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 23, 2015 | Chamber | House Session

Full MP3 Audio File

Testing. The house will come to order please. Members take you seats, visitors retire from the chamber, the Sergeant at Arm will close the doors. Members and visitors please silence all the electronic devices The prayer today will be offered by the honorable representative Bert Jones. Let us Pray. Our father and our God we thank you again today that we can come before your throne of grace any time in any place. As we come with praise and thanks giving, we acknowledge our utter[sp?] dependence on you. We are weak, but you are all powerful. We are limited, but you are everywhere present. We see things dimly as through a dark glass, but you are all knowing of all things past, present, and future. You have promised to grant much wisdom from above to your people who will simply ask in earnest, let us ask. The challenges we face are great, but with God and only with God, all things are possible. Many would choose rather to do what is right in their own eyes Proverbs 14 reminds us there's a way that seems right to people, but its end is the way of death. Let us not be people who would deny God, for Psalms 118 says it is better to trust in the Lord than to put our confidence in man. May we put our trust in the Lord, and strive to live this date in a way that honors you first, as other ambitions would lead us astray let us be reminded that no one can serve two masters. Lord we pray that you would heal and preserve our state and nation, that we would bring honor and glory to you our creator and sustainer of life. May our efforts be of eternal significance in the Kingdom of God. As each year we might be choosing to pray in their own way, I pray in the name of your son and my Lord and savior Jesus Christ, Amen. thank you Representative Jones, members and visitors in the gallery please stand, and remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. 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. The honorable Representative Torbett from Gaston County is recognized. Mr. Speaker for a motion. Mr. Speaker the journal for April 22 has been examined and been found to be correct, I move that it be approved as written. Representative Torbett moves that the journal for April 22 be approved as written, those in favor will say aye Aye. Aye. Those opposed will say No, the Ayes have it, the Journal is approved as written. Members, our nurse of the day is Mercy Shipwatch[sp?] from High Point, North Carolina. Miss Shipwatch[sp?], thank you for being with us this morning. Message from the Senate, the Clerk will read. Senate Bill 661, Private Labs Must Comply with CODIS. Judiciary II. Members we have a school group visiting with us this morning from the Eno Valley Elementary in Durham, North Carolina. Would you all please stand so that we could welcome you? Thank you for being here. I'm not sure where you are in Durham but you three members

from Durham County are Representative Michaux right here on the front, Representative Hall, and Representative Luebke, they are your three representatives from Durham County who are standing up there. Calendar. Mr. Speaker. For what purpose does the gentleman from Gaston, Representative Torbett rise? Point of personal privilege Mr. Speaker. The gentleman has the floor for a moment of personal privilege. It's not uncommon we have school groups in our chambers who are visiting in the gallery to watch the proceedings of their government take place, but something astonishing at least to me happens this morning, I think it deserves an honorable mention to say the least. During the pledge of allegiance I heard a resounding, and almost angelic noise coming from the gallery from these young folks that were reciting our pledge of allegiance, and I think they need another round of applause for that Mr. Speaker. For what purpose does the gentleman from Durham, Representative Michaux rise? Just to remind the member that those angelic voices came from Durham. Those might be the only angelic voices we hear from Durham Representative Michaux You're lucky. For what purpose does the gentleman from Rowan, Representative Warren rise? Mr. Speaker, just to add to Representative's Torbett remarks. I think be re-misses the body not to acknowledge the fine example set by their teachers as well. Noted. Members it appears we're ready to proceed with our calendar. House Bill 224, the court will read. Representatives R. Turner, Baskerville, House Bill 224 a bill to be entitled An Act to various laws affecting administrative office of the courts. General Assembly of North Carolina you're next. The lady from Iredell, Representative Turner has the floor to debate the bill. I'm not sure if there is an amendment to be offered?  No amendment has been sent forward. Alright thank you. We discussed this yesterday and I appreciate your vote and your support on this, it's a nice clean up bill that I think you can all enjoy, thank you. Further discussion, further debate, if not the question before the house is the passage of House Bill 224 on its third reading. Those in favor will vote aye, those opposed will vote the clerk will open the vote. Representative Insko Representative Davis, do the members wish to record on this vote? Representative Setzer? The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 119 having voted in affirmative and none in the negative, House Bill 224 passes it's 3rd reading and will without abjection be read a 3rd time. General Assembly of North Carolina you're next. question for the house is the passage of House Bill 224 on the 3rd reading. Those in favor will say aye? Those opposed will say no? The ayes have it, the House Bill 224 passes the 3rd reading will be sent to the Senate. What purpose does the gentleman from Henderson, Representative McGrady rise? To make a motion with respect to a bill. Just a minute, the house will come to order, the gentleman from Henderson has the floor for a motion. Mr. Speaker I move that House Bill 529 North Carolina Driver's Licence Restoration Act be recalled from the Senate for further consideration by the house. And if I speak a motion. The gentleman has the floor to debate the motion. Mr. Speaker, this relates to the Bill that we've already passed and it's actually over in the Senate. We Senator's quite amenable with the motion, after the bill passed the incarceration showed a really big number for potential cost of this and since we've got to put those numbers in our budget, we would really prefer to make sure that number is right before we have to bank a big number into the budget. And so we see consent of the bill sponsors we're simply recalling the bill so that we can make sure we pay attention to that going forward. Representative Horde, I see the gentleman's light on does the gentleman wish to debate this motion? No sir.

I had another motion. I'm sorry.  Further discussion further debate on the motion from the gentlemen from Henderson if not, the question for the house is the motion to recall House Bill 529 from the Senate. Those in favor will vote aye, those opposed will vote no, the clerk will open the vote. Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote motion passes votes 119-0 the Senate will be so notified. Message will be sent to the Senate. For what purpose does the gentleman from Union Representative Horde rise? For motion regarding today's calendar. Gentleman's recognized for motion. Thank you Mr. Speaker. I requested House Bill 659 calendered for today short title control update precursor list be recounted next week. Does the gentleman wish they'd be recounted for Monday night? I would prefer Tuesday, if you don't mind Sir. Just to make sure we get all the. Without objection so ordered. House Bill 584, the Clerk will read. Representatives Glazier, Faircloth, Daughtry, and Harrison, House Bill 584 a bill to be entitled an act to clarify that a legislator or a public servant may reference their public position in a letter of reference. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. The gentleman Cumberland, Representative Glazier is recognized to debate the bill. Thank you Mr. Speaker, and if you all would remember this had a fairly strong vote on its second reading. It's to allow us to do things we thought we were already allowed to do by putting it into the ethics rules, Representative Stam[sp?] had an objection yesterday, we've talked, he's not seeking any change in the bill today and I would encourage your vote for the bill. I know of no opposition, thank you. Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of House Bill 584 on its third reading. Those in favor will vote I, those opposed will vote No, the clerk will open the vote. Representative Adams is. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote, 118 having voted in the affirmative and one in the negative. House Bill 584 passes its third reading, it will be sent to the Senate. Does the gentleman from Stage[sp?] wish to be recorded as voting I? The gentleman will be recorded as voting I. Members on motion of Representative Lewis of [xx] County the Chair is happy to extend the courtesies of the gallery to Wesley [xx] Seals and his Trident[sp?] High School Civics class. Would you all please stand so that we can welcome you today to the House of Representatives? Thank you for being here. House Bill 318, the clerk will read. Representative [xx], [xx], [xx] and House Bill 318, a bill to be entitled on how to increase the number of employers who are required to participate in the Federal E-verify Program to appeal the verify exemption of temporary employees to exclude farm workers from the definition of employee under Article two of Chapter 64 of the General Statute. to require either track of plants and certain gym gubernatorial contracts and to revive the certain consulate or embassy documents may not be used to determine a person's identification or residency for governmental are law enforcement purposes [xx]. The gentleman from [xx] Representative [xx] is recognized to debate the bill. Thank you Mr. Speaker. $1.7 billion net, $1.7 billion net is what illegal aliens are costing the State of North Carolina. We have 2, 725 give or take illegal aliens in the Judicial system in jails in North Carolina. We have 13, 500 aliens legals partaking in our Medicaid system. We've allowed this to happen at the cost of $1.7

billion net. House Bill 318 will amend the law to increase the number employers who are required participate in the E-verify system. We're appealing the exemption for temporary employees. We're excluding farm workers in the definition of employee under article 2 of chapter three and 54, who've taken farm employees out of this. We're requiring either find compliance in certain governmental contracts, and we're providing the consulate or embassy documents may not be used to determine the identification or residency for governmental or law enforcement purposes. Section one of the bill will amend the definition of employee to remove the exclusion for employers whose terms of employment is less than nine months of the calender year, and as a provision excluding farm workers, and depending contractors of individuals who provide domestic service in a private home out of sporadic, irregular, or intermittent basis. The section also amends the definition of employer to reduce the number of employees an employer must have to be subject to the law. Currently the law applies to employees of 25 five or more and we're going to reduce it to five. That reduction will bring an additional 110, 500 [xx] employers into the E-verified system. It still leaves 149, 700 employers that are not required to use E-verify system. Section two A of the bill has a new section to the public contract laws. the new provision prohibits any Board or governing body of the state or any state institution political subdivision of the state from entering a contract unless the contractor and any subcontractors comply with the state E-verify requirements. The government [xx] can satisfy this requirement by including in the contract, a term requiring the contractor or subcontractors to comply with the state E-verify requirements. The provision specifically [xx] from the transportation contracts for transportation, lodging solely for the purchase of goods or piggy bag contracts. These are contracts for purchases established and other stated federal contracts extended to other governmental agencies. What we have done here is allied the concerns that were voiced by the the municipalities and local governments to make sure they were not overburdened by this E-verify requirements section 2 B and C repeal provisions prohibiting municipalities and counties from entering contracts unless the contract comprises E-verify requirement once they're now covered by the new section which is the one I just read. Section 3 amends the Local Government Finance Act with symposium finance officers who give a false certificate to a contract or agreement on the current law the finance officers is liable for any offence illegally dispersed this section has a provision that inclusion of a contract term required in the contract to comply with the state E-verified requirements is being compliant with the request we've protected the finance officers so  that they'll not have any problems going forward with this conforming changes to various sections of article through chapter 54 section 11 has a new section article through chapter 54 which is the consequences for violation of the new governmental contract e-verify requirement the commissioner of labor is directed to nullify any needed the standard violations of the statute and if they find violations they'll post it on their website. Section 12 has a new article into chapter 15 A titled Identification Documents. This is the councilor cards there is no reason other than being an illegal alien in this state to have a councilor card. This was something that was accepted years ago by the state so that illegals could meld into society. They could open a bank account they would have something to say, and hey here I am and this is who I am earlier on this process generated unfavorable problems for the state and for individuals you could get not one councilor card you can If you get six councilor cards with different names on them, same face different names, the Mexican consulate and other consulates

have claimed this process of some that it's still able to get more than one consulate card and have more than one ID in reality. It's a process that should have been stopped years ago and as I said the only reason that an individual needs a consulate card is that he's in the country illegally. This section will remove any government or law enforcement agency from using a consulate card or any local identification card issued by a local identity for identification the National Chamber of Commerce has published and accepted but they say is a good system and they recommended all of the employees in the country use the e-verify system and again, $1.7 billion dollars is the cost net to our state. I would much rather be able to recoup some of that money and use it for our citizens and not illegals. Mr. Chairman, I'll stand for questions. For what purpose does the gentleman from Donolm representative Luki arise. Mr. Speaker just to comment first and then see if representative Cliven will yield for question but first to comment on the bill. The gentleman does  opt to debate the bill. Thank you Mr. Speaker and members this is a very, very long bill, but I think I found I think there's a very problematic area over the bill in section five at the top of the page three, and I would really urge you if you would to look at that carefully as I said because I think it's problematic to see if Representative Cleveland would yield for a question?  And does the gentleman from Oswald yield to the gentleman [xx]. Can I make a comment first? No sir in reply  to Representative [xx]?  Representative Cleveland, does the gentleman yield to an inquiry from [xx] Yes Sir, I will. The gentleman yields, gentleman may state his inquiry. He's yielding for my question, right sir? Yes sir. Thank you. Representative Cleveland can you explain to all of us, what section five is what it means, what can happen because of section five in the bill? section five is present law that was in the original e-verify we passed, E-verify bill we passed. The complaint can be made get top the labor commissioner and they would investigate it. Follow up. Does the gentleman from Onslow yield to an additional question? He yields. So do you support then what we have here in the bill that says any person with a good faith, belief that a violation has occurred can file a complaint with the commissioner. Anyone who just thinks the employer might have made a mistake or is, and I have a gripe with the employer, any of us can do that, is that your. Representative Luebke that's the law now, that was in our original e-verify bill  and if I think, do I think an employee who has lost his job because an illegal alien took his job should not have an avenue of complaint? I most certainly think he should Follow up. Does the gentleman from Onslow yield to an additional question He yields  I don't see, I recognize that this is in the bill that was passed, and I think was the bill that many of us had concerns about before debating including this section. It doesn't say here that this has to do with anything involving people who are not here with proper papers, people who are not citizens, or legal residents. It says anybody with a good faith belief that violation of e verify has occurred can file a complaint. Do you think that's alright just for any reason to have a good faith believe that I can file a complaint and tie up the [xx] If the citizen of the state has a good faith belief that illegals are doing something being employed, and or whatever, and then need an avenue of relief, yes I do. If I can continue where does it say illegals? Does the gentleman wish to pose a different question. Yes sir that was the question. Where does it reference that this is only about term illegals. Well, it's in the bill concerning e-verify, and e-verify deals with illegal employment in

