the technical mimic. By rewriting the line to read, rule 31.1, deadline on introduction and receipt no blank bills, 15 bills. So it changes the title of the rule. Any further explanation need? Well the text that was [xx] So this is confirming change, Representative Lewis moves to adopt this amendment. Any other discussion or debate on it? OK if not, the question is on the adoption of the amendment, all those in favor say Aye. Aye. Opposed say No. Ayes have it. Was there a second amendment other than Burr? OK, let's take up the Burr Amendment which is re-written to read as follows, Representative Burr moves to amend the Bill on page 9 line 26, by re-writing line to read, Up to two Chairs of the Appropriations Committee are entitled to vote in all other. Further discussion or debate on that amendment, if not the question is on the adoption of the amendment. All those in favor will say Aye. Aye. Opposed say No. The Ayes have it, the amendment is adopted. Representative Lewis, further discussion by you or are we ready for? We have additional amendments that we [xx]. We'll have additional amendments I'm just. No. OK. question, debate or amendments? Some amendments I [xx]. OK, I haven't seen them. Representative Floyd, have these been passed out? Mr Chair, if I could speak

to the, Representative Floyd, we had an amendment sent forward by me which just clarified a technical change. We had an amendment send forward by Representative Burr which clarified the number of Chairs. It's just two right? Yes. So just two so far. OK, we're passing out four of last amendments, which one do you want to do the first, Representative Blust? It doesn't matter. Well, that's up to you. Let's do first the SU-9 version 1 Let's make sure everybody has a copy, anybody not have a copy? Talk to the them McCorry Let's go ahead and move on Representative [xx] go ahead and start explaining that amendment we won't vote on it till this amendment just allows on written version voting on bills for separate votes there are many times when there are desperate subject matters [xx] as members may it's very frustrating sometimes to have to sit and remember the way [xx] to do seemed to have unrelated subject matters sometimes said you got indeed six 78 separate provision all adopted to one, and if it's, this is not really like the others decided that left the body will upon each subject that's going to be enacted into law be made [xx] bring something into the law that people's elected representatives don't really think to be in the law and I think that's sort of an affront to the entire institution when people can't send their folks to Raleigh, their representatives and get their representatives best judgement on each issue, this has been around long time, so I can't remember exactly where this came upstate I got this from somebody else's rules, but I can't remember for sure now. Alright Representative move it to adoption. Yes, the motion has been moved and adopted, its [xx] ask the sponsors to speak first, and Representative Torbett. Members, the point at which Representative Blust is attempting to get at is a very valid point. It's also very complicated point. I will direct your attention to page 25 of the Rules, Rule 62 which specify that items not addressed in these rules will refer back to Mason's Manual, and if you do not have one of these, the Chair will see that you get one as soon as one can be acquired chapter 32 of Mason's allows for the division of questions, is an extremely complex issue only in that and the reason I think the Burr's amendment doesn't address what exactly what he's actually trying to do, the division of questions may only occur if in fact the provisions are not intra-related. In other words, taking out section B may mess up A and C without understanding. Mason's takes 6 pages to explain that, it's already allowed under our rules, I would ask that you vote this amendment bill Representative Torbet. Could this also be handled under the typical amending process, that if something with not demand to something else and I think they can simply mend it out would that be parade which will be a much simpler process that makes it, As a polarimetry inquiry the answer is of course Further discussion up and I'll give you the last word. Representative Blust, other members? Representative Blust I'm

somewhat mortified by the representative Louis explanation because I do believe Mason's cover jet although Mason that statement in rule 62 about Masons doesn't preclude the rules addressing something that sells and every ruler in fact does address something that sells but I was about to on senate bill 40 of one point made such a motion under Mason's and my fear was as has happened in the past and not lately but has happened in the past. Things allowing Mason's have been ruled out of order on the grounds that, the rules didn't cover it. So therefore, the rules did cover it, the fact that we didn't have any other rules meant we didn't want any other rules therefore you don't Kello Mason to implement the Mason I am very, I think this. And that did happen several, many years ago. Yes, and this makes it less a complex just to have a as a safe rule in our rules that you don't have to go to Mason's, through a complex process. This simply allows a member to make a written motion saying here's what we want to vote on, here's the way we want to break down the bug[sp?] written so that every member is noted. So, I'm not as worried about  not having this before, but I still think it's a good amendment in the instance it's a safe rule that shows how to divide a question without having to resort to the Mason's complicated process. Further discussion and debate, Representative Robinson. Well, I know that many of you already care what I did back in 1992, but this was the issue back then is that you could not have part of a Bill that was not germane[sp?] in title and usually when it was attempted it was issued but couldn't alone, and so that being said I the chairman said it's kind of a bad practice to kind of want things together especially when they're just [xx] there's another rule that says one subject unless. I point out that there's another rule that requires one subject unless the majority of the house votes to do it upon objection. Further discussion or debate, if not all those in favor of the Blust amendment say Aye? Aye. All those opposed say No. no. The nos appear to have it. Want hand vote? The nos do have it Next amendment, Representative Blust. Let's do ASU verse[sp?] 11 version 1.  