[BLANK_AUDIO] [SOUND] Good morning and welcome to finance. Our sergeant at arms today are Reggie Seals/g, Marvin Lee, Terry Mcgrow, Rex Foster and Randy Wall. Thank you gentlemen. Our finance pages today, Christian Ray from Mecklenburg sponsored by Representative Lee Pittman. You can stand up and wave at us if you want to. Dude, please do the parade wave. Kevin [UNKNOWN] from Lee County sponsored by Representative Mark Vardy. Benjamin Brown from Mecklenburg sponsored by Representative Jonathan Jordan. And Conor Thomanson from Chatham County sponsored by Representative Mark Vardy. Good morning. Thanks for being here. We have one bill on the agenda Senate Bill 363 and Representative Stan Lewis will read that bill before us. Senator [UNKNOWN] this is your bill if you would please First of committee. >> Thanks Sir. [BLANK_AUDIO] And you may present your bill. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. The committee sub for House 363. It looks like an odd combination but let me just give you a little background on how the combination came about. Section one deals with seasonal employees. The base bill actually dealt with seasonal Seasons selling hamburgers obviously at ballparks. Well, that was subsumed in another bill so this became an opportunity for these other folks to deal with. And the folks who sold hamburgers at ballparks wanted to deal with the seasonal employees issue and that why I agreed it makes sense to put that on. The second section on special assessments is simply a further advancement of a process support funding of certain types of projects growing out of special assessments which we authorized some years ago in a bill that I ran. And actually it was extended Last year. The third, it came from Department of Cultural resources is much technical as it is anything else but that's, they came and asked they wanted to take hostage of the bill. So it's fine. We'll deal with it. But the fact is it is pretty much Much tactical anyway which in many ways these are extensions of existing circumstances in all three cases and it seemed to me they were appropriately related. And I'm leaving so I'm, just kinda my last roar. >> [LAUGH] >> And I would mention to you and I have to say this cuz Cuz he's not in here right now, if any of you happened to need medical assistance today, which you may, we might all may, the doctor of the day today is my son. >> [LAUGH] >> So in the event that something happens, if you vote for this bill you're in good shape. >> [LAUGH] >> If you vote against it, I'm hoping that you have some serious problems. >> [LAUGH] >> In any event let me explain the bill which is what you're here for. Section one dealing with wage an hour. I tried to characterize it as clarifying, it's not entirely clarifying but it actually is conforming to what in so far as I'm aware is existing law in relating to other circumstances. It's not designed to really change the operation of anything with regard to these seasonal employees who work largely in this case at baseball parks. Many of whom are quite frankly paid on And salary anyway so the wage in our witness shall apply but that's the first section. The second section dealing with special assessment doesn't really expands the uses but it does expand the funding mechanisms and the repayment mechanisms. You may recall special assessment have been existing in North Carolina and all of over the country forever, they just have been used a lot in recent years, I remember that quite frankly they started out most of the time what you saw was newly and extra areas in town, it had streets that were unpaid, There would attach an assessment to pay the street and the property owner who after certain sets of hearing and those matters, [SOUND] excuse me, that's the doctor. I think he may be trying to look after me, my car broke down this morning, so in anyway and I got picked up by Bingham which is even worse [LAUGH] >> In any event, the assessments are designed to,
they don't expand the uses, they just expand the mechanism for the reimbursement for them or to whom they go and for potentially a very large project and it could be used in others but they are all voluntary, I mean the fact the matter is a plan has to be developed, an assessment role has to be developed, it has to be presented to the municipality or the county, the reason there are two sections as it deals with both municipalities and counties and in that case what we're doing here is simply letting them reimburse and folks for extended and phased public infrastructure, the municipality or county, their only responsibility is to collect the assessment, repay either whoever they are supposed to pay to under the The assessment role and frankly they become trustees, they are not obligated for anything Edgar, they are not obligated for anything Edgar, I just want to remind you Edgar, that's the case. The third item Edgar has To do with the cultural resources, there are certain issues associated with state parks really want to straighten out some lines, they have suppress and that sort of thing. It's really as much tactical as anything so that they can take care of various information in that