the state. And one last question. Does the gentleman from Oswald yield for a question? there's a sense of the bottom of the paragraph saying nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the filling of anonymous complaints on the form. Anonymous complaints, do you think it's good law that we can continue to have in a bill that anonymous complaints come in against an employer?  Representative Luke here, this is been law for I think if I remember rightly eight or nine ten, eight years, seven years or something like that. To my knowledge there has been no problems with it. The department of labor has a few complaints and they have investigated him. I don't see the citizens out there and all of the state trying to stir up trouble. I have to speak on the bill. The gentleman has the floor to continue his debate. Members of the house I think that whether this is new language or old language, it represents a problem. Here we have a paragraph in a Bill that says if you have a good [xx] faith belief that something happened, you can file a complaint. What if I have a good faith and belief that the contractor from [xx] has not properly charged me sales tax? Has charged me too much sales tax. Should I be able to file a complaint with the Department of Revenue? That's really what this section of the bill allows, and when you go further than that and say I can just do it unanimously, it seems even more of a problem problem that we have this and there. Representative [xx], for what purpose does the gentleman from [xx] Stammer arise? To ask a specific question on that specific point. The gentleman from [xx] yields. Representative [xx] if you think that that [xx] is not collecting the correct sales tax, do you think there's anything that stops you from bringing that to the attention of the department of revenue? Today? No sir, the issue is that we put this in statute. To me members, to put something in this wide  open in the statute is a problem. And to me, it's enough reason for us to vote no on the bill. The very fact that we do not have to identify here a good reason what represents good faith belief. We have no idea what that means yet we have it here in the bill. If this needs to be tightend up, It should have been tightend  up in committee and there may be other, I think there are other issues in the bill but I would start right there in saying section five is far too broad it's something that ought to be cleaned up and I would urge you not to support the bill, thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman from Richmond representative Goodman, arise. To debate the bill. The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the house I would like to thank the bill sponsors for bringing this bill forward and representative Cleveland I appreciate all your comments and I want to say that I agree with most of the things you said but I also want to say that a couple of years ago, we passed an e-verify bill which was hammered out with a lot of stake holders of business community and other people that set up a threshold of 25 employees to implement this and that was a compromise I think some business groups wanted it to be, 50 but it was negotiated down to 25, and I stood up on the floor and supported that. I have a business that I'm associated with the uses E-Verify, uses it very successfully, they work 180 people and they can take all the calls to do that, and spread it over a lot of employees. To reduce this number to five employees, it just creates to me a burden on a small business that is just like a lot of the others regulations we impose on small businesses, unfair, they just can't comply as easily as a major manufacturer or somebody like that so my view is that that is just too tough for small business. Some small businesses with good number of employees don't even have the sophistication to be able to do what is necessary to be done so I would ask and excuse me there's one other provision that temporary employees are subject

to E-Verify, we're going to say that a high school student that wants to work at Wall Matt during a Christmas vacation has to be subject the to E-verify rules I think that's just too tough. I wish we would take this bill back take a look at it and see if we could raise that number a little bit and do a better job and for that reason I'm going to vote against the bill. Thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman from Transylvania Representative Whitmeyer arise. Debate the bill? The gentlemen has the floor to debate the bill. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members of body arise in support of this bill very many reason. I want you to think of the drain on resident citizen wages when we allow companies that will be and hire folks under the table because, they will work for half a wage without benefits, without workers compensation and a whole nine yards, as compared to those companies that do it by the rules, they do it right, do it by the law, think about the drain on wages, think about North Carolina as it's situated on the Eastern [xx] with our rules being so lax, we've trapped illegals here, and what does that do? That sucks away vital funds from very vital social programs we have that are there for people who are residents, people that have paid their dues, people that have a need not for some open bordered folks coming social welfare of state, we have to have limits, we opened the barn door far too wide in the past, this is a correction measure think about education. My goodness, we know education is funding. Let's fund our children, our nieces, nephews, our neighbors kids no legals, you know, we can be compassionate but we have to have some degree of respect for ourselves. Big money talks, yes it does, but if you cross the numbers and you look at the 1.6 trillion that's added to the GDP nationally and you get right down to bare facts, the average worker, 147 men in the country, and I can get the State Statistics if you want. Takes of big hit on their wage. Security risk, you know, look at illegals and their driving records, look at so many things that do not produce any good. Yeah, there's a few winners, but local and state governments lose, lose, lose please vote green on this bill and when you are thinking back in your district do you want to have job protection for a legals but you want jobs and were created in the state to go to folks who are legal resident, citizens of this state not illegal. Please vote Agree. For what purpose does the gentleman from [xx] Representative Millers arise? To speak very briefly on the bill. The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, I didn't plan on saying too much on this but I wanted to actually address comments in regard to compliance, to make sure that you all feel at ease about what we're doing here in North Carolina regarding our E-verify Statute. Statute that we currently have but it have been guarded out of the last two to three years and has to come hollow vessel. So just to let you know in regards to North Carolina, we are not an island, these policies, the statutes of other States around us definitely affects this issue in the fact that from a public school stand point, from a law enforcement stand point, and all of this things, it is a definitely, you have to look at the actual net cost of our policies and how that affects our very constituents, our very taxpayers and as you heard from Representative [xx] the net effects is over 1.7 billion dollars to the State. With that said, I wanted to give you a little bit of summary about what are the compliance cost actually whether compliance aspects of other states actually have if you go kind of from South all the way up to the Eastern aspects of our states Arizona has a e verified wall where all employers are required to use. Alabama all employers are required to use, Florida state agencies are required, Georgia definitely has some stranger requirements with not only the aspect of public contractors, but also to the aspects is that if all mandatory notifications public contracts for new hire withing five days, all private employers also are required to use E-Verify with a certain threshold. In Louisiana if you actually called ineligible you lose any type of state contracts for three years. I keep on going

on Mississippi all employers, South Carolina all employers with the sixth threshold, excuse me, that's Tennessee, South Carolina, public employers and all employers required to use the E-verify. Ladies and gentlemen all we're doing here is to establish a very vetted, a very thorough bill that we've worked tremendously on to responsibly put the guards back in the verified law that we once had. In regards to compliance ladies and gentlemen, this is easy, we've actually talked to businesses one or two minutes actually make sure that an individual is actually verified in terms of E-verified at zero calls to the actual employee ladies and gentlemen this is common sense, this responsible, this vetted, this is prudent, and I sincerely ask for all of the members here to vote on this unanimously. Members we're pleased to be joined by a group from Hiddenite Elementary School in Alexander county if they would stand the group is represented but representative Zachary who is busy in conversation in the back at the moment, but we're pleased that you could join us, members would you welcome this [xx] We'll return to debate now. For what purpose does the lady from [xx], Representative Conrad arise? to speak to the bill. The lady has the floor to debate the bill. Thank you. I rise as one of the primary sponsors of this bill to address a couple of issues. I'm also a small business owner. I do not see this as a burden on small businesses, this is a responsibility. For the other tax payers citizens and legal citizens in the state of North Carolina. When I was a county commissioner back in, I think it was in 2006, I testified before a congressional sub-committee on illegal immigration at the request of representative Virginia Foxx, just to delineate some of the cost at the county level that we were seeing in the detention center. And our public school system, and our healthcare system. And the numbers back then were almost a decade ago were staggering. Also wanted to address as far as the burden on small business the technology of the verified system has vastly improved. That is why back in 2013 a representative of the United States Chamber [xx] her name was Lisa [xx], the Director of Immigration Policy, chain of the request of Representative [xx] to address our committee, on their support. of the e verified system. She stated that the technical aspects of the e verified system are vastly improved. She stated the accuracy was at that point a couple of years ago 97%, allowing the US Chamber with our members to reassess our previous position. We now support a uniform national policy expanding the use of e-verify. For the US chamber the most important issues remaining for e-verify and this was back in 2013, an employment verification policy are strong, preemptive language for state and local laws that mandate the use of e-verify and establish state of local investigation or enforcement schemes. I ask for your yes vote on this bill. I consider this one of the most important bills [xx] thank you. Mr. Speaker. For what purpose does the gentleman from [xx] arise? To ask the question of the lady. Would the lady from [xx] yield to the gentleman from [xx]? Yes I do. She yields. Thank you Mr. Speaker. We are talking a lot about E-verify and I'm not sure that I fully understand what it takes to e-verify somebody. If I start a business or buy a business, and I'm told we'll I've got to use E-verify, how do I do that when somebody comes through my door and ask for a job?. Well I'll have to admit I'm not the best expert on it and I believe representative [xx] and tell you [xx] or let him follow up but that's al right with additional information. But I know you take you take the name and the social security number, so whatever ID number people, person seeking employment with you and run through the systems. And you should also keep your documentation should ever any enforcement the people come to visit you to prove that you have used the verify system in case there is some kind of glitch or inaccuracy in the system. But if you would also like to address that same question and ask if Representative Cleveland would answer, perhaps it can give you some more additional plans.

For what purpose does the general from Dilford Representative Help would arise? Thank you Mr. Speaker, if I could direct that question to Representative Cleveland. Would the gentleman from [xx] yield to the gentleman from [xx]? yield? He yields. The business would enter into agreement with the federal government to use the system. When they hire somebody, they [xx] what they call an Iron nine[sp?] card. You take the information off that Iron nine[sp?] card you put it into your computer and 30 second operation and send it and the system goes to the Social Security Database and the Homeland Security Database. If there is no no problems within a matter of hours you'll get a reply saying things are fine. If there is a problem, it'll probably take maybe 12 hours or so to get a reply and when a reply comes back since the individual is not authorized to work, you notify the individual, and I believe he has eight days in which to bring in proper documentation to show that he's employable. For what purpose does the gentleman from Orange, Representative Meyer arise? To debate the bill. The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. Colleagues there, probably, there are some things related to this bill that we can all agree on. I think we all would like to see unemployment in the State of North Carolina go down, I think we are all probably concerened about the way that any employer uses under the table approaches to hire and pay labour contribute to a lowering of wages overall that there are also, are probably some differences that we have about the approach of this bill. One of those differences I believe is simply a difference in our consideration of compassion for people who come to this country in a way that they simply have not had an opportunity because of our broken immigration system to have a legal way to enter this country for economic opportunity. Which really comes to one other point that where we probably have agreement. Which is the feds have to fix this problem. And it's tough for us to figure out in North Carolina, what can we do about those who are here trying to find that economic opportunity in our state. And we have very few levers that work very well for addressing that? Some of the other states that have been referenced that have tried similar measures to this Alabama, Arizona, Georgia have found some very unpleasant, unintended consequences. Problems with the labor market, problems for small business, lots of negative price for their state. I don't think the North Carolina needs to go down that path. I think that the Feds need to fix this problem, I don't think we need to do this bill that would open up a can of worms for parts of our labor market and for our economy overall. And I think we just need to have a little bit of compassion for people that for reasons of economic strife or political strife in their homeland have sought the United States as a new homeland, place of opportunity, they don't want to be here to take away from someone, they want to be here to help us build the better state and better country and I believe a little compassion will help us and I have to urge you to vote against this bill. For what purpose does the lady from New Hanover representative Hamilton arise? To ask the bill sponsor a would the Gentleman from Onslow yield to the lady from New Henna[sp?]? I yield. He yields. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Cleveland, I have this question in committee yesterday, so pardon the repeat. But we thought a lot today in session about the United States Chamber regarding this bill and I'm curious, has the United State Chamber, endorsed this bill specifically? I. The gentleman. I have not [xx] to build to the United State Chamber I did not think it was necessary, it's one of the military be verified bill across debt and have been running on other state, s and their statement concerning E-Verify were nationwide. Thank you. For what purpose does a gentleman from Onslow represented Cleveland arise? I speak again on the bill. The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill a second time. Thank you Mr. Chairman, Speaker I'm sorry. I'd like to address immigration, legal immigration. This deals with the people

who are here not to be American has build us. It deals with people who are here for economic reasons, coming here for economic reasons and that's about it. But going back to legal immigration. This country takes in more immigrants than probably any 25 countries in the world annually. And matter of fact I read going through some things this morning, and I think it was 25 years, the country will be about 54% immigrants. legal immigrants. This country has more compassion that it can afford. And it's our responsibility to our citizens to make sure that they are not subsidizing illegalities. Please support the bill. Mr. Speaker For what purpose does the gentleman from Orange Representative Buyer rise? Would like to ask Representative Cleveland question if you he would yield? Would the gentleman from Maslow yield for gentlemen from Orange? I yield. He yields.  Representative Cleveland to undocumented immigrant from the state of North Carolina contribute more to our tax pays than they receive back in government benefits, or do they receive more in government benefits than they contribute in taxes? I was speaking English when I started I thought, illegal immigrants in the State of North Carolina cause the taxpayer $1.7 billion annually. We have 25000 odd in jail that we're supporting. We have 13500 some on Medicaid. The illegal population in the state of North Carolina is not a financial plus, it's a financial drag. I believe that was what you were asking me, correct? Would the gentleman from Onslow yield. I yield. There's no question.  Representative Cleveland do you know how much they contribute in taxes? I think it's somewhere around $400, 000 I think the total cost to total is around maybe $500, 000 but $500, 000 is next to 1.7 billion is not much. Members for what purpose does the gentleman from Durham, Representative Rookie rise? If Representative Cleveland will yield to a question. Would the gentleman from Onslow yield to a question I yield. He yields. Did I hear you say with all the sales tax paid by all the immigrants that are referenced in this bill, plus the income tax that many pay, and the fees that they pay on various things. Are you telling me that the grand total is $400, 000? I think I said 500, and I'm trying to recall this checkers. I think the total cost of illegals was $2.2 billion, in it was $1.7 billion, so yes. I'm sorry, $500 million, I'm using the wrong one is $500 million. May I speak on the bill a second time. The gentleman from Durham is recognized to debate the bill a second time. Thank you Mr. Speaker, members of the house. I understand completely the logic behind and it does have some problems in that, people with the same name can be quite with proper papers here, but not in another place and they'll be caught up in the system. Better stand the logic be verified. So what I don't think we should be doing is setting off this issue and the issue dealing with undocumented residence or illegal residence, setting it off and doing things in bills or speaking about this people can waste speaking about others. It simply is not right to talk about fellow human beings, and lump them as criminals or law breakers or words like that when if you know immigrants you know that they're human beings who work hard, who care about their children, who And religious services. Then unlike you and me, so I think it's really problematic while you may like the bill. Is problematic to have an under tone to the discussion, that somehow does not treat these immigrants as