Alright, everyone has it in a paper copy so you're recognized to explain your amendment. This amendment will preclude something that's gone on, that's become a difficult issue and that this amendment will stop new matters from being included in conferences more than either Houses Bills. We've seen many times where the Senate passes a Bill, the House makes changes, they go to conference and then things that were not in either Bill, sometimes I've seen totally unrelated to the two Bills get put in a conference support. That then comes to each chamber for up and downvote that cannot be amended, and if an extraneous matter or subject is put into the conference report it might be something that the body would not enact separately, but the body might desire very much the subject matter of the original Bill and it's just a way that again, matters that weren't really desired to be enacted by the peoples' representatives become put into the Law of the State of North Carolina, and I think that's a horrendous practice, and I think right now we have a rule that says, Well if the Senate has a single rule, we just can't be pushed by the Senate to this because I don't think they have the rule now, but last year if  you remember during the Coal Ash, that was a late Bill that came up and the Senate accused some of our conferees of putting

something new in it, and Senator Berger and  Apodaca wrote a scathing email that many of you still have, I still have it, saying how bad that practice was. In effect three members were leading the other 167 members of the legislature right out of considering the subject, and they were exactly right. that's what can happen a few members can take the entire rest of the legislature and in essence bypass it, it is a bad practice. First Representative Lewis and then Daughtry. Members I would just point out to you that as the gentleman from the Yofard said on page 21 we do say that this should not be our practice, the bottom line is to accommodate the fact that this is the way things have worked. Our speaker has set an established policy of referring this congress reports 2 standing house committees for review and it's those standing house committees that recommend concurrence or not. I think that's the way it can and should be addressed and I do not think this amendment to the rules is something that we can do.   Representative Daughtry I get great frustration because of what comes over in the conference report and usually if there's a new matter involved, it's put there for a number of purposes, they get somebody else to vote for it. I don't see a thing wrong with this amendment, I think it's a good amendment. While the speaker or anyone else it just says that you can't put your matter in a conference report and nobody's ever heard of it, it's never been in our committees, it's just something we stuck in there and we just don't know why it's there there's got to be a reason. It can't obviously stand on it's own and so I believe this is a good amendment. Representative Tordy. Thanks Mr. Chair if we amended to the Blaise, if we accepted Blaise amendment, with these rules pertain to actions of our counterparts in the senate for example, what would be if that's a parliamentary inquiry the answer is no, they have no such a rule, they're not going to honor our rule, so what do you do about it? I'd like to answer. Representative Daughtry, then Blust. What you do about it is, you just say you can't do it and that's what  you do about it. When I was minority leader I actually raised this as a point of order several times because we used to have this rule, we used to have this rule but, anyway Representative, who's next? Blust then Lewis. I'm one that believes having the rule even if you say, Well, the Senate won't go along, the Senate [xx] strengthens us against the Senate, and I'll give you a for example, remember our Senate Bill 3 last year when we had the budget impasse, we tried kind of mini budget compromise and the governor went over and the speaker announced it and the Senate said no it doesn't comply with our rule we aren't even reading it in, and that strengthens our hack, that killed it right then, that whole process was killed because the senate had a rule they could invoke and it strengthens their hand as against the house, so I think having this rule strengthens us, you got 2 a house conferee can go in with senate conferee and if house conferee having this rule know they can't put it in in a conference report when the senate conferee says let's put it in the conference report that house conferee simply say that will make it out of order in the house. You're killing the bill if you do that. Representative Hastings I don't have much more respect than I do for representative Bluston Doughtry, just want to provide a different perspective when we have the auditor general selection criteria in a conference committee and of course you don't want to waste all your time and get to the tip of the spear and not have the governor's support so we had some of his military people come in and help on the conference committee at the last minute and actually added provision took it to the tip of the spear where it could actually become law and get the governors signature so I just wanted to give a little different perspective. Nobody rolled anybody over it was just part of the negotiations as we got closer to the tip of the spear. For the discussion of the debate, Representative Louise. I would just respectfully ask for you to defeat this amendment for the discussion of the debate if