regard. That is a short form version. >> Sure that was fascinating, thank you for, entertaining the committee this morning. [LAUGH] I see a number of questions, representative Stam. >> Yes I worked with [INAUDIBLE] primarily on section two and I just want to emphasize two things This extension is not about cities or counties borrowing money for these assessments, this extension is where the developer is gonna pay for all the assessments up front and then the city or county would be a fiscal agent to collect the assessments from home owners who would then be in that project. So it doesn't really involve city or county borrowing it all. And we've, tell me if I'm wrong on this, we've edited with the local government commission, made mere changes to suite, satisfy them and they have no position on it now. And the league and the county groups are in favor of it and certainly developer groups are in favor of it as well. >> Okay, representative Reese. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. I just wanna echo representative Stam's here to make a motion at appropriate for your title. >> Yes sir, representative Moore. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. Regarding section two, is it still though that the assessment could only be put in place if it meets those two requirements regarding a partition of the 66%? [INAUDIBLE] >> That would still be in place The one that we're talking about here really is only, it's a single owner situation so you don't have a problem but the 66, two thirds and that sort of thing in case of a plan and the adoption so be the case. >> Follow up please. >> Follow up >> On the first section, could staff tell me how broad of an exemption this is when you referred to seasonal amusement or recreational establishments. >> Miss Griffin. >> The language follows the federal exception under the fairly per standards acts and if you look on the summary in the footnote at the bottom, it defines what essentially qualifies at seasonal and in that doesn't operate for more than seven months in a calendar year or that during a proceeding calendar year, its receipts weren't more than one third of its receipts for the other six months of the year, that is consistent. That's how the federal law defines it and how an employer would qualify for the exemption. >> Thank you. >> [INAUDIBLE] Representative Davis. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, and senator Hassell welcome and I appreciate you being here this morning. I just wanna ask our sisters does have an impact of some of the authority of the commission of labor. I was wondering have the department of labor said anything about this bill or had any input whatsoever? >> As of that provision I'm not aware that they have or haven't. It is designed to conform [INAUDIBLE] I don't know precise I just be honest and tell you that. >> Follow up.
>> Follow up. >> If I could Mr. Chairman, if there is someone from the department of labor here that might wanna speak on that I would ask that they be allowed to do so. >> Anyone in the audience. Put the person, put him back there and state your name and your organization. >> Thank you I'm Jennifer Haygowd I'm the legislative liaison for the department of labor. We were not involved in the drafting of this but it was brought to my attention yesterday. My understanding is that it simply conforms to the Fair Labor Standards Act if that's the case we don't oppose it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman >> Thank you Senator Hise. >> Representative Bishop. >> Thank you Mr. chairman senator I'm just trying just only the assessment power section two. page four of the bill I guess I see the general trust of this is if local government is gonna advance funds to pay or cause funds to be available to pay for whatever the infrastructure is and then the assessment is gonna be used to repay that over time. They had several methods that previously be allowed revenue bonds, project development financing debt instruments, a GO bond general revenues of the municipality or county. And now we are adding to that funds from private parties. And I'm trying to make sure that I shouldn't be concerned about something because if you like one. Let's say one area of very valuable property surrounded by property that's been residential or something that's not nearly so valuable. Is there a risk there that this could be sort of manipulated by a single wealth property owner who would be the source of the private funds. Government would be may be less interested or concerned because they not having to approve the floating of bonds and so forth. And yet so they 50% of the total but not that single owner might be able to approve and then provide the 66 and two-thirds of value or the properties collected and you'd essentially have a sort of very influential single wealthy property and you're both providing the source of financing to get over hurdle you'd have with the locality and also sort of impose that on a better majority of surrounding property owners. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> We're really talking about a brand field re-development in the sense as opposed to a green field development. In both cases you have this two-thirds requirement. I'm trying to remember I don't think that's gonna be a problem simply because of the funding sort. I mean, the municipality is going to be addressing that from another revenue bond perspective or otherwise, if particularly if it's certain types of infrastructure, we're talking about only the use of, in a sense the addition here is only to permit the funder of the project to be able to recruit some portion of the revenue. Otherwise the other requirements continue to apply. >> Follow up Mr. Chairman. >> Follow up. >> And I'm still trying just to get clarity in my own mind. >> Sir this is the wrong place for that. >> [LAUGH] It just seems to me probably the distinction would be that if the funding for the project, the initial course of the project before it gets reimbursed by assessment is purely a private source, maybe the same private source that controls the property would be the predominant value in this collection of parcels, there would be less rigor imposed by the governing body cuz then they don't have to approve any kind of dead instrument, and maybe they're totally indistinguishable for example. I don't really know what the approval requirements are for some of these like revenue bonds, I think the body has to approve those. This seems to be set apart in the sense that it even though it may not come out of county or city cookers in any way even the debts are opposed to GO bond if you've got some types of it then just seems vested with more a public interest consideration, unless you get to a position where it's purely coming from private patty the government has almost No interest or no connection with it whatsoever and it could be controlled very significantly by one wealthy property owner in
the collection. >> Bishop. >> Representative Stam. >> I think the point here is that the government is acting. As a in this kind of case not as an enterprenuer or rather I guess the developer could do all this through Home Motors association dues or that kind of thing. Long period of years but the financing model just works better if the government collected it. All the money come from private developers. Which is probably why the local government fired a note position on it cuz it's not government borrowing. >> Thank you Representative Stam. In order permission to speak, I've got Representative Howard, Representative Hanes, Representative Hager, Representative Adams, anyone else wanna jump in the string? Representative Luebke, Representative Meyer looks like you wanna say something. Representative Howard. >> Thank you Mr. chairman. To follow representatives Bishop's concern, this is treasury office, do they have any concern whatsoever and I believe their is someone here from the treasury office Mr. Stach. Mr. Stern/g if you would please state your name your organisation. >> [LAUGH] >> Thank you Mr. chairman ladies and Gentlemen of the committee we are the. The local government commission which is a unit of the treasures department has worked closely with Senator Hartsell and Representative Stam on this bill. We've not seen this last version of the language, let me assume Representative Stam the language we talked about has been removed and that solved one problem. Senator Hartsell says yes and so we did have some concerns early on but the most egregious concerns have been aswaged and so we remain neutral on this bill. >> Mr. Stam you're from Caldwell County, correct? >> [LAUGH] >> Those are some very very big words from Caldwell County. Thank you sir, really appreciate that. [LAUGH] Thank you. >> Representative Hanes. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman I heard Jennifer say that labor won't have a problem with this if it complied with the fair labor act, and I'm wondering if someone on the stuff or the senator could tell us if it does in fact comply. If they've had a look any type of look at that at all, thank you. >> Senator? >> Let me say this, there are two definitions. And I do not claim to be an expert in this area, I'm not. But there are two separate categories that were one category and they got separated, and some provisions got put in one section, and some in another. And what we're trying to do is to get them altogether again. That's essentially what we're talking about. Now, is that consistent with the fair labor act? What we're trying to do is make it consistent with state law. That has been our effort and this is actually the methodology that we're proposing, the language we're proposing as far as I'm concerned is consistent with existing practice in North Carolina anyway. It's just the costs of this inconsistencies in language that we try just to straighten out under our law. >> Follow up? >> Follow up. >> Thank you. So I wanna move to section one, I have a question. I have some specifics if you can give them to me. What entities specifically are we talking about just by example when we say seasonal amusement? What is that? Give me an example of that. >> Well, more particularly it really arose from the [INAUDIBLE] baseball who literally are seasonal and do not operate for most of the year.