God's children, just as we are, and I hope you will consider that for future conversations about this issue and to think a lot about how We need a better tone.   We are going to discuss this. The reason I said before and for reasons representative Bidman said about the burden on small employers, I'm going to oppose the bill. but the tone really need to change here, to remember we're all God's children. Thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman from Gaston representative Tom Gardner rise? To debate the bill. The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. Thank you Mr. Speaker. I keep hearing this the tone, and yes we can all be friendlier sometimes when we use a certain tone of voice to speak about people that disagree with our opinion. What we're talking about here is the rule of law. Either we're a nation of laws or we're not. Either people came here illegally or they did not, if they came here illegally, they broke the law to come here. That's really the bottom line on this whole debate and that's why we need to vote green on this bill. Thank You. For what purpose does the gentleman from Nash Representative Collins arise? Brief the debate the bill. The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. Well, as someone who has actually served as a pastor for a group of [xx] migrant workers in my area for five summers and their request when they would come for six months at a time, I understand these people are very human, I have compassion form, David and Mitchell and some of the other fellows who were gracious enough to translate for me since I could hardly speak a word of Haitian Creoles, I love them, they are my brothers to this day. So I think I qualify as far as having compassion for people, but to me telling the vocabulary are two different things. People who are here illegally have broken the law whether we like it or not. So if we say somebody has broken the law, or is illegal, is a fact, that's not a tone, that's not a condemnation, that's a statement. Lot of God's children have broken the law, so some of us are and some of us aren't but to try to criticize people because they use the word illegal it's just leaving in a fantasy world somewhere. People who have broken the law are here illegally and I can tell you this people who have gone to the trouble of immigrating here legally and even getting green cards to come here, and work here legally will be the biggest opponents of this bill and to me have decried illegal immigration much stronger than I ever have in any venue. I understand all people are worthy of humane treatment, but that doesn't mean that we just willy nilly let people come in regardless of what our laws are, and to me we're doing a great disservice to those people who abide by our laws and who come here and immigrate legally when we say, we're not going to make any distinctions between those folks and the folks who don't bother to abide by our laws. So I'm going to support this bill, and I hope you will too. For what purpose does the gentleman from Pitt, Representative Brown arise? Inquiry of the Chair. The gentleman may state his Inquiry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, and members I apologise about this. We've been waiting on this for a few minutes, but I'm actually having an amendment drafted. So I would request, if there are no future speakers to potentially temporarily displace the bill while I have this amendment finalized. Members will be there be objection to temporarily displacing this bill so that the gentleman may offer his amendment. The gentleman from Onslow has rejected. The procedure would now be representative Brown that we would continue debate on this bill. You, as a member would have the authority opportunity to object a third reading and your amendment could be considered at that time. The chair will note that the gentleman is noting that he intends to objected the third, the chair will acknowledge that that objection has been raised For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland Representative Lucas arise? To speak briefly on the bill The gentleman has the floor to debate the bil. Thank you Mr. Speaker. I found it quite intriguing and I certainly concur that we ought not tolerate illegal folk in our state or in our country. But it seems to me that there's a real plausible easy solution for this. If we made it a felony for any employer to hire one. That to me would solve the problem. I don't know if we really have intestinal potitude to that, but if we're interested in solutions that certainly would solve the problem. We do not feel like that

anybody ought to be here illegally, and supposed that the inquiry evolving from the debate leads me to wonder if my great great grandfather was here illegally because he was brought over here on a slave ship. I just have problems. Thank you. For what purpose does the lady from Souri[sp?] represent Steven Sorag[sp?]. Any query with the chair please? The lady may state her in query. Mr. Chair based on the hour that we are with the would the chair considered suspending Rule 12D because I'm getting angry? Members without objection Rule 12D will be suspended objected too by General from Onslow the objection haven't been withdrawn Rule 12D is suspended. Further discussion for the debate on house committee substitute number 2 for house bill 318. Seeing none the question before the house is the passage of house committee substitute number 2 for house bill 318 on its second reading. Those favoring passage will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. the Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote with 80 voting in the affirmative and 39 in the negative. The House Committee substitute number 2 for House bill 318 has passed its second reading and will remain on the calendar. Members without objections we're going to move ahead to House bill 523 on the calendar house bill 523. For what purpose does the gentleman fro Gaston rise? For a motion Mr. Speaker. The gentleman may state his motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. House bill 633 having passed Judiciary I move that it be removed from Reg reform encountered, pursue it to rule 36B. Mr. Speaker. Would the gentleman state the bill number and short title? I would be more than happy to once my to come back online but it's the one that deals with the appraiser's bill that as the Judiciary 4, hang on one second, 633. Members while the gentleman from Gaston is preparing the motion and the gentleman from Durham is preparing to review it, we're going to move ahead to House bill 523 and I will recognise the, the Chair will recognise the gentleman in just a moment. House bill 523 the Clerk will read. Representative Sean Gram [xx] and Peters house bill 523 the bill to be entitled on Act to direct the division of motor vehicle to use certain designation and drivers licences when listing the race of an applicant who isn't American Indian, in bill general assembly of North Carolina enact For what purpose does the gentleman from Robison Representative Bryan arise? To explain the bill Mr. Speaker The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members this is a very simple bill and the crafts to the bill is identified and explain on line 18 in the language basically gives an American Indian who's doing their application or renewing their licenses the option of having AI as the race designation as opposed to letter I. I'll use myself as an example. When I renew my license in two years, I will go through the process of having a licences issued. If this law passes I would be identified as an American-Indian as opposed to the letter I. Now you can interpret the letter I  in a lot of different direction, or go a lot of different ways with that, but AI is a designation. The tribes have asked me to do this, the North Carolina commission has asked me to do this, and I certainly appreciate your support. Now yield to any questions. further discussion further debate on House Bill 523? Seeing non the question before the house is the passage of house bill 523 on its second reading, those favoring passage will say aye support of me strike that, those favoring passage of House Bill

523 will vote aye, those oppose will vote no, the clerk will open the vote The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote, with 119 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative house bill Bill 523 has passed its second reading and will without objection be read a third time General assembly of North Carolina enact Further discussion further debate? Seeing none the question before the house is the passage of House Bill 523 on its third reading those favoring passage will say aye, Aye. Those who oppose will say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and house bill 523 has passed its third reading and will be sent to the Senate. The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Gaston in just a moment. As a point of clarification, the bill that was referenced early here is House Bill 623. The short title is Occupational Licence Professional Designation- appraisers. Thank you Mr. Speaker. For what purpose does the gentleman from Gaston, Representative [xx] rise? For a motion, I'm inclined to add a motion that will remove  the timeout algorithm on the computer system as well so the motion will be once again, if needed Mr. Chair to remove house bill 633 from red reform. Counter for [xx] rule 36b and you jut went over the title The gentleman from Gaston has moved that House Bill 633, short title Occupational persons, professional dissipation of appraisers be removed from the committee on laboratory reform, added to calender 36b, Is their objection to the gentleman motion? Seeing none so order [xx] Members we're going to return at this time to the third reading of House Bill 318. House Bill 318 the clerk will read. General Senate of North Carolina enacts. For what purpose, t The Chair apologises. Members the Chair apologizes. The Chair thought we were in possession of the amendment from the gentleman from Pitt, that not being the case, the objection to the third is still standing and. Mr. Speaker. For what purpose does the gentleman from Pitt arise? Thank you Mr. Speaker. I would like to remove my objection to third reading please. The gentleman from Pitt, having removed his objection to third reading for House Bill 318, we will return to House Bill 318, the bill has been read a third time. Is there further discussion or debate on the House Committee substitute for House Bill 318? Seeing nine, the question before the house is the passage of House Committee substitute number 2 for House bill 318 on it's third reading. Those favoring passage of House Committee substitute number 2 for House Bill 318, will say Aye. Aye. Those opposed will say no. No. In the opinion of the Chair, the Ayes have it and House Committee Substitute number 2 for House Bill 318 has passed its third reading, and will be sent to the Senate. House Bill 465, the clerk will read. Representatives Schaffer, McGrath, R. Turner, S. Martin, House Bill 465 a bill to be entitled an act to acquire 72 hours for provision on its own consent  either by telephone or in person to clarify and modify certain lost the pertaining to abortion, General Assembly of North Carolina in Act. For what purpose does the lady from Mecklenburg Representative Shepard arise? To debate the bill.   The lady has the floor to debate the bill. Thank you Mr. Speaker, members you have before you and your desk fold out, we passed the committee substitute out of the house yesterday for House Bill 465. I want to take you

through the bill, there are two main provision that we will discuss and then some technical confirming changes that also appear in the bill. The first portion concerns on my reporting requirement, I'm essentially requiring physician who perform abortion to report certain information to DHHS as well as increasing to 72 hours the waiting period for women who voluntarily consent to abortion. On the reporting requirements section we have two kind of subsections under that for abortions occurring, and that post 20 week period of time requires physicians to perform this abortion to report information the DHHS, to ensure that the staff tutorial rush now was provided for this abortion and importantly our state law says that post 20 week abortions may not occur unless there's a substantial risk that the continuance of the pregnancy would threaten the life, or gravely impair the health of the woman, so we want to make sure that this law is being followed, and so we want to make sure that physicians are following that requirement. For abortions that occur between 18 and 20 weeks, were also asking for these physicians to report the information regarding those abortions it's just similar to that point that I just made. We have this 20-week wall and unfortunately we we have, in our statistics we have about a thousand abortions, that information is unaccounted for we don't have a gestation age of that pregnancy, and so again. We want to make sure that the law is being followed, and so we're going to ask for these records to be transmitted. Importantly we have a very strong confidentiality about that the confidentiality of the patient is to be maintained. The doctors needs to be doing this in compliance with [xx]. We did want to make sure that we were protecting the privacy of the patients in accordance with the law. The second major provision has to do with the waiting period. We have, as I said the bill calls for the extension of the 24 hour waiting period to 72 hours. Current law tells us that before a woman can obtain an abortion, [xx] and the chair is receiving from various parts of the chamber, indications that members are having difficulty hearing. Chair will respectfully ask members observe the chorum in the chamber the lady your attention due on this debate. Lady from Mecklenburg may continue. Thank you Mr. Speaker. As I was saying current law tell us that before a woman can obtain an abortion and she must receive certain information by phone of in person at least 24 hours prior to the procedure. The bill extends that waiting period to 72 hours want to, very strongly point out that, we are not changing the requirement or the provision that allows women to receive that information  by phone, we are that we are simply giving her more time to make that decision. We see waiting periods all through out areas of our society. In the medical context as well as in the real estate context, in the issues relating to marriage. There is a reason that we want people to have enough information, to have time to consider decisions. We've received a lot of testimony from women in this situations, who are contemplating terminating a pregnancy as well as their doctors, who agree that, the poorest decisions that we make are the ones that we make under pressure and on impulse. And so we want to ensure that women have ample amount of time to receive that information, so that they can make the best decision. As we have explained, that decision may still end up being terminating the pregnancy but we want women to be equipped with the right information as they're going to make that decision. In some we believe that we have come to a decision on this language that really does empower women, that it promotes the health and safety of women as they're making these important decisions. So we believe that this is truly a bill that those who are both pro-life and pro-choice can get behind because it's ensuring that women are properly informed while making that choice so, thank you Mr. Speaker, and I urge your support of the bill. For what purpose does the lady from Mecklenburg, Representative Cotham rise? To debate the bill Mr speaker. The lady has the floor to debate the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. The debate over abortion is not an easy topic. It's one that someone as young as myself in this Chamber has lived in a time where abortions were always allowed and to be safe. It's hard to imagine someone of my age when that was not the case but throughout my life I have heard these stories, I have seen the historical recounts from women older than me, some of you in this chamber.

Younger women could easily take abortion access for granted and could reasonably ask all of us why are you always talking about abortions? Sometimes these hard questions or topics don't always resignate, until it hits you personally, because this is a personal issue. Many of you know that I have had had two babies while serving at the legislature. The only woman to have two babies while serving What you may not know. Is that I've been pregnant three times while serving and I have, two beautiful, adorable boys to show. My first pregnancy ended in an induced position assisted miscarriage, while I served in this chamber. It's not the type of miscarriage that we often think of where you loose the baby completely and it's over. That's not what happened. My doctor told me that this pregnancy would likely not be viable, and that if I did not take swift medical action, my life, and any hope of future babies would be in severe danger. I trusted my doctor, and her medical expertise. The time sensitive medical process, procedures that I had to endure, began immediately. It was awful, and it didn't work. The doctor told me that I had to take more aggressive medical action. This would require hospital checking, hospital stay, procedures and even chemotherapy, it was awful, it was painful and it was sad and it is and was personal, but I knew, and I trusted that God had a plan for me. This decision was up to me, my husband, my doctor and my God. It wasn't up to any you in this chamber and I didn't take a survey. I will always feel the loss of my first pregnancy, and I will everyday feel the extreme joy of my two boys and I feel that my decision to save my life, the plan that I believe God had for me me was so that I could have Allien and Ryan. Yesterday in the health committee I was offended by the repeated message that women need more time to make such a decision, and it seemed extremely ironic that such big policy changes we were making that us little we women didn't get more time to make that decision. It was stated that this medical procedure is life changing, and therefore more time is needed to weigh options. I ask the bill sponsor what other life changing procedures require such a 72 hour wait. A double mastectomy a gall bladder removal, leg amputation all of these are life changing that they do not require such a wait. And I think that shows the real motive hear, there's an old saying to mean what it say and say what you mean. We kind of don't do that in politics too much we say what we think we want to here, so let me translate from yesterday for you. The proponents said we are

respecting women by giving them more time. What that means is because women are not capable of making the decisions, and we need to help them. We heard the proponents say give the information that she needs. What that means is medical accuracy is not required, we're going to give her the info that we want her to here. We had the proponent say don't let emotions get in the way, let politicians get in the way. This extended wait period for a legal medical procedure that you and I may not like, is not about respect or support of women. The wait period is simply about creating barriers which will unfairly harm especially women of very limited financial means. This wait period is about perpetuating shame, and it's about politicians wanting to play doctor. What a terrible message this sends to young women about how we perceive their lack of ability to make a decision about their body or their future fertility. This sends a message and attempts to send the message of shame to women who may have endured abortion for whatever reason and you don't know, you never will know. Maybe some in this chamber, maybe in this gallery, maybe in your family, and what a disrespect this is to our medical community and to our doctors. In closing, abortion is a deeply personal decision, it should not be a political debate. My womb and my uterus is not up for your political grab. Legislators, you do not hold shares in my body, so stop trying to manipulate my mind. I ask you to vote No on this bill. Thank you. Members we're honored today, and upon motion of Representative Garland Pierce, House District 48, we're honored to extend the courtesies of the gallery to Maryland State Senator, Catherine Pugh, the President of the National Black Coccus of state legislators, Senator Pugh, if you're present, would you stand and let us welcome you to the house. Members will resume debate. For what purpose that the Lady from Quadratec[sp?] Representative MCkinley[sp?] arise? To speak on the bill. The lady has support to debate the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members of this wonderful body, first of all let me say the Representative Cotham I love you and I'm sorry you had to go through that. I would like to say to the rest of the members that there is an exemption for emergencies like these, for the life of the mother, so there would never be a delay for something like this, but I wanted you to know about other testimonies that we heard. Representative Cotham and I are very lucky we've had children, I have grandchildren. We've been very blessed. I have not had to go through the decision of making an abortion, but I have a nephew and his wife who had to go through that. They were kept from seeing their ultrasound until he finally had to threaten a nurse for his girlfriend to see it. After they saw the ultrasound, they saw that there was nothing wrong with the baby, the nurse even described that that I will get fired if they know I have shown you this, this young man was born from that loving couple, he is now 18 years old. Had my niece in law not have that information she would not have made that decision, we wouldn't have Toby today. A wonderful young man