not, all those in favor will say I. All those oppose say no! division, equally divided. We'll count, I'll count All those in favor of the amendment raise your hand and keep them raised till I finish to count. 1, 2 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. All those oppose raise your hand 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 the amendment passes the next room.  Next is the. In your example, couldn't you just [xx] He was wrong. [xx] We have two others for you, one is AFU-10 and the other is Content of Appropriations Bill. Representative Blust AFU 10 version 1. This amendment simply provides the option when a House Bill goes to the Senate, and you all know this happens a lot, the House Bill goes to the Senate, Senate changes it. Sometimes the Senate takes the House Bill and completely guts it and puts something new in, and I think the rules now say if that happens to your Bill you can take your name off of it. When the Senate does that, and sometimes it's a whole new Bill, a whole new issue, sometimes it's a huge Bill and huge issue, and they send it back to the House, we are then stuck to concur or not concur meaning they can send it to a committee, but that committee can't change one dot or one tittle of the Bill. Many times, and I don't know if we're doing this to them because I'm not privy to those decision making many times, but we are completely red as a House out of any effect on the provisions of the law, and I think that is an egregious violation of our duties where we let ourselves be manipulated into doing that, or maneuvered into doing that. I shall give you an example and it's very timely right now, you may be reading that North Carolina could lose 60 of its 72 of its delegates to the national convention. If you remember our voter ID which many of us we had the vote for that. Some we favored, some people favored we sent that back into the senate in April, the senate sent it to I think it was the last night of the session that it came back to us loaded with a whole bunch of other election law provisions, never could go through and get the house's will as to all these other changes in the law including moving the primary date. This will give us the option of recent we can take your changes which still is your senate bill if released what with a difference, we can take your bill and we can run it through our house process and get the house's will on all of those and stay at the back, this used to be the rule until Jerry Cowan helped me draft this, or really drafted it when I told him where the problem was and said this was the rule till 1979 and this is the rule in Congress, but it's very important that we do this or you will sit here during this session later on and you will be very frustrated having to vote on things that are take it or leave it. It's the wrong way to legislate, we need to change it. I [xx] for adoption. Representative Lewis. Representative Blust, I just want to ask for a favor. May you and I after this committee, would you consider withdrawing this? Let's talk to Denise Weeks, I'll explain why. I actually advocated for this change at your request. She's much more eloquent at explaining that part of the problem is we would never actually pass, well although Representative Daughtry may not think that's not a bad idea. We would never actually pass anything at all because it will keep going back and forth with one and two word changes. If she thinks that, and

I realize she's not an elected member, but if she thinks that our system of doing things,  can accommodate this,  I would support this on the floor with no objection.  I would certainly [xx] without inviting comments on it, why in world could get people to do it and I would say that you could get a ping pong on that but, this time we get the option, we can go to this, at some point you could concur or even not concur, and go to comments. Representative Blackwell.  I'll be glad to withdraw that and do that [xx]. That amendment is withdrawn, it would be in order of course on the floor. The last one is,  ASU6 version 2 representative [xx]  This amendment, it's designed to stop the inclusion in the budget of,  policy matters.  Now the hard thing is to find what's the policy matter and what isn't, but we've seen the budget and, it's been no money in it this year, neither side you got the budget that's the one piece of business every legislature has to accomplish. You got fund the government. Our budget gets started including all sorts of changes in the law material changes knowing members no they got to pass a budget or you really look back, government shuts down or goes in a continuing resolution, so there's pressure to both for that bill particularly in the majority party. We've started loading down with provisions that ought to be considered separately, there's been several of them, that had become controversial even sometimes whether they're been good or bad for example the teacher tender responding to the budget that the ABC grades for schools a major policy may be the greatest thing in the world schools, or improving for schools and that would split up thinking that [xx] in the house never got it, never got it at the end of discussion, never got to consider okay we're going to do this it would be 50% growth, 50% S4s [xx] rationalism got to really