>> Follow up. >> Follow up. >> Like the summer camps, that's the sort. >> Right, so basically what we're doing here is making modern league baseball teams and [INAUDIBLE] the like might even include some high level teams, don't have to pay hot dog vendors and the sort, whoever else works at their operation, minimum wage if they don't want to. >> No, they would still have to pay minimum wage. >> They would still have to pay. >> Follow up. >> Not at this point. >> Thank you sir. >> Representative Luky. >> Just on that point as we were discussing it, I understood that the purpose of the bill was to no longer require the minor league baseball teams to pay the minimum wage, is that what it says in the bill? >> There are no longer some of the sporting requirements and some of the extended kinds of things but we're not changing anything with regards to those basic, it's certainly not intended and I can show you that's not my intent. >> Representative Bradford. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, good morning senator, just a question of clarity on the appeals process which is under section two of the bill summary, just says an owner of a property for which assessment is made may follow a [INAUDIBLE] of appeal. So by way of example, if you have ten owners of the same parcel, if one of those owners which would be one-tenth ownership had an objection could that one person file the appeal? >> Yes. >> Representative Adam. >> Pass. >> Representative Luky get your question answered. >> Thank you sir but I'm not giving up my place in the cue. >> Very well sir, you're recognized. >> Thank you, first of all if I don't get sick today [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGH] this is for those of us who have been here a while, kind of a sense of reunion, Senator Hudson and I came in together several decades ago, Senator Sans who is the lobbyist for this bill was the state senator at that time, Representative Howard was here so we have a good root from the past that are involved in this discussion. I wanted to follow up on several of my colleagues in terms of the concerns about section one involving minor league baseball. If we look at the bill as drafted, in the title it says that employees are exempt from minimum wage over time in record keeping requirements. So in fact it does exempt employers from paying minimum wage. That seems to be really unfair. I mean to use a Durham example, some of you know Durham performing art center is 500 yards away from the Durham bulls, and if you were working a second say a second evening job at Depak, the law would say you have to pay minimum wage under current law the bulls have to pay minimum wage but under this bill, they would be exempt from the minimum wage. That doesn't seem fair to me if we think about who is working this kinds of jobs that typically people who need the money that work in a second job. So- >> Your example would be legislators? Is that >> Yeah. Absolutely Representative Stanley, absolutely. S along those lines, I have rafted an amendment, our staff has drafted an amendment for me and if Miss Griffin could explain what the amendment means as the copies are being made? Copies are being distributed Miss Griffin. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, the amendment would delete section one of the bill and make conforming changes to the numbering for the rest of the bill. >> Thank you. >> If you can wait for a moment till all the members do have copies? >> Yes sir. [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] Representative Luky I think everyone has got a copy now. >> Thank you Mr.
chairman, and as I indicated, Miss Griffin just said it exempts section one of the bill. I support section two of the bill, but in section one as I mentioned moments ago, it very explicitly exempts people who are working minor league baseball teams from the minimum wage so we would, with this bill, be allowing teams to have a sub minimum wage that they would pay to their employees. That just seem fairness, I don't think we should be on record as supporting sub minimum wage when we all know that the minimum wage itself is really not enough to live on and so I would like to take out section one, save that for another day's discussion and move forward, so I move with the option of the amendment Mr. Chairman. >> Now we have a motion Is there any discussion? Senator [INAUDIBLE] . [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Thank you [UNKNOWN]. This is a circular from the US, [UNKNOWN]labor wage an hour to be which expressly in Section 13 A3 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, expressely creates an exemption from the memo wage, over time provision of the FMFLSA for any employee employed by an establishment, which is amusement or recreational establishment if A it does not operate for more than seven lines in any calendar year or B, preceding the preceding calender year, its average for receipts for any six months, so we're not more than 33 and third percent of the average preceeds for the six month with year. I'm simply stay that is fair labour standards that right now that applies in This nation. >> Thank you sir, questions on the amendment, or those wishing to speak on the amendment. Seeing none, Representative Holley. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. I understand what you're saying but I still have a real problem with this. This intent Of this was for summer camps and things were, you talking people 24 hours. Religious cant stop public conference centers, where you wanna pay the staff for 24 hours for a short period of time. But when we start getting into that believe that North Caroline, I see I hear what you're saying When we start giving into summer employment and temporary employment, we have a large population of people who that is there employment . A lot of our students work doing these jobs, and to exempt them from minimum wage- >> Representative Holley, are we speaking specifically on the amendment? >> Yes, we are. >> Okay. >> So on this amendment I'm saying I'm for that part of taking out that part of section one of this bill that is in this amendment Representative Luebke is talking about. >> Senator? [BLANK_AUDIO] Senator Hartsell did you wanna address it? >> I'm just saying that all the bill does is conform, as far as I can tell, is literally to conform state law to the Fair Labor Standard Acts, it's that simple. >> Representative Meyer >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. Senator Hartsell, if fair Labor Standards Act already allows for this exemption, then why is it even necessary for us to take this statutory action? >> We are simply trying to avoid confusion in application. It's that simple. >> Representative Stam? >> I was gonna say that federal legislative act gives you the option to do that so we're conform in to the sense but if we wanted to have a higher wage for that we could. hat I'm saying is if it's consistent with the federal labor standards act. >> Representative Jordan. >> And I might add the way it's been applied in North Carolina and even [INAUDIBLE] is trying to avoid the confusion. >> Mr. Chairman looking at the amendment, line seven says page one, line 13 to page two, line nine, line nine is the middle of a section is that correct reference? The amendment sponsor I guess. >> I'm gonna refer to staff. >> Representatives it's possible that that is just a technical error in drafting of the amendment, the lines and numbers often change when these bills are rechecked in so the intent is to delete through page two line 12, so it looks like the numbers shifted so if the body chooses
to adopt the amendment, part of that motion could be to allow staff to make a conforming changes that it accurately deletes all of the Section one. >> Thanks [UNKNOWN]. Provident/g [UNKNOWN] >> So just a technical [UNKNOWN] what may we all need to [UNKNOWN] just aye, thank you Mr. Chairman. >> And when mistery makes his merchant, mention confirming changes. Thanks for [UNKNOWN] Representative Bishop. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. I think I will emphasis on the points that have made that this is just confirming to FLS changes, if you look on page two, those last few lines, the language that is stricken actually Right now, the way we read now is that anybody earning or anybody working 40 hours a week or more than 40 hours a week will get a urban time pay, but previously it had said that they had to work that in the case of a seasonal amusement recreational establishment and have to work 45 hours per week to get overtime pay. So Representative Luky striking that will reduce the number of people who were entitled to overtime pay recorded the minimum wage law. >> We have for the staff Ms. Griffin? >> Just to clarify by removing section one from the Bill that would mean there is no change to the current law. So the current law that allows seasonal amusement employees to get overtime once they've worked 45 hours in week would remain the same. Its just deletes it from the bill, its not deleting from the law. >> Mr. Chairman. >> Follow up. But it is true Ms staff that the effect of the amendment will be not only people working more than 45 hours in such establishment but working more than 40 hours in such establishment will now be entitled to minimum put to time and half. >> No sir that the deletion/g of Section one from the bill would mean that we are not making any changes to the current law in the statue so the section one see that you're looking at the bill, the strike through, none of that would change. So its just by removing it from the bill, the current law stays the same which is that all employees other than those who are seasonal amusement employees get overtime if they work at least 40 hours and seasonal amusement employees will continue to get over time if the they work an excess of 45. >> Follow up Mr. chairman. >> Follow up. But the effect of the senator Fletcher's bill if un amended would be that those working in establishments. If they work 40 hours per week, now would they be entitled to time [INAUDIBLE] >> I'm sorry I misunderstood your point. Actually because the seasonal employees are being moved on the first page of the bill, they are being put into 95-25.14 which is the exemption statute so you can see where it says the minimum wage provisions, the overtime provisions and the records keeping provisions would not apply to those employees so stricking the language over on page two is the conforming change, it's basically saying they don't get overtime. >> Not a problem. Thank you staff. Representative Meyer? >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. So I appreciate the clarity Senator Hudson, Representative Stam gave about the Fair Labors Act but what that leads me to understand is the action we would take if we were to approve such section one of this bill is we would take the latitude that the federal government gives us to not pay seasonal workers the minimum wage or overtime, and say okay, North Carolina is gonna go ahead and take a group of people who are among the lowest paid in our state and make it okay to pay them even less, when we know that all over the state we have wage problems, creating economic difficulties for families. I cannot support us lowering the minimum wage and overtime standards given the economic shape of some of our most vulnerable communities so I'm gonna support the Luky amendment. >> Anyone else to speak on the amendment? Representative Luky. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. One point just to say, the title of the bill makes it clear that there will no longer be a necessity to pay the minimum wage or overtime, that's what the title of the bill says and that is the situation is. If this amendment fails, the amendment passes then these employees will still have to be paid the minimum wage and should they be over 40 hours they would have to be paid over time.