is graduating this year . We heard from numerous women yesterday some of the them even couldn't be there, because I'm sure the emotion was so great for them still to this day. We heard testimony that they had written about how they watched other children get on a school bus and they even name their aborted child, and they said that could be my Michael I don't even remember the names that they picked yesterday, but the regret that these women feel is so tremendously psychologically unhealthy when they've had abortions and not been able to be given some opportunities to have chosen an alternative. 72 hours is not asking too much for something this important that will affect you not just today, not a year from now, but 30 and 40 years from now when you wondered what that child would have been like. When we were going through, in 2011, A Woman's Right To Know, I had a folder full of testimonies from women who have had abortions, and said they wish they had had the knowledge of what the ultrasound look like and what they were truly doing. They wish that they had known that there was someone they could reach out to that would provide a home for them until they had that child. And if I wanted to give a child out for adoption they would help them to the process, they would help them finance it, they would help them with having this child with their medical expenses. Had they known that well ladies and gentlemen abortions are down by 8000 so she found them lovely, maybe we can tribute  all of them to a woman's right to know allowing women to have more time to admit this important decision, but even if we contributed half of them and we know for a fact the ones who have gone through the pregnancy clinics where they have been given alternatives, where they have been able to see their ultra sounds to see see those fingers and toes in some circumstances, when they're given that opportunity so many of them change their mind. Why do we not want them to have the opportunity to change their mind? Please, allow a woman to have this opportunity to reach out to pregnancy clinics where they can help her and guide her for financial help, to guide her for alternatives for adoption. I even had a lobbyist come up to me, a young woman when we were doing A Woman's Right To Know and she said, I want you to know and you could tell my story if you want to, but we didn't the last time, she said, My mother got pregnant and she gave me up for adoption. She was going to an abortion clinic and stopped by a pregnancy facility where the were I think it was a catholic pregnancy facility. They found adaptive parents for her. She said she has lived a wonderful life with her adopted parents, but she was able to reach out to her mother who had given birth to her, and her mother said that  there was the most incredible thing she ever done a hard life, was to see her grow up even though she didn't know her, she kept in touch with the adopted parents and as she got older, and then she realized that she didn't have a mother out there and that was keeping up with her, that they've got to know each other even when and her mother had been raped is she still chance to have a such wonderful person who would be one of our lobbyist here. I don't think she's a lobbyist now but she was. Let's just give women time to make this decision, so they don't end up in middle health clinics. They don't end up regretting their decision down the road. If they have solution two hours. They have time to reach out and try to solve some of the issues around raising a child. Please, I beg you to vote for this.

For what purpose does the lady from Wake, representative Corchorus? To debate the bill. Lady has support to debate the bill. Thank you Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the eloquent remarks of those who've spoken before me, and what I want to point out is that in my professional life as a nurse practitioner, my life here I tried very hard to make decisions based on evidence as much as possible on scientific evidence and I think this bill makes it unfortunate that assumption, unfortunate and inaccurate assumption. The assumption that women haven't spent sufficient time thoroughly considering their needs, their desires, their options, their information that they had thought about when they were ready to act on their choice. The change proposed in this bill extends the states timetable, not an evidenced based timetable, not a scientific timetable, not a medically necessary timetable for this safe and legal procedure. Much was said yesterday in the health committee about the stress and the emotions surrounding an unplanned pregnancy and what to do about it their choice to have an abortion, I would ask you to consider that being arbitrarily required to wait three days makes this decision more stressful for women its unnecessary to wait at all, I would make the assumption based on the young people that I have cared for, that they give have given a great deal of thought probably much more than three days before they come. They're ready to make their decision, they do not need to be required by us, you cannot not understand what they are going through here, to wait an additional time and there's nothing in the bill that says they cannot wait as long as they want to, so when you talk about this bill, I want you to keep in mind, it's not about knowledge. It's about delay. It's about medically unnecessary delay, thank you. For what purpose does the lady from Wilson, Representative Martin, arise? To debate the bill. Lady has the floor to debate the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members of the Body and people who have spoken on this. I know that this is a very emotional and these are passion issues for a lot of people on both sides, and I appreciate the respectful tones that we're having and that we all care for each and it's important and we're not debating a woman's legal right to have an abortion and try to keep focused on what we are doing here in this legislation and it's been great to be a part of the process of coming to this state where we have the final draft before us. We heard a lot of concerns from a lot of different stakeholders and our goal in presenting this was the health of women and respecting women and also saving lives. So won't try to hide that agenda that there is an opportunity as has been mention that when women have all of the information before them and understand some of the resources that are available by waiting that sometimes they chose not to have an abortion, but they still have that choice. So this bill does not do anything to take away a woman's right to choose but we did take out some other potions of the bill where concerns we raised and we thought that we could work through them, but we really wanted it to be about the women. So that going through that process I want you to understand that we are respecting of the input we got from a lot of different stakeholders and I hope you agree that this limited person will help women. A lot of what was said to say that this is not respecting because we should be able to make a quick decision about this. And a lot of us in this room, if we knew we were facing a difficult decision, would probably reach out and find all the resources that we needed and maybe not need to have a delay because we have everything in front of us. But this is really very personal and a lot of people who are going through this are not reaching out to their community and sharing this with a lot of people who might be able to help and may not have all of that information and we hope that they would reach out even earlier in the process and start to find out the facts and what's really available, but it's not like when you get a speeding ticket and all of a sudden you get in the mail all these people and people who can help you, it's all very confidential so it's still up to that individual to reach out and get those resources and if we don't give them the opportunity to say, well here is where they are, but we're not going to tell those other folks here is a potential client you can go recruit and they don't have that opportunity. So I will urge you to support women and support their opportunity to

have facts and be made available of additional resources that might help them and it's a life-changing decision, not just for the mother who it may be the right choice to give up that child, but they do have to live with that for a long time and you don't hear very much from those women because they're still not sharing what they're living with, but it is a very painful thing from people who I do know personally. So it changes their life, but it also ends another life if they decide to go forward, and you can never go back on that. So I appreciate your listening and I appreciate the debate, and I hope you will support the bill, thank you. For what purpose does the lady from Mecklenburg, Representative Cunningham arise? To speak to the bill, Mr. Speaker. The lady has the floor to debate the bill. Thank you. Until you've had that experience, you cannot comprehend the full impact and I can appreciate Representative Cotton speaking up today, telling her experience. It is difficult, these decisions, they are final. However, these decisions can be made at a lesser of a burden when the woman is surrounded by people she loves and trusts. Usually when women get to this point where they make that final decision in what to do, it did not just happen in the spur of a moment. It sometimes takes days, it sometimes takes weeks and sometimes it takes months. But who are we to determine when she should act, I do not know of one medical procedure performed in the state of North Carolina that requires you to wait 72 hours. I've been nursing over 35 years as you know hospice is my math expertise. When it gets to the final point, I can't say let's wait 72 hours. You do not have that option. And when we start talking about the women of North Carolina, every woman is not in the position to make that trip after she makes that call, and financially hold over for two days to wait to get her procedure. This bill interferes with the woman's right to make the best decision for her particular circumstance. It is with great concern that once more the women of North Carolina are being questioned about their capability to make these medical decisions it continues to be my belief that the women of North Carolina are capable of making these personal and private decisions with their families, and their entrusted medical providers and within their realm of faith, thank you. For what purpose does the lady from NC Representative Presnell rise? To speak on the bill.  Lady has the floor to debate the bill I don't think I'm adding 72 hours is only three days. I think that's a good amount of time. These young girls when they go in there some of them very abrupt very quickly they make that decision that they are going to get rid of this baby. This baby at five weeks has a beating heart when you have an abortion, you stop that beating heart. I don't agree with abortion in any way, I'm sorry for Representative Cockem I don't know exactly what her situation was. Vasectomies can be reversed,

abortions cannot. I feel young girl will have the opportunity to have this child and then put it up for adoption. Nothing wrong with that. At least the child had the opportunity to live. They don't have an option in this they're too young, there is no equal opportunity for them to make that choice. I ask that you vote yes on this bill. For what purpose does the lady from Buckram Representative Fisher arise? To send forth an amendment Mr. Speaker Which amendment does the lady wish set for? The one that is AMC-31V2.  The lady has recognized the seen forth the amendment AMC 31B2, the clock will read.  Representative Fisher moves to amendment bill on page 1, lines 19-25, by rewriting the lines to read. The lady has the floor to debate her amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen this particular portion of the bill has to do with reporting requirements that will be placed upon positions should this bill pass in its current form, and what my amendment seeks to do is to maybe limit that information, take it back a little bit. For over 30 years, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the CDC, has partnered with states to collect aggregate statistics on abortion in the United States. Typically, the following information is collected by the CDC. They get the indentification of the facility at which the abortion was provided and the physician providing the abortion. They get demographic information about the patient their age, race, ethnicity, marital status and the number of previous live births. They get information on the length of the pregnancies and the type for abortion, but in this bill the extensive information that would have to be collected from physicians, if this bill passes in its current form is no where to be found in the CDC official recommendation for abortion data collection. Requiring position to report how they determine the gestational age and the measurements of the fetus, not to mention providing copies of ultrasound images goes well beyond what is standard procedure and standard data collection for the North Carolina Departement of Health and Human Services. Ultrasound images are part of a woman's personal medical files, and it is completely inappropriate to demand that healthcare providers turn this information over to the state for government inspection, these are things that are private, these are things that sort of tread into that area of patient doctor confidentiality. And so I would ask that you please vote in support of this amendment. Thank you. Members, no one will lose their place in the queue to speak. However we are debating the amendment. If you do not intend to debate the amendment, would you please turn off your lights. The Chair may determine who seeks recognition. For what purpose does the lady from Mecklenburg, Rep. Schaffer, arise? To debate the amendment. The lady has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First I want to thank Rep. Fisher. She approached me prior to the debate on this bill and informed me that she would be bringing forth these amendments, and so I do want to thank her for doing so. I do rise in opposition to the amendment having had an opportunity to review it and to hear the comments that were given. Really what this amendment would do would undermine the purpose of this section and I do want to make the point that the information that we are requiring to be reported to DHHS in this section is already part of the record that DHHS as has the authority to review and is required to review primary annual inspections. We have received this information from DHHS, it is says that, while the patient assessment data sheet, which included a certain amount of information, is reviewed and provides verification of weeks based on ultrasound. Ultrasound records are retained in each individual medical record and are reviewed. Absence of the log and this information and the ultra sound information would be considered an area of non-compliant. This information is already required to provided and is

subject to review by DHHS so what we are asking to do in the bill is to is require the physicians that are performing abortions in those particular circumstances to take that same information and to transmit it to DHHS so members I would urge defeat of the amendment, thank you. For what purpose does the lady from Wilson Representative Martin arise? To debate the amendment. already have support to debate the amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker, I just also wanted to clarify because is not showing up on the dashboard that this data collection again is only for those abortion performed after 18 weeks so it's in much smaller number and it's so that we can get good information understand that our laws are being followed and why are we doing abortions at that late is there something that we need to consider helping people earlier or there are medical complications that are occurring that maybe we can treating impregnation and that kind of thing so it's a much more limited number than all of the information been collected sort to make sure that was clear, thank you. For what purpose the lady from bamcom representative Fisher arise. To speak a second time on the amendment Mr. Speaker. The lady has afford to debate the amendment the second time. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Lady ladies and gentlemen I just want to caution you that there is no other law in North Carolina that requires health care providers to provide copies Ultrasounds, x-rays or any other type of medical image to the state. Such documents should remain in the hands of the woman personal file and not in the hands of the government. Thank you.  Please vote yes. Further discussion and further debate on amendment number 1 set 4 by representative Fisher. Seeing none, the question before the house is the adoption of the amendment sent forward by representative Fisher. Those favoring the adoption of amendment number 1 sent forth by representative Fisher will vote aye those will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote, with 48 having voted in the affirmative, and 70 in the negative, the amendment is not adopted. For what purpose doe the lady from Buckham, Representative Fisher, arise? To send forth another amendment Mr. Speaker. A lady is recognized to send forth amendment A and C, 32, version 1, the clerk will read   Representative Fisher moves to amendment bill on page one line 32 by deleting patient and substituting patient and the physician. The lady from Buckham is recognized to debate the amendment Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, short of the passage of the first amendment that I send up I wanted to be prepared and so let me try and this one. This is a piece that actually goes to protecting the confidentiality confidentiality of patient and doctor. In the bill there is no provision that protect the confidentiality of positions. This is really important. Positions as you know have been stopped kidnapped and murdered because they provides abortion. Including protection for position confidentiality is critical to the continued safety and protection just as human beings. This is a common sense amendment and it is intended to protect to against violence and harassment. It is also intended to protect that patient doctor confidentiality. Please vote in favor of the amendment. For what purpose is the lady for the board Representative arise? To debate the amendment. Lady has ordered [xx] the amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker, I again, arising in opposition to the amendment and I certainly understand why Representative Fisher's concerns here but hopefully away those concerns. HHS has confirmed that physician's information is already kept confidential. This is not of public record. This portion of the bill has to do with information transmitted to DHHS and it is kept confidential. The information that is not transmitted to DHHS, is the identifying information of the patients. But the purpose of this