consider the [xx] will on a very important policy matters and so I'm not looking for things that emerge and that and I think this is the last, this actually is the senate rule that I left in the stand provision to set our rules about making a point of order, but this is something we need to take certain perspect on because again, many things that would not pass the house are put into budget and passed into law and that's refer to the whole constitutional set up of a bicameral legislature which is opposed to what the public by having 120 members who represent 80, 000 of this sit there and consider carefully what's going to be the law of state. So I would greatly urge the adoption of this amendment. Representative Louis, Representative Blast[sp?] it's difficult to oppose this amendment. I'll tell why I've got to do it. I see no practical way that this amendment could be enforced. Everything that we do is related to spending money. Everything that we do, can somehow be tied back to spending money. So all you're going to do is create, pardon me, all this amendment would do is create a situation where the presiding officer would have to say, well if you notice we may be talking about establishing grading of schools A through F, but you see either as a funding provision of one cent attached to it therefore it's relevant to the budget. I actually believe in our [xx] that the amendment that you had before about being able to amend senate bills would go stronger trying to fix I don't think this will work, I don't it's practical and for that reason I'll oppose it Further discussion and debate? We'll come back to you let's see if other people. For the discussion debate, representative Blust I really don't allow [xx] to go different things

actually to go the expenditure of funds but even if there's a bill and you put a dollar in it that really doesn't make a appropriation matter, the appropriation is a separate issue, and again this was ultimately drafted by Jerry Cowan to research the Congress, and the congressional rule is you've got to have an authorization and then an appropriations but the policy and the budget really need to be separate if we're going to do things anywhere close to correctly and all this would do would be to allow a member to, if there's something, again there's something that close by, I don't think we're good enough people enough of the members upset to support it, but a member would have to make a point of order if something's in there and have that point of order rule by the chair and sustained by 60% of the members with rule [xx] right now. So I don't think anybody will be able to raise a rockers under that rule about my or things that they may be a little bit different that major things that are education policy or anything else you could and they need to be voted on separately for example the medicare reform on health and that just doesn't get dumped into the budget, and what happens if we keep on doing this, a few members at the end of the session get to get together and trade off what they want the law to be and put it into the budget, and the rest of the members are helpless. And I've heard, I have seen right before votes, during the budget debate, I really don't want to vote. I'm not doing this again. Well I got to now, and I know there's things that we have enacted into law that would not pass, and I'm wondering what is the legislature if Bills become the law of the state and that the legislature really doesn't really want? And at some point you've got to draw a line somewhere and I'm not sure how to draw the line, but it's got to be attempted. Representative Torbett, then Lewis. Thank you. I think from a pessimistic viewpoint my colleague is correct. If everything is wrong and bad and natural, evolution of it is a process, then he's exactly correct, but from an optimistic viewpoint it appears that we have numerous rules, one of which we just amended that takes care of the opportunities to talk and bet whatever is in the budget would it be policy [xx] throughout the budget process. So I'm a little confused as to why trying to now have somebody determine if the policy theres appropriation  if the policy gives us a very gray area OK. Representative Paul are you raising your hand or or you just Ok Representative [xx] and then Louis. Well I remember frustration when the Kenya issue because I served only K to 12 committee I kept wondering what is going to come up it never did come up it was in the budget and representative Johnson is the expert on education told me that it was in the budget and that's how I passed. I don't know how we got it this is how we got it it never came through education even though we had an education committee that didn't make that often and they do make it up matter of understand, I mean understanding is a rule that helps practically go through the process but to me stopping the budget that is there and I don't know why it's there it should go through a committee, a wordy committee process to watch and when you don't go through the committee process, there's a problem with the bill. Mr. Louis I'm not as good as the speaker is gentlemen from Gilford it's very difficult though to again a conversation with comparing anything to the effectiveness of missing efficiency of the US congress. They have a variety of systems and place, if the conference committee fails, they go through a reconciliation process, you know all these, I would reiterate the fact that everything we do is related to spending, everything we do and so your point is correct what this would lead to is the ability to is the ability to stand up and say point of order, this shouldn't be be in the budget and make the presiding officer rule with you or against you, in which case your appeal and that will be sustained or not.