This is simply to me a matter of fairness, the employees who work these kinds of jobs flipping burgers or cutting the grass out there in the out field, they are not here, they don't have a voice on this and I think it's incumbent on us to think it through as if we were one of those minimum wage employees. With this amendment, if the amendment is not successful, then the ball of the teams can actually pay Mr. Chairman, there is a chatter if they could- >> The committee and those at the back please keep it down while other members are speaking. Thank you sir. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. If we do not adopt the amendment, then the teams are free to pay a sub minimum wage, they are free to pay less than 7.25, that just doesn't seem fair to me, I think we ought to protect those who need the income by maintaining the minimum wage provision so again that's why I said amendment and accept the technical changes referenced by Representative Jordan. >> Thank you, Heins wants to speak on the amendment. Yes, Representative Stan at the back, would you please approach for an explanation please? >> Mr. Chairman my name is Kennedy Sans with [INAUDIBLE] and I represent the Minor League Baseball Association in North Carolina. I don't have this gut feel at this point from what we're trying to do. First, Representative Luky is talking about reduce minimum wage. There is already a provision in there that allows the department of labor to reduce it to 85% anyway and I doubt very seriously there has been any applications for that I'm aware of even though that provision is there. Again as far as minor league baseball is concerned, [COUGH] excuse me, most of the hourly wage our employees do not work 45 hours a week anyway. Most of them have a ball game as 4, 5 hours a day. And those kinds of things. What we are really focused on is the people who are on salary. Their is also federal provision that if your salary is above. six or something like that then you are currently exempt. Where we run into a problem is with the provision that says over 40 hours a week, there is a 45 hours a week. Does that apply to salaried employees in North Carolina. Their is some confusion there. And what we are trying to do is to clarify to make it the same as the all these other exceptions that we have in the statute and comply with federal fair labor standards acts. And again we can drill in and focus on the people that are making minimum wage and I personally as you most of may know that I believe this minimum wage is said 25 is very used around here particularly in the places where the baseball teams are the Durham, the Wake counties the Ashe goes in places like that where a minimum wage is really a fiction of 725 an hour. We would ask you to support it because again just to clarify where we are and what we are doing primarily with our salaried employees, again this does help keep the jobs here in North Carolina. It does promote a very viable tourism industry and a very viable industry, within the state and again they work part of the year and this is why I think that the, that it was provided and I have no idea how it got split from summer camps over the years. I tried to do some legal resume legislative research on it I can't find out where it got split how it got split. I got an idea how the exemption for fishing came in, I have a feeling I have an idea how that came in and from outdoor dramas, I have an idea where those came from but the others, I don't know, so I would appreciate it if you would oppose this amendment and support the bill as it is and let's go forward and help our local communities, thank you. >> Thank you sir. Next we'll have Representatives Luky, Howly, Davis and this should be on the amendment. >> Thank you. It is on the amendment and it's actually a question for Senator Sans. >> Senator Sans if you would. >> Well, I really feel like it has been today. More so the usual. >> Well it is kind of old timers day. >> Did you retire your jersey sir, I'll just [LAUGH] >> My wife washed it too many times, it just sort of faded away. >> My question to Senator Sans is this, you just indicated that this is really about overtime?