amendment is to ensure that physicians are abiding by the law. DHHS is not making this information and the doctors' information available to the public, so there's no concern about physician confidentiality. It is already being kept confidential, so I would urge members to defeat the amendment. Thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman from Richmond, Representative Goodman arise? [xx]. The gentleman from Richmond will be recorded as having voted I on amendment one. For what purpose does the gentleman from [xx], Representative [xx] arise? To speak briefly to the amendment. The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker. I wasn't planning to speak on the amendment, because I will be speaking on the bill, but I had to listen to the debate on this one. And so far as I can tell, all Representative Fisher is trying to do here is to protect the confidentiality of the doctor by the statute which Representative [xx] as I understand says, really by regulation already occurs at H. H. S. And so the best I can understand this is Representative Fisher simply seeking to quantify what H. H. S already agrees it does, and I can't understand why that would be objectionable under that circumstances, if that's being done, maybe it's a duplicative sentence but that's all it is, and if it's not quite duplicative it's what HHS apparently agrees ought to be the law. So I'm having a really hard time understanding any opposition to this amendment, because it is not a philosophical issue on the content of the bill, thank you. For what purpose does the lady from Mecklenburg, Representative Schaffer arise? Due to make the amendment a second time. Lady has order to debate the amendment a second time. Thank you Mr. Speaker. To clarify what we said and to answer a few of the questions that were put out there, the information that is been transmitted to DHHS includes the physician information but the information that HHS is providing to the public for instance is not including physician information and so the physicians confidentiality is being maintained as to the public but the point of the bill is to make sure that the physician is abiding by the law so, if we pass this amendment and we don't allow a physician to submit his or her information to DHHS it contradicts the purpose of the bill which is maintain the fact this word is being abided by this physician. So members I would urge that you defeat the amendment, understand that physicians confidentiality is being maintained as to the public but not to the agency that is regulating them. Thank you. For what purpose is the the gentleman from Representative Glazier arise. To speak a second to the amendment. Gentleman has fought to debate the amendment a second time. Thank you Mr Speaker and I really do appreciate Representative Schaffer response but I think as again I understand the response there is some concern that Representative Fishers' amendment somehow will provide about or for the information being provided to HHS which is that duty bound to determine whether the doctors are clearly abiding by the law. It doesn't do that at all all it says is the information that's going to be provided would be kept confidential by the receiving agency, again that's all apparently the regulations already provide all representatives are trying to do is quantify it doesn't give the doctor any ability not to provide the information to HSS and so again I can see no legitimate rational reason to defeat this amendment. Further discussion further debate on amendment number two forward by representative Fisher, seeing none, the question before the house is the adoption of the amendment set forward by representative Fisher, pardon me, the question for the house is the adoption of amendment number two sent forth by representative Fisher, those favoring the adoption of the amendment will vote Aye, those opposed will vote no, the clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote we 50 having voted in the affirmative and 67 on the negative, the amendment is not adopted. W e move to alternative discussion on the second reading of the House Bill 465 and for what purpose does the lady from Mecklenburg Representative Carney rise? To speak on the bill The lady has the floor to debate the bill Thank you Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the house I'm not going to be long didn't even know that I was going to speak today but I really do want us all to just step back a

minute and think about what we are really doing and I'm not sure what we're really doing because there are all kinds of feelings and opinions about this bill that yet again back before us. We keep coming back, this is the second term and I'm concerned that we may be back third time and what are we really trying to accomplish here? What's missing from the bill two years ago and I pointed out, what's missing from this bill today, still is the fact that we are not teaching our young women and men and about contraception and I don't know why that's such a problem because it really hits at the very beginning of why we are even here discussing abortions in the first place. Not every young woman out there grows up in a middle class family with all of the wrap around services provided for her. I happen to represent [xx] that they are a lot of young women that are not even recognized a lot of times within our own community and especially not within this debate. They are no wrap around services within this bill that address as young women that do not have parents they might rely on an aging grandmother to watch out for them. They might not even go to school. They may not have good food on the table to eat, they may have some man or some young guy come up and promise them something food, money, whatever they get pregnant, the guys walk away. And there's this young wife terming herself pregnant, doesn't even know about a health insurance, doesn't even know what that is, doesn't know where to go for help. Does feel like I'm going to take care of them and that's where a lot of these unwanted pregnancies are coming from. so if we're really going to get down and address the heart of this, why are we not teaching all of our young women about contraception? I ask you to vote No. For what purpose does the lady from [xx] Representative [xx] rise? To debate the bill. The lady has the foor to debate the bill. Thank you. I rise to support this bill. I don't really see any problem with the 72 hour waiting period. This is 2015. We know so much more about what goes on in this world today than we did decades ago. When I first graduated from [xx] University, I was a science major. My first job was at the Medical School. I was a Chemist and a Microbiologist and a Research Scientist. and just for the Urology Department, and many of you may not know that ultrasound was actually first used for prostate cancer, and the brilliant doctors that I worked for, the research doctors Dr. Resnick, Dr. Boyce, they came to me because I got pregnant with my first child and they said, May we use you as a guinea pig? We want to show how this new technology can see inside the development of this human being, and we want to follow you from, and I was like about five weeks at the time, all the way through nine months. So they put me on a stage in front of an auditorium full of people, with an old fashioned tv monitor up there, week after week to show a room full of people what this new technology could do in the field of obstetrics. So I probably got a window into the development of my daughter who now works here, and she's 35 years old, works for the center men if you may know her that I can say the development of her personnel [xx] and her life all nine months, I want every woman to have that opportunity and then we've talked a lot here about the rights of women, and I respect the rights of women, but once conception occurs just talking about the rights to human beings, and I heard a lot of compassion when we talked about the e-verify bill, passion for illegal immigrants, and I want to hear same compassion for these young babies as well and representative [xx] is right we need a lot of conversation to happen so

we won't be talking about this today I want to see women have that doctor woman conversation or planned parenthood woman conversation or health clinic conversation before they decide to engage in activities that are going to result in, contetion. Not only to talk about what are there personal health risk, and I know they're. Decades ago, my cousins wife had a heatr attack having a baby, back then they probably didn't know she had a heart attack. She needed to have that conversation, you need to have a conversation about what kind of diseases you might contract just during sexual activities aside from pregnancy. And I know that I've seen and I'm for past having to worry about it, but when I go to my doctor office I see a huge laminated piece of paper with every kind of bill and gadget that you could possibly have, and then of course there is always the the extreme version of the two mitigation. Women needs to have these conversations, and then maybe we won't be talking decades down the road about using abortion is a means of protection, to me that's a perfect ending, thank you. I ask for your support for the bill. For what purpose the lady from Orange, Representative Winscore arise? To debate bill. The lady has the floor to debate the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and Gentlemen of the House this bill directs the State of North Carolina to protect women from themselves, we certainly can't trust the woman or her family or her doctor or her pastor. The State know best, it's not about women physical health because women are actually at a greater risk of complications with the pregnancy than they're with abortion, it's about a woman's emotional health, women need more time to consider. This bill promotes the most disparaging of all stereotypes about women, they're irrationally emotional and they can't make decisions. Yesterday in the health committee despite everyone in the room knowing the outcome for the vote, the Committee Chairman ignored the traditional courtesy of an even handed debate. That would include [xx] from both sides of the issue having equal time. The first speaker was a pro choice speaker, all the remaining five or six speakers spoke on oppostion to a woman's choice. The bill now before you also negatively discriminates, it discriminates negatively only against poor women and women of modest means, because women who have connections and money can always get an abortion. Perhaps worst of all, this bill compromises a right that she has to have control of her own body. This bill discounts and demeans women. vote no. For what purpose does the lady from Mardell, Representative Turner arise? To speak on the bill. The lady has the floor to debate the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At this stage in my life I'm painfully aware that the decisions I make quickly are the ones that I often regret. And thankfully we have laws that protect me from the decisions I make as well as my husband because we have the decision to make about purchasing things we can undo that in three days if we decide if we made a bad decision. Well you can also undo this decision if you haven't gone through the procedure. But three days to make this kind of decision as compared to that of a attract. That doesn't quite add up. So I'm pleased to be able to be a sponsor on this bill I would encourage you to realize that this decision is the best for all women and men. There are many men who are involved in this decision also. This bill protects women and respects the seriousness of this consideration, and I appreciate your support on the bill. Thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland, Rep. Glazier, arise? To debate the bill, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Once more unto the breach. This bill is about power and two respects.

On the one hand the power of our people to govern themselves through a constitution they adopted and faithful adherence by public officials to its principles as announced by the Supreme Court of the United States. And on the other the power of this body to enact and pronounce state law today's bill aggrandizes the latter with the predictable consequences of diminishing the former. Today the majority is eager, indeed hungry as it has been for five years now to tell the world of it's moral and ideological view of abortion, all are bad, most are impulsive, nearly all could be avoided if we just required women to think and come to their senses not content with it's 2011/2012 Bill that created enormous obstacles to the demand side of reproductive health, with the significant provision of that they are recently being struck down by United Panel of the full circuit. Noah with its 2013/14 I saw it on the surprise sight, challenged in part by it's own governors administration in their proposal for regulatory concerns. Today the majority hits the constitutional hat trick, moving a 24 hour to a 72 hour waiting period demand side, piling on useless paper work burdens on health care providers supply side, all with the undeniable, or at least undeniable with a straight face, purpose of creating insurmountable obstacles to both the supply and the demand for women's reproductive health. It is nothing short of constitutional evisceration by 1000 cuts. And since we are about the process of changing the law, perhaps it would be a good place to start with what the law is. The law of abortion is set out in Planned Parenthood v. Casey where the court established the undue burden test for determining whether a statute restricting abortion could pass constitutional muster. Under Casey, a law is invalid if it places an undue burden on a woman's right to a pre-viability abortion a non-deburden[sp?] exists of the state regulation has the effect of placing a substantial obstacle, in the path of a woman's choice to obtain the abortion, and the states discretion to regulate on the basis of maternal health is not permitted. To adopt abortion regulation that depart from accepted medical practice. If this circuit has recently set the undue burdening querry, it looks to whether the challenge provision has either the purpose or the effect of placing a substantial obstacle on a path of a woman seeking an abortion of none viable fetus and if she does it's unconstitutional in some quarters those are know as basic constitutional principles, but not according to this bill on the floor of the North Carolina House. So how has the majority justified its intrusion and personal liberty in this case? But the short answer is they don't, and frankly, barely pretend to do so except to say that if 24 hours is good, 72 is better. Where would one or perhaps better the question where will a federal court look to find the evidence of fact-finding made in support of this determination? Medical evidence, regulations, reasoned consideration of the bill's effect on access to quality and to service? One would think we would look first to the bills text, but if you look with me, there is not a preamble, not a finding of fact, not even a whereas clause to be found. This bill is stunning not just for what it says but for what it doesn't. Not even a pretense or a legislative wink and a nod to medicine or fact-finding or the burdens that it will apply in all ways. Well why should we expect anything different since that's exactly how the prior two bills passed? When facts don't matter, don't worry about finding, let alone tidying up. A second place one would look, and where the federal court will look, is to the committee's record. But a 15 minute committee hearing that added little of value, that contain what could be called a grossly distorted context of a public hearing, was for many respects frankly a charade. It was held in a star chamber but it could have been. And it was a hearing but only in the sense that words were spoken. The legislative record contains no documents, no evidence, no studies, no travel-burdened

survey, no medical analysis, nothing even as much as anemic medical article, let alone three minute speakers from multiple assembled medical experts who were there prepared to talked but never allowed to do so. The of the house determination to simply impose its will here, without even attempting to create a record chose why the provisions of this bill are medically unnecessarily, unreasonable and illegal. Several members of the majority have argued in committee and on the floor today that while they are here to protect life they are also here to protect a woman's right to choose. The best thing that can be said for this comments after the abortion bills of the last four years plus the newest episode before us today, is that the majority pays the kind of lip service to women's rights and that value that is typical when a principal is about to be carelessly disregarded. In the majority's analysis, a woman's right to chose is as empty and hollow a concept as there is and the majority [xx] to [xx] and to Cassie, leaving them in uniform, but without command. Not even giving them so much as a courtesy salute. in passing. In short the majority's reasons for the bill and it's truncated process, could not withstand a general breeze let alone the street scrutiny it will get, and that it does when it substantially burdens the constitutional right. Several years ago I stood on the this floor and argue major provisions of the majority's, then abortion law, were unconstitutional and went beyond the limits of Cassie. But the majority would have none of than. Well you know longer have to take my word for it, how about if we look at, because it's so applicable, the words of the the Republican judges on the unanimous panel of the four circuit. Judge [xx] who we used be thought of as the a nominee by the [xx] administrations, potentially to the supreme court of the United States. Chief Judge [xx] of Republican appointee, and Judge [xx] from North Carolina a republican appointee, who unanimously struck down as unreasoned, the previous portion of the bill regarding ultra sound and some of the provisions in it. I site to you their own words, because I think they are equally applicable today. The arguments paid back then while this was a reasoned analysis, a limitation that will give women simply more information. Here's what Church Wilkerson had to say in that case. This compelled Stitch even though it is a regulation of the medical profession's ideological and intent and [xx] and the means used by North Carolina stand well beyond those states that have customarily employed them to effectuate their undeniable interest in ensuring and form consent and then protecting the sanctity of life. On page 23 the means employed here are far reaching. Almost unpresidentally so in a number of respects and far strip the provisions that issue and Cassy. On page 25, the requirements of the provisions in the North Carolina law resemble neither traditional inform consent or the variation found in the Pennsylvania statute that issue Cassy that the North Carolina statute does much further in additional balance on positions of free speech and listing is compromised of other important state interests. And on page 29, she must be talking about the patient enduring the embarrassing skeptical of a revolving, arise, covering arrears of a physician a person to whom should be encouraged to listen precise information to her. We can perceive no benefit to just stay in the entrance from worrying off patient the same position would in a manner and ethical to the very communication that lies behind the informed concent processes. And finally as the court concluded and striking down a portion of North Carolina's Act. In some, the burdens here are an extraordinary burden on passive rights and the court struck down the North Carolina statute in path. Apparently the majority has determined that the court will have to rule yet again and do their job because today we are going to refuse to do ours. Cassie allowed a 24 hour waiting period barely I might add. Calling it if you read the case a close question and relying heavily on the findings of fact made by the court and the record of evidence before the Pennsylvania