It could also be renewed by remedy by simply voting no or simply having amended it out of the bill. I don't need we need this, I think it goes too far, and I would ask the committee to defeat this amendment. The actual rule says after two speeches you have to have permission from the body, so let me just ask if anybody else has debate on this Representative Johnson. I think I'm about the only one here that has served on both budgets and democrat and republican and there difference. We tried to do that one time before and send it back to the senate and before I did that I thought it was a very good process. Before I actually tried to do what you're discussing and found that it didn't work at all. It may work if you spend years preparing the system to be like that but it isn't like that in reality. It sounds very good, you know John how I feel about things, so it is just isn't practical at this point. For the discussion of the debate without objection, representative Blake is recognized the third time, three words missing on line four of between provision and [xx] or needs changing existing law. Mr. Chair my speaker  Yes, representative representative Louis without objection let her to speak a third time and will consider this as a [xx] as always, representative Blust accurately represented our processes but I think we need to understand that it is the process of the general assembly it doesn't matter which party has the majority at the time is the process in general assembly if a member puts forward an idea and the idea is vented to the communities properly which we all agree in here needs to happen, it still can happen without money that's why things that spend money are referred to the appropriations committee to be included in the budget. I don't think it's right to say we're going to pass law X and then not fund it, that's because we can't fund it. first before this is a perfecting amendment by Representative Black[??] to add a word online or the between provision and sale the world's changing existing laws we're only in the perfecting amendment and the process of discussion today if it's that all in favor say Aye, opposed say No, the Ayes have it. OK I think e are ready to vote for amendment lets call the world on this one, Representative Courtney. [xx] under two budget and it really is a problem among it's I dn't know how to reserve it but I did say that its an issue that we as a body need to have a discussion I'm glad this amendment came forward today for this committee to talk about it and I have heard from other members through budget process nobody likes that when is slammed into the budget at the last minute, we cant debate it and I do think that their is a rule whether we put it this year or not, but I think this issue is one that should be fully debated and embedded because it has to start at some point. The examples that representative Blurs gave we all went home, and we were just cheered up besides to that a couple of this education policies that ended up in the budget and never debated and never recommended, and we know that happens here, but we can, we can take steps to alleviate some of it from happening rather than just saying no nothing at all we need to start somewhere.  The question for the committee is the adoption of the last amendment as perfected the clerk in voting in favor favor will vote I, when your name is called those oppose will vote no, when your name is called the clerk will call the roll Representative Docker?  Aye. Docker aye representative Davis?  No. Davis representative Stan? No.

Stan no Representative Florid? No. A call with no Representative Blake our representative Bosch, aye, rep representative Honey, aye current aye representative [xx].  No. Call from no representative Floyd. Yes. Floid no Representative Friday. No hearing no Representative Goodman? No. Goodman.  no Representative Wayne [xx]? No. Wayne no representative [xx] and No Representative Hasting No Hastings No, Representative Jackson Yes Jackson Yes, Representative Johnson No Johnson No, Representative Bryce No reads no Representative Robinson? No. Robinson no, Representative [xx], no. [xx] no Representative the ayes are 5 the nos are 16, the amendment fails. The question for the committee is the adoption of the revolution as amended, there's another amendment, Richard [xx] has another amendment Another committee is supposed to be here at 9.00. 8.30? Members, the Chair would like to offer our sincere appreciation to Representative Torbett and Representative Shepard for infringing upon their time. The chair gave a commitment to them that this committee would be completed by 5.00 based on the amendments that were known to the Chair at the time. With that said, unfortunately the House Committee on Rules will need to stand in recess.