>> Primarily yes. >> So would you accept an alteration of the amendment to exempt the words minimum wage so that we're clear that it's about overtime and it's not about paying a sub minimum wage? >> As far as I know, all we were trying to do is comply and in all honesty I don't know whether this would make it in compliance or not. That is not our intention whatsoever. I mean, you can't get $7.25 an hour anyway. >> Well, then to follow up would you accept an amendment that just removes the words minimum wage? >> Assuming it did not kick us out of federal compliance, yes sir, that's all we're concerned with. >> Staff you've heard the question, is that something that we could do? >> And Mr. chair? >> Yes sir. >> And if they need to research it, I'd support such an amendment on the floor if takes time to research that. >> Okay. [INAUDIBLE] >> I'd like to have an opportunity to speak to somebody that knows a whole lot more than I do. >> Thank you sir. We have to stand on that [INAUDIBLE] and Representative Luky is agreeable, and Representative Stam you've heard what [INAUDIBLE] offered on the floor. With that in mind, would you like to withdraw your amendment? >> Well, I'm glad that Representative Stam and i can work together on the floor, on amendment in common, it's really good. >> I feel worried inside. >> [LAUGH] >> As do I. However, since we're not yet clear on whether this would work, it seems to me it ought to work but if we can't do it right here, I would like this lease for us to have an opportunity to stay at our position on it as such with the full understanding from members of the committee that if staff indicates that we can do this, remove minimum wage, that's the amendment that I would run on the floor, I would remove this amendment if successful and change it to minimum wage, but I think if we don't know for sure that that can come in, that we ought to support the amendment. >> So you would like to vote on the amendment? >> Yes sir. >> Okay. Very well, anyone else would like to speak on this amendment? Representative Howley. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman, my question is, if what he was saying is he was trying to keep that overtime rate to change it from 45 to 40 that maybe they can qualify for all the time at 40. My question is that there anything in the [UNKNOWN] that prevents somebody for paying overtime at 40. I mean its nothing that say that you just can stop paying overtime after 40 hours so the current law still accommodates everything that I've heard today in the bill. You know you can decide to pay somebody overtime after 20 hours if you choose to do so, there's nothing in their lot to prevent that. So I don't see why we even really need section one at all. >> Thank you Representative Howley , representative Davis. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. Based on what I have heard from senator Hawks senator Sands really the unclear nature of your amendment representative Lucky. I would suggest we vote against the amendment that it go to the floor let go forward if it comes to the floor if a research bears out that their is merit to your amendment then we could properly address it on the house floor. Thank you Mr. chairman. >> Let's vote on the amendment. All those in favor of the amendment signify by saying Aye. >> Aye >> Those oppose like's that >> No. >> Opinion of chair the No's have it the amendment fails. I believe we have another amendment representative Stan did someone have an amendment? [INAUDIBLE] Okay. Recognizing representatives Reives for a motion. >> And I would like to move for adoption for you know what I'm trying to say. >> Saw that. Sorry you might not have said that, but I believe that you would move. For the adoption of the PCS with conforming changes is that correct is that what he said. Thank you. You have the motion before you. >> Mr Chairman. >> Representative Lucky. >> Thank you. I think their is a con-censors I heard if I'm hearing it wrong if anyone would kindly speak up. Clarify that the minimum wage is alright to remove from the bill. That that would run on the floor and at least members of these committees will support it. >> Mr. Speaker I object I'm not agreeing to anything. >> Representative Stam. >> I think I will be managing the bill on the floor and I would support that. Thank you Representative Stam. >> Thank you. >> As is for the things we've discussed and I here representative Davis and appreciate very much. I think we should have voted for the amendment which I would have withdrawn on the floor if we could get the minimum wage which I'm hoping we can.
So. Just for that reason, I just wanna make clear that I support section two but I think, as drafted section one is not acceptable so I'm gonna oppose the Bill. >> Okay, [UNKNOWN] If not all those in favor say [INAUDIBLE] saying aye. >> Those opposed like [UNKNOWN] >> No. >> Okay so the ayes have it, the ayes do have it. [SOUND]