Legislature before adopting the 24 hour period. Here they will have nothing to look at because nothing was credibly or seriously considered. Colleagues rhetoric and passion, no matter how sincere, cannot substitute for full application of the constitution and the law. And sometimes we agree with it and sometimes we don't but we have no right to ignore it. As I close my remarks I repeat the comment that I made years ago when the first bill occurred, and I fair is an author and aquinlen, I'm so tired of abortion its opponents have a hidden agenda and claim more superiority too often devaluing and the little in the women whose choice is at issue, but abortion rights advocates can also at times denies the obvious something die as one an abortion is performed it is not yet a child, but as Rep. Gotham eloquently argued it is not remotely anyone elses business in this chamber, but something does die get in the tension between the woman and the fetus the woman particularly in far first trimester constitutional right to chose. Having said that, she cannot of course ignore that there are two parts to the equation, biology tells her so. By contrast, as exemplified by all of these bills including the one today, abortion opponents have never understood or refuse to understand the woman's psychology in many of these cases. They do not understand that there are times when an embryo is an embedded blessing, and others in when it's a nightmare, and too often they fail to recognize how deeply felt is the right to protect to decide the process of ones own body. No matter what we legislate today or pontificate on the floor in this debate, women will continue to find a way to end pregnancies they cannot bear to term by the hospitality of their bodies into children, they always have and they always will. And now with this law, we will turn back yet again the hands of time to a more cruel, and harsh, and medically unsafe era we deal here today, as all representatives have said and all of the corners of this bill. With life and death but of both the woman and the fetus. This bill however, in my opinion, truly respects only one part of that biological equation, and the aspirations and settled understanding of North Carolina women continue to be brutally changed by what this bill says and what it represents. And far from the objective right to informed consent, it purports to be it will be for many women, mostly poor, a callous and profoundly destructive reminder of the power of government over their lives and that of their families. This bill is without any evidentiary foundation. It is wholly untethered from the reality of most women's lives. It patently violates the constitution of the United States and most profoundly, in concert with the previous bills context in which we must all read them, it adds yet another chapter to the burdens of poverty in our State. Mr. Speaker, with respect, I just said, and will be voting against this bill. For what purpose does the lady from Surry, Representative Stevens arise? To speak on the Bill Lady has supported to debate the bill. Thank you. Members of the house, I did not intend to speak today, so I don't have a greatly prepared speech and I certainly will not be as long as Representative Glazier was. I was having an interesting discussion yesterday with my ex brother in law. It had to do with some emotional issues involving my 20 and 22 year old. We were talking about the emotional end up and he was trying to help his brother understand, but my brother in law is a surgeon. And so what he wanted to do is take a medical approach with me. He said you know, between 16 and 25, your pre frontal cortex is now completely developed, it's hard for you to reach through and get to those emotional decisions. You need more time. You need more approach when you're at that age. A lot of these people getting abortions are getting them at that age. Now, I found an interesting article that I started looking at. It is 26 different stories, of young women who had abortions. And they're relating their stories of abortion, when they're 18 and 19, and some of them are waiting till they are 42 45 to go back and review the abortion stories. It's in the New York Magazine, I will tell you it was in November of 2013. And it just trying to get into that whole abortion debate again. Some of the women had no regrets.

A lot of the women had some regret, and their biggest regret was,  they didn't fully understand what was going to happen to them. They didn't fully understand, that in fact what they were getting rid of was a baby. and that it already had characteristics of a baby. One woman describes taking the abortion pill in the doctors office and they give her another to take home, and she's bleeding, and [xx], and she said, the next day they told me  it would be a piece of tissue, but it came out and it looked like a baby. It had eyes. Nobody prepared me for that. There are other women who recount the stories of, now having problems conceiving in the future, and feeling some guilt because they aborted a baby, and now they are unable to carry one, or having a DnC or feeling incomplete till they were in fact able to have another child. But the underlying current in all these stories was, we just needed more information. Now there was a 19 year old that came forward and told her story. And she said, there I am in the abortion clinic and it feels icky what she said there's no room to talk about feeling unsure in an abortion clinic. For what purpose does the lady from Randolph, Rep. Hurley, rise? To debate the bill. The lady has the floor to debate the bill I'm going to take the state today, I'm going to go and [xx] I want to say a story about two mothers. I'm a mother, but my daughter and my daughter-in-law cannot have children. My daughter adopted a wonderful son, he's 19 today. She couldn't love him more if she had given birth to him and some mother gave him up for her, I don't know who she is 72 hours or she decided to do it on her own and did not have an abortion. My other grandson I didn't know about him for a year. My son decided after college he wanted to see United States. So he traveled all over United States, and he met a girl in Wisconsin, and anyway Ben was born, but I didn't know about Ben for a year, my son and she did not marry nothing, God has a plan for all of us and our children. She could have aborted him and I would never have known about it, I would never have known about Ben. When I was home after Ben was born in, her own birth certificate was lying on her nightstand or was her desk there and I said Hold it, I said,  "Is your middle name Ellen? " She said yes, I said that's my middle name as it is your birthday December the 29nth she said yes. I said that on her birthday I don't just that happened I think Ben was meant to be And I thank [xx] so much that I did not abort him that I did have the chance and I do have the chance to know him and love him and I think 72 hours. If you made a decision to get pregnant or if you got pregnant and that's a [xx] it would be a hard decision but I think what time you can give for that child because you cannot reverse it once you do it. It is a decision that is made and it is ended. And the thing we do what we need to do, we need to teach our children not to get pregnant and teach our boys not to get them pregnant but that's going to take a while but in the mean time, please, let them have 72 hours to make the decision whether to kill them or leave them living. Thank you. For what purpose does the lady from [xx], Representative [xx] rise? To speak on the bill a second time. The lady has the floor to debate the bill the second time I just want to make sure that Representative Glaziers knows that I did my homework on this bill. In 2013 there were 22820 abortions done in North Carolina. 45% of these babies were black, 37% were white, and 11% were Hispanic babies. The girls that Representative Carney referred to that don't have a lot of what children do have, they don't have have the home life, they don't have the surrounding women and grandmothers and parents and

grandparents that care about them. That's exactly why we need to inform these girls before they have an abortion. At eight weeks these babies have fingers and arms and legs, and they are growing. At 10 weeks their vital organs are functioning, their kidneys, intestines brain and a liver. At 11 weeks that baby is almost fully formed, and here we are at 20 weeks going to abort these babies, I think the children specifically Representative Carney that I was right there saying yes, you were spot on, exactly those girls that you are referring to is who needs this information. They just need to know, they need to know these are babies these are not part of some kind of tissues these are babies and that exactly why these girls needs 72 hours or more, to understand and get it in  their mind  what they're doing. And I just want to support this bill and I'd certainly appreciate it thank you. Further discussion, further debate of the committee substitute for house bill 465. Seeing none the question before the house will be the passage of House Committee Substitute for House bill 470 so I be question before the house with passage of the house committee substitute for house bill 465 on its second reading. Those in favoring passage of to the bill would vote aye, those opposed would vote no, the court will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote, with 74 having voted in the affirmative and 45 in negative, the House Committee Substitute for House Bill 465, has passed it's second reading, and will without objection, be read a third time. The General Assembly of Northern Carolina enacts. Further discussion, further debate, on house Committee Substitute for House bill 465 seeing none, the question before the house is the passage of the House Committee Substitute for House Bill 465 on it's third reading. Those favoring passage will say aye. Aye! Those opposed will say no. No! In the opinion Chair, the ayes have it, and House Committee Substitute for House Bill 465 has passed it's third reading and will be sent to the Senate Members we're going to read in a few committee reports, at the after certain bills are ready in, the Chair will say the word Calender, but then the Chair will return and ask the members they're okay with it being today's calender, just to be clear. Apparently we'll do that in a moment. House Bill 593, the clerk will read. Representative McElraft, House Bill 593, a bill to be entitled act to amend certain environmental and natural resources laws General Assembly North Carolina enact. For what purpose does the lady from Quarter ref[sp?] representative Micheals have to rise? To explain the bill. The lady has the floor debate the bill. Members this is our amends environment laws we have two of those that are coming through one is still in finance and I'm just going to through quickly if you're having questions I'll be happy to try to answer them. This bill we clarify the reimbursement eligibility for third party cranes for the commercial or non-commercial leaking petroleum underground storage tank, cleanup by the last fund. It also exempts certain wetland mitigation activities from segmentations pollution control. It modifies implementation of the older control of feed ingredient manufacturing plants rule.

It prohibits the requirement of mitigation for impact to internet and streams. It directs the North Carolina for service to study the dangers of the State's force resulting from importation of firewood from other areas from other States and directs the Department of Health and Human Services to create as a public health department to create and streamline and uniform process for approving new technologies for onsite waste water treatment in disposal. I'll be happy to answer any questions. For what purpose the lady from Gilford Representative Harrison rise? To briefly debate the bill. The lady has the floor to debate the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the house and the grand scheme of the environmental bills will come in this chamber. I will put this law and the hierarchy but there this bill is not none. There are couple of that give me some great concern and I guess the most important of which is the removal of the mitigating requirement for an intermittent strings. And if you'll indulge me, I ran across a quote in the North Carolina divisional water quality memo from it's division director that speaks to the significant benefits to downstream water and aquatic life and while intermittent streams have significant aquatic life even though their flow is not consistent throughout the year. The divisional of water quality believes that these streams it's essential to protect for water quality so I understand that the mitigating requirement for intermittent streams is discretionary to DEENA and that DEENA actually has a requirement any mitigation for the past couple of years for these intermittent stream, but they do perform an important hydrologic and water quality function. And it is my hope that at some point we'll have a DEENA that has more the sense of environmental story ship [xx] they can reenact that requirement that this be medicated for, so I think this is a bad move for water quality for the state at a time when need to do more to protect us, so I urge you to vote no.   Further  discussion further debate on the House Committee substitute for House Bill 593, seeing  none, the question is before the house is the passage committee substitute for house bill 593 on its second reading. Those favoring passage will vote aye, those opposed will vote no, the clerk will open the votes. the clerk will lock the machine, and record the vote with 85 having voted in the affirmative, and 29 in the negative the House Committee substitute for House bill 593 has passed the second reading, it will without object be read the third time the general assembly of North Carolina enacts. For what purpose does the lady from Yankee Representative [xx] arise? I'm within the chamber to vote yes on 593. The lady from Yankee would be reported as having voted aye on second reading of the house committee substitute for House Bill 593. Further discussion or debate on the house committee substitute House Bill 593. Seeing none, the question before the house is the passage of the house committee substitute for House Bill 593 on its third reading. Those favoring passage will say aye "aye", those oppose will say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the "aye's" have it and house committee substitute for House Bill 593 has passed its third reading and will be sent to the senate. Members we're going to now pulse and receive two committee reports. Representative Brian Brown, Justin Burr, Bert Johns and Donny Lambeth are recognized to send forth a report from the Committee on Health. Representatives Brown, Burr, Jones and Lambeth, Health Committee Report House Bill 842 Medicaid Waiver Protections/Military Families favorable Committee Substitute, unfavorable to original bill.committee Substitute, Calendar, original bill, Unfavorable Calendar. House bill 728, Amend Laws Pertaining to Chiropractic Board, favorable Committee Substitute unfavorable to original bill and re-referred to finance. The Committee Substitute will be re-referred to the Committee on Finance, the original bill

placed on the Unfavorable Calendar. Representatives Davis and Ford, from the Committee on Local Government are recognized to send forward a committee report the clerk will read. Rep. Davis, Ford local government committee report senate bill 5 unican local act favorable. Calender. House Bill 613, Clarify Political Sign Ordinance Authority, favorable and re-refer to elections. The bill is referred to the committee on elections. House 739 repair business license fees favorable and we refer to finance. The bill is refereed to the committee on finance. House bill 527 municipal elections, even numbered years, Stanley County, Federal[sp?] committee substitute on federal bill, and we refer to elections. The committee substitute is refer to the committee on elections, the original bill on favorable calender. House bill 128, referendum for certain local debt unfavorable House bill 128 be place on the unfavorable calendar. Members please review these bills, in particular, Senate Bill Five, which may be consider that the end of the calendar. House bill 713, the clerk will read Representatives. Faircloth, Daughtry, Boles and Hurley, House Bill 713. A bill to be entitled an Act Authorizing Law Enforcement Agencies to to the Public Recordings Captured by Body Worn Cameras and In car Cameras Utilized by Law Enforcement Officers. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. For what purpose does the gentleman from Guilford, Rep. Faircloth, rise? To debate the bill. The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill Thank you Mr. Speaker you've heard an awful lot about body cameras and auto cameras or in car cameras as  they're called, over the past few months unfortunately a lot of that news that has come out has been called about some very, very sad and unfortunate situations, none of us like to see anything like that happen but it has happen and we want to make sure that we begin to address this problem of appropriately. There have been some [xx] reaction across the country and I think some mistakes have been made and group suddenly deciding to do things without thinking it all the way through. The path we hope to take here in this legislature is to make a couple of changes that I think are needed right away and then to move to a study of this entire situation which is quite complex is not just not talking about cameras on the curb. It involves anything from what do we go about offloading this equipment how do we go back storing the result they come from this cameras? What are the rights and privileges of the public? What are the rights and privileges of the law enforcement and trying to do their job? All of them need to be stayed really closely with everybody at the table. So that we come out with the right product. So the we are taking here this that bill today symphazis[sp?] records of criminal investigations conducted by law enforcement are not public records, but maybe released by court order, this is current law. Records of criminal investigation mean information derived from witnesses, laboratory tests, surveillance, investigators, confidential informants, photographs, measurements, and we're in this bill that the recordings from body won cameras or in car camera are also classified as records of criminal investigations. Now we realized that for instance, to use one of the particularly more sad situations, to use the North Charleston event that we all saw a couple of weeks ago, or week or so what a sad commentary on our society but in fact it happened and it lends strength to what we're trying to do with this part of the bill today. A person seeking an order under the subsection A of this section, in other words asking for access to these records captured by

law enforcing officers, body worn cameras or car incar camera, must state that they in approximate time the incident or encounter captured by the body worn camera or in car camera, or otherwise identify the incident or encounter with reasonable clarity. The purpose for that is that, these cameras generate a lot of images, a lot of used to call it film, but it's not film now, it's data that's recorded in a computer basis, and if somebody goes in to request information about an incident, all we're asking here is that they generally isolate that incident. What day did it happen, on what time did it happen, where did it happen, and that will allow Law Enforcement Officers to begin to respond to these requests without having to have people sitting for hours and going through video information. Particularly strong part of this bill says any other provision of state laws regulating or prohibiting access to employee personnel records, a law enforcement agency may release recordings captured by law enforcement officers' body-worn camera or in-car camera without the consent of the law enforcement officer involved. The purpose there is if an incident were to occur in which the local city government and it's chief law enforcement officers decided that in order to address the possibility of public safety problems in our town, we need to release some of this information to the public. And they will not be restricted from doing that because it's a personnel record. If we did not put this in the bill, it being a personnel record that officer could object and we want the Chief to have the freedom to react to the community if need be if something like this arises. Now basically this is what the bill does, it's very simple, these two made changes. We're going to follow this up hopefully with a bill that we've coming forward, that Representative Floyd is first primary sponsor on it, I'm working with him, we've worked with a lot of other folks in this room, to put together the study bill, they will look at the entire picture and that bill will come hopefully next week, but I do ask you today to get this clauses[sp?] started by accepting this bill and then voting green on it, we need to move forward and we need to do it in a very measured and intelligent way and I'll be glad to answer any questions. For what purpose does the gentleman from Representative [xx] arise? To ask Representative [xx] a question or may be two. Would gentlemen from [xx] yield to General Fidel[sp?] I will I'm concerned about discovery matters, particularly in criminal matters, does this does what you've written here, does this mean that when I file with the district attorney, my request for discovery on my client whose committed a particular crime at a particular place or do I've to specify when I'm filling for that information? You've to to your best and your client's ability, help the police department locate the point, the time, the place as close as you possibly could to help them find the information you were requesting the video, now they're going to work to get it to you and they couldn't argue that because it happened at 3:05 and you said 3 O'clock they will give it to you, but it's simply to, the call for that is to allow them to have some audio of where on that tape that information is. Another question? Would the gentleman yield to another question? I will.  I just want to be really clear because my client is charged with a crime that happened in my request for discovery, ask for the discovery on the crime that my client was accused of committing. I don't, right now I don't specify, they sent me all the discovery, whatever

it is, and I don't make a specific request, or a specific time or date on that. I just involves the case my client if being tried for. Now, my question is do I have to go back and become more specific in my request for discovery? I'm not an attorney Sir, but my opinion is, and my intent in writing this bill is that if a crime occurred and you're representing that particular defendant, then whatever period of time you need to find that evidence that's as close as you can get, but if you knew that at 7 O'clock last night your defendant was accused of being in an armed robbery, and that you understand there was a camera on then basically you'd say, At around 7 O'clock last night at Joe's Cafe, we want the camera results, and you would have fulfilled this without any problem. Another question? Does gentleman yield to the question? Yes  If I don't do that I still able to get my discovery on that particular incident? Which certainly, I don't see any impairment in here to you getting what you've always been able to get by court order I request. For what purpose does the gentleman from Cribera[sp?] Representative Hitman arise I think someone's cut my light on sir. For what purpose has the gentleman from [xx] Representing Florida rise? To debate the bill Mr. Speaker. The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. Mr. Speaker as representative [xx] mentions, this is one of the minutes that process that we're trying to address this issue, so I'm asking that you  support this bill, there's another bill is coming forward. Let's just study to roll all this in together so, and we can look at which is the best way to move this forward and get all the players table. That all the players will have input as we develop a BO that will probably come back in the future, where the body to have the bond. Further discussion, further debate and house committee substitute for house bill 713. See none the question before the house is the passage of the house committee substitute for house bill 713, on it's second read, those favoring passage will vote aye, those those who vote no, the clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote with 114 having voted in the affirmative and two in the negative, the house committee substitute for house bill 713 has passed its second reading and will without objection be read a third time. General assembly North Carolina enact. For what purpose does the gentleman from Burnse Rep. Baskovile arise? To be recognized as voted yes on this last bill I was to change. Then gentleman from Vanse will be recorded as having voted aye and the second reading of the house committee substitute for house bill 713. Further discussion debate on house committee substitute for house call 713 on it's third reading, seeing none, those favoring passage of the house committee substitute for house 713 on its third reading will say I, I, those opposed will say No. In the opinion of the chair the House committee substitute for house bills 713 has passed its third reading and will be sent to the Senate. Members, we're pleased today to be joined by a group from Swansboro Elementary. Swansboro, of course, is in Onslow County, which is represented by Representative Cleveland, Shepard and Millis. If the group from Swansboro Elementary is here, if you'd please stand the House could welcome you? Members, if the Chair could have your attention please. It's the Chair intent to read in one more committee report, and then we're going to seek leave of the House to add a few bills to the calendar,

but before we do that it's the Chair's intent after several requests from members to have an exactly five minute recess. The Chair stands corrected, we will have a ten minute recess. Members, before we receive the committee report as announced earlier by the Chair, the house is very honored today to welcome Maryland County Senator Catherine Pugh, the President of the National black [xx] of State legislators. Senator Pugh if you're here can we welcome you. Representatives Catherine and McElraft are recognized to send forth a report from the committee on environment Representatives Catherine, and McElraft environment committee report house bill remind at phantom floor of trail park system favorable.  Calender. House bill 765 have technical corrections favorable. Calender. House bill 634 stanbord a bill upon area satification favorable committee substitute on favorable original bill. Calender. House bill 795 ACPA reform favorable committee substitute on favorable original bill. The committee substitute calender on the 36 Bill B the original bill unfavorable calender chair would like to restate on house bill 364 the it is substitute calender the original bill unfavorable calender. Members after our recess it will be the chair's intend to tick leave of the body to have Senate Bill 5 a time sensitive union county local act to the calender to add House Bill 613 which is originally referred to the committee on elections to today's calender Spendin does not need to go for the committee on elections. To add House Bill 842 short title Medicad Waver protection military families. To add House Bill 330 on short title add Fonther floor trail to stay park system House Bill 765 environmental technical corrections and House Bill 364 to today's calender we will allow members to have time to review this bills the house will stand in recess until 2:05 P. M May I have your attention please.

Sisters, please retire to chambers as the House prepared to return from recces. Thank you Mr. Speaker? For what purpose does

the gentleman from Lake, Representative Martin rise? Inquiry of the Chair. The gentleman may state his inquiry. Who are you, and what have you done with David Lewis? He's is in undisclosed location for undisclosed purposes, but if you really want to know come upfront and ask it. Members, I believe Representative Lewis. Madam Clerk, have these reports been read in formally? Members, Representative Lewis indicated previously the intention to add three bills to today's calendar. House Bill 339 and found a forward travel state park system is there objection? Hearing none, so order. House bill 765, environmental technical correction, is there objection? Hearing none, so order. In house bill 634 storm water bill upon area clarifications is there objection to that one? Hearing non so ordered house bill 795 that was read in calender, that means it's going to be calender for Monday night however. Then there was senate bill five that came in from the local government committee, it's a union county local act. Is objection. The gentleman object to the Union County local act. Objection. The gentleman having objected the the rule chair is recognized for motion. Inquiry Mr. Chair. Gentleman may state his inquiry. What bill number was just read? Senate bill 5 any local act? Mr speaker I moved the senate bill five notwithstanding the objection. For what purpose does the gentleman from Chamberlin representative Glazier rise? To speak to the motion? The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. And I apologize for not getting with representative [xx] quickly, but I just pulled it and looked at it look at the PCS and the summary, it is a local bill, but it is complicated, because it also involves, I think some presidents of the school boards and their relation with County Commissioners if it's, I guess my question and may be if I might be recognized for second purpose to ask representative [xx] to ask [xx] yield for a question If the gentleman would do this I see Rep [xx] is right on with the gentleman [xx] for a heated debate and then ask him a question on his debate. I'd be glad. The gentleman from Union Representative [xx], for what purpose does the gentleman rise? To speak to the motion? The gentleman has the floor to debate the motion. This quite simply is the local bill that put's it back to where it was. Does the gentleman from Union yield to a question from the gentleman from Camelot? I do. He yields. Thank you Mr. Speaker, thank you Representative. Is there a time sensitivity because this looks like it's the sort of that ongoing problem that the rest of us are glad we don't deal with and that you guys have had to, but between the relationship between the school board, the county commissioners and the funding issues and how that interacts with the state mediation law. Is there a time sensitivity where this couldn't be passed on second and third on Monday and give us a chance to at least chat about it? This is a term since it man for the specific reason as you're talking about is that as you know the schools have to have their budgets done by the end of June. They are in current negotiations. This is though not like any on going law suit or anything of that nature. This simply puts it back in the normal negotiations that the school boards have with the County and is trying to do it in a timely fashion of their budget timeline. Asked what would the gentleman yield for one more [xx]. Does the gentleman from [xx] yield any additional questions? He yields. Thank you. Representative, do you know of whether the North Carolina School Boards Association or any group opposes the bill? I've not spoken with any of them. This is a local bill that deals with the Union County School Board and the Union County Commissioners, and again, it's extremely local issue, and what this repeal does is simply put it back the way all other counties have it, with the right to sue and the right to negotiate the funding and every mechanism. With reluctance I withdraw my objection, thank you. Objection has been withdrawn, any further objection? Hearing none, the bill is calendared for today. Representatives Brown, Burr,  Jones and Lambeth, strike that. I believe that House Bill 842 was reported in, short title Medicaid Waiver Provisions/Military Families. Jones report the Clerk will read. Representatives Davis and Floyd, local government committee report, house bill 799 zoning changes to historical preservation procedures, favor of committee substitute and favor of [xx] bill and will re- refer to judiciary 2.  Bill is re-refer to the committee on judiciary 2.

House bill 339, the Clerk will read. For what, just a moment, For what purpose does the gentleman from [xx], Representative [xx] rise? To make an announcement Mr. Speaker. The gentleman is recognized for an announcement. The United State Senate has just confirmed [xx] 56 to 43 is the next  Attorney General of United States. The first African American female become an Attorney General of the United State [xx]. One other addition before I call on this bill, House bill 613, Chair strike to referral the bill to the elections committee the short tittle for those who interested is in act to clarify the municipality, is authorized to enforce law concerning plagues and political science in the state Hovard system and then the court in municipality chair determines is not necessary local government committee I believe is unanimous eligible for calendar 36 b eligible for the day's calendar any objection to that? Hearing none so For what purpose does the lady from Franklyn representing [xx] rise? For a moment of personal privilege please. Lady is recognised to speak on personal privilege like to announce that not only is Loreta live to now our US Attorney general but she has always been a member of delta to sing with agency roy incorporated all the downers in the house stand up. Thank you. House bill 339 the court will read Representative Black will house bill 339 appear to be entire on nectarine[sp?] the audition of the phantom floor and loop trail in Burg county to the state General [xx] of Johnson of North Colonial enacts. The gentleman from Burg, representative Black, will be recognized to debate the bill   Thank you Mr speaker, this is hard in environment this way I don't remember that there was any objection I think it was approved without the scent it doesn't involve the expenditure monies this trail or something that was contemplated in the planning for late James State Park when that was done back in 2006 my understanding is that the department of Environment Natural resources is fully on board with this. I'll be glad answer any questions, but will ask the house to support. Further discussion further debate if not the question before the house is the passage of house bill 339 on its second reading. Those in favor will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The court will open the vote. Representative Willingham does the general wish to record on this vote? The Clerk will lock the machine will record the vote, 117 having voted on the affirmative and none in the negative, house bill 339 passes its second reading and will without objection be read a third time General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. Further discussion further debate if not the question for the house is the passage of house bill 339 and will start reading, those in favor will say I, those who oppose will say no. The I's have it, house bill 339 passes it's third reading will be sent to the senate house bill 765 the court will read. Representative Calligraphy house bill 765 [xx] to make clarifying, confirming to technical amendments to various laws related to environmental and natural resources. [xx] North Carolina you're next.  The lady from [xx] representative Michael is right now to debate the bill. Thank you Mr speaker, this is our environmental technical correction's bill that we do every year we only have one technical correction coming from the outside and it was just duplicative language that needed to be moved from one are to another and I ask for your support. Further discussion further debate if not the question before the house is the passage of house bill 765 of it's second reading those in favour will say aye, those oppose will vote no, the Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will lock,

the machine to record, 115 having voted in the affirmative and one in the negative, house bill 765 passes it's second reading, and will without objection be read the third time. [xx] of North Colonial [xx]. Further discussion, further debate, if not, the question before the house, is passage of house bill 765 in its third reading. Those in favour will say aye, Aye,. Those oppose say no, the ayes have it, house bill 765 passes it's third reading, and will be sent to the senate. House bill 764, the Clerk will read. Representative [xx], house bill 634, a bill to be entitled and [xx], to  clarify definition of build upon areas and purposes of storm water programs, [xx] of North Carolina [xx] the gentleman from Garson, Representative [xx] is recognized to debate the bill. Thank you very much Mr Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, we passed this at an environmental committee, we have few questions and in essence, what we're doing, we felt like we made it went just a little bit too far, we had it good last year, on pervious and impervious services we had a good demonstration about what a certain size stone was deemed as impervious, meaning it would hold water. It was demonstrated it would not hold water and we voted it out of committee and we are here in front of you and appreciate [xx]. Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the house is the passage of house bill 634 on its second reading. Those in favor will say Aye, those opposed will vote No, the Clerk will open the vote. Representative Hall and Willingham, do the gentlemen wish to record on this bill? The Clerk will lock the machine, and record the vote, 107 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, House Bill 634 passes its second and will without objection be read a third time. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of House Bill 634 on its third reading. Those in favor will say Aye. Aye. Those opposed will vote Nay. The Ayes have it, House Bill 634 passes its third reading and it will be send to the Senate. Senate Bill 5, the Clerk will read. Senator Tucker, Senate Bill 5, a bill to be entitled an Act to repeal S. L. 2014 of 2008, as amended by S. L. 2014/2009 as it applies to Union County, the General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. Further discussion, further debate? The gentleman from Union, Representative Arp is recognized to explain the bill. If you would indulge me, I'm going to try and give a full and fair history as to where we are, last term there was a dispute going on between our County School Board and the County Commissioners over funding. And this bill that was passed last time put a moratorium on our school boards from suing the county, but at the same time in balance, it provides specified funding both capital and operating, so it was trying to strike a balance, and it did so for two years. What this bill does is simply repeal the second year and puts it back like all other 115 LEAs where they negotiate with the counties, it doesn't provide the funding, it is not subject to law suit going on. I will tell you in all fairness that this is split like everything else in our county regarding the funding. This is the subject of dispute, but I fundamentally believe that this is a local issue, I didn't want it to come last time to be up here, and so I urge you your support of that, but are in fairness this is split in our counties, but I do think what it does is put it back like what the normal does, it allows the school board to pursue suits, but it also repeals the funding and lets that be the county commissioners decision, so I ask for your support. Further discussion further debate, if not, the question before the house is the passage of senate bill 5 on its second reading. Those in favor will vote aye, those oppose will vote no, the clerk will open the vote representative Malone does the general wish to record on this vote? The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote, 114 having voted in the affirmative and two in the negative, Senate Bill 5 passes it's second reading and will without objection be read a third time. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. The question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 5 on its third reading. Those in favour will say Aye.   Aye. Those opposed will say No, the Ayes have it. Senate Bill 5 having passed its third reading, the bill is ordered enrolled. House Bill 842, the Clerk will read. Representatives G. Martin, Avila, and

Adcock House Bill 842, a bill to be entitled an act to protect access to Medicaid Waivers by dependants and members of the armed forces. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. The gentleman from Wake, Representative Martin is recognized to debate the bill.   Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Members, in the military you're frequently called upon to move every two, three or four years, and there are many hardships that are associated with that. One of them is, how an example I'll give you, a family that is stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina and they have a child, say, with special needs who is on a waiting list in North Carolina for services under a Medicaid Waiver and throughout the family's time in North Carolina they worked their way up that waiting list, and then lo and behold, the army transfers them down to Fort Benning, Georgia. They spend their time down there and then perhaps they're transferred back to North Carolina at Fort Bragg, they find themselves back at the end of that waiting list that they'd spent three years clawing their way up, or they might have even gotten to the top of the waiting list and are actually getting services transferred out of North Carolina and then come back and they go back to the end of the waiting list. What this bill does it says that if you're on the waiting list while you're stationed in North Carolina, you're transferred out and then you come back, you resume your spot on the waiting list. If you were receiving services before you left, when you return you get priority on that waiting list. It passed unanimously out of Homeland and also in Health today. I know of no opposition. Virginia and South Carolina are doing it, and I'd appreciate your support. Further discussion, further debate. If not the question before the house is the passage of House bill 842 on its second reading, those in favor will vote aye, those oppose will vote no, the clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will lock the machine and  record the vote, 116 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, House bill 842 passes its second reading and will without objection objection, be read a third time.  General [xx] of North Carolina enacts. The question before the house is the passage of House bill 842 on its third reading. Those in favor will say aye, Aye Those oppose will say no, the ayes have it. House bill 842 passes its third reading, will be sent to the senate. House bill 613, the Clerk will read. Representative [xx] and Floyd, House bill 613, a bill to be entitled and [xx] to clarify that the municipality is authorised to enforce state law concerning placement of Political Science on the state [xx] system within the corporate limits of the municipality. The gentleman from [xx], Representative [xx] is recognised to to debate the bill. the bill. Thank you Mr. Speaker. A scary thought, I'm running a bill for the league of municipalities. Also, knowing that I'm standing between you and [xx]. We have passed rules on the placement of political science on state roads, I'm shocked to learn that some people don't obey those, and the cities do not have the authority to enforce our rules on our roads. This gives cities authority to enforce state sign rules, on state road, within their jurisdiction, I ask for your support. Further discussion for the debate, if not, the question before the house is the passage of house bill 613 on it's second reading. Those in favour will voteaye, those who opoose will vote no, the Clerk will open the vote The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. House Bill 613 having received 115 votes in the affirmative, 1 in the negative, House Bill 613 passes its second reading, and without objection be read a third time. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. For what purpose does the gentleman from Cabarrus, Representative Pittman rise? Speak on the bill. The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. I just voted for it and I'll probably will again this time, but I'd like to point out that maybe we need to do something about how this things and forth because I've seen it so many times where a candidate probably favoured by certain authorities, the sign would be closer to the road than their opponent's and the opponent's sign would be removed and they apparently favored one, would stay right where it was almost on top of the road, so sometimes I guess it's too late doing anything about it on this bill, but sometimes we need to find a way to address that because if one candidate's sign is going to be removed, then the other ought to be too. And if it's alright for one to stay, the other one should stay.

I have done something, I was told I could get in trouble for it because you're not supposed to touch your opponents sign, but I have actually been going out on the road, seeing my opponent sign lying down on the road and I picked it up, set it back up for them. It's extremely in bad taste to remove somebody's sign when it's, you are not going to remove their opponent. Thank you. The question before the house is the passage of house bill 613 on its third reading, those in favor will say aye, those opposed will say no, the ayes have it, house bill 613 passes its third reading and will be sent to the senate. Mr. Speaker. For what purpose does the gentleman from [xx], Representative [xx] [xx] Yes it would be an inquiry of this Chair please? The gentleman is recognised to state his inquiry. I would to validate that I did vote, I pushed the button but I believe it might have been my Mr. Speaker, but checking on [xx] aye on that last one. We will show however it was to be an aye vote. That would be a green. Members I have one other that can concludes the calender, however, to have one other matter that would like to seek the bodies input on, we're looking at having session, given the calender for Monday night instead of at seven to have sessions at 5:30. And so going to direct the Clerk, I would like those members who would like to have session at 5:30 to cast an aye vote, the Clerk will open just so we can have get a tab, not the white, she's going to be opening for a vote. So this is an administrative question the house if the members would prefer 5:30 as opposed to 7:00 please vote aye Clerk will lock, clerking machine will record the vote. That's a pretty good indication [xx] we are going to have sessions at 5:30 on Monday. So I think there are committees that are meeting I believe, if I could have the house attention please! I believe the banking committee is meeting at 4:00, Head university says no, it's 4:30. That committee could always notice that committee meeting for half hour earlier. Health is at three, J one raise 3:30, [xx] performance at one so if we'd also remind those members they could move their committee names of many two act and I think there a couple of bills that may have some debate on so if we start up to 5:30 we're not going to be here quite so late and that was the one request I was getting from folks and we're trying to advice that. Notices and announcements for what purpose does the gentlemen from Robinson Representative Gram Raj. For announcement Mr. Speaker. The gentleman has the floor and for announcement. Thank you Mr. Speaker, and I want to stand and inform the body that in 2011 the Joint Legislative American Ending Caucus was established, and occasionally we do meet with our tribal leaders. Here at the Legislature Building of course that's the propitiate thing to do, and I will chair that committee and Senator Brook will be the co-chair and for you members I gave you a copy on your desk on where these tribes are located and also the counties they are located in, so that tells you basically that you have a travel organisation in your District and sort your intelligence but I do want to make this known to the body and so some member who may need to know about this because our tribal families are very important and they are very important to that state and just to review this with you do very quickly. The [xx] and of the Sapponny Nation. If you are a representative and you live in Orange county of Elemes[sp?] County that is your tribe the Sapponny, they reside in person county, and what I'm saying to you ladies and gentlemen is this is your constituents. The [xx] Sappony ending tribe they reside on [xx] and Warren Counties the Meherrin[sp?] Tribe, they reside in Hertford County. Rep. Graham, just a moment. Members, I would ask the house to come to order and direct your attention to the member there is numerous conversations going on, I apologize for the interruptions, the gentleman has the contingency to have the floor. Thank you, and I will make this very quickly. Thank you Mr. Speaker, the Coharie, Sampson and Harnett county of course welcome our see one which is my grandmothers heritage Bladen and Colombus County. The Lumbee Tribe, of

which I am a member, is Robeson, Hoke and Scotland Counties, and of course, we have the Eastern Band of the Cherokee which is Grand Jackson and Swain counties, and we also have urban organisations in this State that are tribal members, that is Columbus County, Association of Indian People. In favor of North Carolina, we have the Guildford Association which is in Greensboro, North Carolina. The Metrolina Association, which is in Charlotte, North Carolina, and the triangle native which is right here in Roland. So I guess the point I'm trying to make ladies and gentleman gentleman is. If and when we call a caucus, we would love for you to participate. There are no dues, it's just a good time dinner with our tribal members and I would encourage you to participate in these caucus meetings when we do invite our tribal  members to come to Riley and talk to you about issues that's  important to the people in those communities. Now we'll make this point. If we could get everyone in this body to participate in those tribal caucuses would be the largest caucus in this body. And I would certainly appreciate you participating and I know our schedules are busy and we are busy most times during the day, but when we do call a caucus meeting if you could participate, I would certainly appreciate it. If it's not just come by and wave there hands and say, hallo, I'm here, I know you, and that would be very appreciated. So I'm honoured Mr. Speaker to have this opportunity to recognize the call thank you for the indulgence members members our motion of representative Brown the Martin Wilson county can have the chair is happy to extend the courtesy that gary to a group of students to st Peter's Catholic school in Greenville would you all please stand so that we can welcome you to being with on behalf of all members of the forth side county delegation the chair is happy to extend the courtesy of gallery to a group of students on the speakers right from hypnotic elementary still in just write that Ibrahim Elementary school in fourside county could you all please stand so that we could welcome you thank you for what purpose does the gentleman from representative Hallway rise? Make an announcement. The gentleman has the floor for an announcement. Thank you Mr speaker confirming with your office and confirmation with the Senate, we do have an official date that we'll travel to South Carolina to keep our trophy and that is May the 26th. I didn't want to run through the list real quick I had intended to send out an email but I need to place an order tomorrow for the uniforms. I'm not going to read out any of the senator's names that I have because they're will never get of the pond anyway we'll not going to let them play but, I'm joking, but these are the members that I have that have given me their uniforms sizes, and if I didn't call you name I do not have you on the list and if you want to go and you want to play you need to be getting it to me today. But I have representative Millers, Mayer, Hunter, Harger, Dobson, Dueng Hall, Zachary and myself. and that's all the names that I've excluding the senators, so representative Collins you're not on the list. So we'll get it to make sure today my sister gave me this but that's the only folks that I do have so we need to get that taken care of today if you're not on that list. Thank you so much For what purpose does the gentleman from Laine, representative Bell rise?.  For an announcement. The gentleman has the floor for an announcement. Ladies and gentleman the regulatory reform committee we'll meet at 1 o' clock on Monday, we'd like to have all the members there, we're going to go through a couple of bills but the major bill will be the house regulatory reform bill final comment staying for a little while and doing some regulatory form. Thank you For what purpose does the gentleman from New Hanam, Representative Davis, rise? To make an announcement. The gentleman has the floor for an announcement. Thank you Mr Speaker, ladies and gentlemen the house local government will meet Monday in room from three o'clock to five o'clock, there are presently 10 bills that're on the agenda and I'd ask for all the committee members, please be there because we need to make sure we have a quorum as well as representation from both parties. The news will be going out in a few minutes from my office and if you're the bill sponsor please be there because this maybe the

only meeting the local government has next week. We want to make sure to get your bills out in time for crossover. For what purpose does the gentleman for Lake representative Dollar rise?. Had an announcement. Gentleman has the floor for an announcement. Just an announcement and I don't think anybody make this one yet, but this weekend is the 150th anniversary of the ending of hostilities in the war of Northern aggression or civil war, because that took place with the surrender at the Bennete Place in Durham and they're doing a ceremony and having other activities to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the surrendered at Venete Place on Sunday afternoon, so if you happen to be running in town or if you're around you might want to go over there and be part of that. For what purpose does the gentleman what purpose does the representative Hagar rise? Strike that, for what purpose does the gentleman form union representative Horn rise? For an announcement. Gentleman has the floor for an announcement. Education K12 will meet immediately on following session. For what purpose does the gentleman from Rutherford representative Hagar rise? Thank you Mr Speaker for announcing I'm out of breath now [xx] The referrer coccus 4:30-5:30 realize that there are some committees going on but will figure all that out, so look good in your inbox, in your email for word on coccus on Monday.  Thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman from Lake representative Mellow rise? For announcement Mr speaker. The gentleman has forward for an announcement. We might have to reschedule but right now we five o'clock for wildlife in room 1228 without three bills. Members I think I'm consulted with representative Harger as far as the Clerk, the committee need to go ahead and meet and the Caucus will walk around if we needed to take recess or something but if you have committee meetings go ahead and have those committees being so. Rep. Malone Rep West gentleman to proceed final proceeding with your wildlife meeting at that time. For what purpose does the gentleman from Gelford Rep. Brust rise. For an announcement. Gentleman has the floor for an announcement. Thank you Mr. Speaker and I'm announcement a reminder that J2 will meet 15 minutes after session in room 421 there is a pair breakdown list from the initial list thanks to Representative Jordan's Stellar at 3 am last night but it was his idea to have the meeting, so I don't mind that had to stay up late. Please be there. We plan to do like the old raw hide, head them up, move them out the Speaker remind the Chair, the Chair does not have to hear every single bill that has been assigned to his committee. For what purpose does the gentleman from Mecklenburg, Rep. Jeter, rise? The gentleman has the floor for an announcement. The Banking Committee will meet Monday at four O'clock at room 1228. The Clerk has some announcements. The Clerk will read. House committee on judiciary one will make mandate April 27 at 3:30 P. M. In room 415, the house committee on health therefore be reminded April 27 at 3:00 P. M. In room 643. For what purpose does the gentleman representative Darl rise? For an annoucement Mr. Speaker. Gentleman has the floor for an announcement. Democrats will caucus at 5 O'clock in our caucus room 1425. Further notices and announcements? And now the gentleman from Hornet, Representative Lewis, is recognized for motion. Mr. Speaker I move the subject to messages from the senate, committee reports and re- referrals of bill and resolutions, the house adjourned to reconvened Monday April 27th at 5:00 pm. Rep. Lewis moves, seconded by Rep. Arp, that the House adjourns subject to receipt of messages from the Senate, committee reports and re-referral of bills and resolutions to reconvene Monday April 27 at 5:30 PM. Those in favor will say, aye those oppose will say no. The ayes have it,  we stand adjourn. By the way to our pages thank you for being here this week we hope you had a great week, its been very busy. For those still in the chamber please join me in thanking our pages. look at this. Thanks. This is on the on motion Representative Luis

House Bill 49 protect the officers from retaliation is withdrawn from Committee on Judiciary I we refer to Committee on Judiciary II and on motion Representative Luis House Bill 835 opening meetings three member public bodies is withdrawn from the Committee on Judiciary II referred to Judiciary I and it's [xx] to recognise the 4th committee report, for the committee on judiciary two, house bill 479 order of Salvaged Dealer  Protection Act. Favourable report, calender. 36B, House bill 598, revised rule 11, allow cure before sanctions. Favourable as calender 36B. House bill 740, Allison's law, GPS tracking power program, domestic violence, favourable report, calender 36B. House bill 797 Alarm registration, [xx] not public report. Favourable report, calender 36B. House bill 292, beach bingo licenses is favourable and re-referred to the committee on finance, and the bill is referred to committee on finance. A part [xx] [xx] is removed from [xx] on ABC and re-referred to committee on rules who's scaring our face inside the House, and Representatives L. Moore, Horn and Johnson are recognized to send forward the committee report, Committee on education 12 house bill 660 transition to personalize digital learning favorable as committee substitute unfavorable as original bill committee substitute calender 36 be original bill on [xx] calender.