him or her mission. Journal for June twenty fifth two thousand thirteen is the Examiner family Greg lives where he was written from the more moved that the Journal for June twenty fifth to be approved All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. as written is an favorable sci-fi is no guys have it. the Journal is approved as written, the fish as memorials and papers addressed the journal assembly on the house ratification of bills and resolutions, the clerk will read enrolling clerk, [SPEAKER CHANGES] wants the ability to ratify the presentation of the governor to go once a Saranac to eliminate unnecessary reports of chiropractic clinic. program progress has been it sinks back to staff seek contract management section of the division purchase contract how stilted way that designate July twenty second eight years, North Carolina, fragile X a way to stay out locally thirty six act provides that the budgeting engagement is no operation government is at present eleven effect on June thirty two thousand thirteen@ seven forty three and ex- Michigan clarifying changes to the moment unemployment insurance laws and upon silver and resins derived from rock 'n roll presented to the offset gifts and consequently not enact a lab. the board of commissioners of love,the County served its visual drug accounted airport parking hospital tonight for Mac to allow certain counties to remove abandoned vessels from laughable waters has to resolution eight nineteen.resolution online in memory of Bobby. how are these two senior former member of the General assembly house don't resolution thousand six job resolution providing for the confirmation ofappointments of Jerry Dokken and James Patterson to the utilities commission [SPEAKER CHANGES] chapter him him from the Senate [SPEAKER CHANGES] said to number two percent L. twenty eight. an act extended duration permits. thank you. building transfer stations in thirty years modified on proper natural resources bark it if you guys for permits and solid waste management facilities to modify certain while shopping center Landfield, including the opportunity inspection, Lee J collection lines all day covering requires the use of certain landfill owners and operators environment if April favorable to finance [SPEAKER CHANGES] members would like to recognize the verse of the day. this Rebecca Welborn from Durham, North Carolina the rear of the chamber 's Welborn welcome 's calendar tells Billboard twenty one. the clerk will read city committee sent to the hospital for twenty one ability entitled an act removing certain scrap property from the corporate limits of the town of Marshfield, what rock services, rivers and Randall from elements rise
Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Steinburg, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Could I be recorded “yes” also? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman records voting aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Torbett. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Likewise, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman records voting aye. Representative Hastings. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Likewise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman records voting aye. House Bill 567. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Committee Substitute for House Bill 567, a bill to be entitled ‘An Act Removing Certain Described Property from the Corporate Limits of the City of Lumberton’. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Waddell, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion and debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman’s recognized for a motion and to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I move that we do concur with the Senate bill. There’s only one change in that bill and that was moving the effective date from July the 1st to June the 30th. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the motion to concur in the Senate Committee Substitute for House Bill 567. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. All members please record. The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 105 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative, the House has concurred in the Senate Committee Substitute for House Bill 567. The bill remains on the calendar. House Bill 832. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Committee Substitute for House Bill 832, a bill to be entitled ‘An Act to Protect the Public’s Health by Increasing Access to Immunizations and Vaccines through the Expanded Roll of Immunizing Pharmacist’. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Avila, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To make a motion and debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady’s recognized for a motion and to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I would ask that we concur with the Senate. The changes that were made were done at my request, involving an effective date change, reinserting some language that was inadvertently left out, and also adding some gap language that would take care of time while rules are being formed, so please vote yes. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the motion to concur in the Senate Committee Substitute for House Bill 832. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will lock the machine and records the vote. 105 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative, the House has concurred in the Senate Committee Substitute for house Bill 832. The bill will be enrolled and sent to the Governor. The House will be at ease. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, if you could recognize me for a couple re-referrals. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, Senate Bill 112, Amended Environmental Laws 2013, is presently on the Committee of Environment. I move that be removed from Environment and referred to the Committee on Reg. Reform. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection so ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And Senate Bill 201, short title ‘Allow Hunting with Suppressors’, the bill presently is in the Committee on Agriculture. I move that it be removed from that committee and that all those serial referrals thereafter be stricken and that the bill be sent to the Committee on Judiciary A. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection so ordered. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, the Chair is happy to extend courtesies of the gallery to Miss North Carolina from Johnston County, Johna Edmonds. Johna will be serving for the next year and focus on education and reading. Welcome. Representatives Johnston and Langdon are recognized to send forth a committee report. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Johnston and Langdon, Education Committee
say no. forty four UNC jerky linage favourable counter person is probably our recognize and forth committee reports are already rented. [SPEAKER CHANGES] William Brawley and ILOG fascinating committee, Senate Bill seven seventeen motor vehicle safety Inspector Law obtain a proposed house committee substitute on five Lucent Senate committee substitute as a substitute counter set committee substitute unfavourable counter person is probably our recognize important mentor for the corporate website is poorly in Iowa for the transportation committee, Senate Bill seven oh nine NL outfield. the present maxim speed of seventy five lost our neighbour Melissa House committee substitute unfavourable listed original bill asked me substitute counter original bill unfavourable calendar person is lying, and Dixon are recognized and forth may report the work already rented flying benediction for the agriculture committee, [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill six thirty six wildlife resource new penalty changes paperless health committees that you don't paperless his Senate committee substitute and see early reports of Judiciary subcommittee. they asked me subsequently referred to Judiciary subcommittee date Senate committee substitute unfavourable calendar [SPEAKER CHANGES] ladies and gentlemen, upon motion of representative Charles Jager that the chairs happy to extend occurs in the gallery to his father, Charles Peter Mister get or voice talents recognized him and his agenda. we have a member is not in the chamber are you speaking I'll send off or not least without objection will move ahead Susan Bell, one twenty seven; twenty seven are great. house committee sensitive person in the one twenty seven Belgium entitled an act to permit the Department of Commerce to contract with a North Carolina non-profit corporation for the performance of certain economic development functions. Johnson of North Carolina next version of marketplace that your purpose to debate the bill thousand underwater panamas recognized right will that you, [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister Speaker, members of this bill was heard in full commerce for almost two hours last Wednesday with old in-depth discussion about what the secretary commerce and the governor 's vision is to help reform job creation efforts at economic development and recruitment and corporate recruitment. any change to help change the environment for all of our business in North Carolina, and this model is not something that we came up with our own several states we are replicating a model that has been enacted in several states, including Indiana and make up a disciplinary help the departmentof commerce move at the speed of businesses that move disputed government you look at the bill section one. one details the contracting of functions at the department. commerce can enter into and you will notice that it does not include the allocation of funds for JJ, one North Carolina any ESC employment security commission or administration of grants set forth by the federal government. we retain a# is not about oversight committee that includes secretary transportation Secretary commerce sector revenue theatre secretary Owen, the other on-site budget management and one of G bytes chamber. this non-profit corporation will be governed by fifteen voting members that think the cross-section of industry in our state ranking for agribusiness, financial services, military defence contracting, as well as tourism, retail, we additionally have six appointees from the General assembly when and of the appointees from the General assembly, no more than one from each chamber can be from the metropolitan area to ensure that we have adequate rule representation from the appointee selected by the other speaker of the house, the president pro tem additionally, we have some mandatory contract terms. you can read on page for the bill that details how work and have proper oversight and reporting back to the General assembly by the non profit
Additionally, we are requiring this non-profit organization to help the state develop this comprehensive strategic economic development plan, that will help us have public and private input on how we do business and interact with the private sector. Alongside this private sector/public sector involvement, we've got University – members of the Board of Governors for the University helping out, to help this economic development plan, to make sure we have appropriate strengths and weaknesses in our state identified. Additionally, the legislation modifies the North Carolina Board of Science and Technology, and I wanted to thank Representative Floyd for adding an amendment. I believe Representative Graham will offer a similar amendment to make sure we have an appropriate diversity on this Board of Science and Technology, and we're adding the word “Innovation” to help make sure that we are staying on the cutting edge of innovation, science and technology. Additionally, we are creating new prosperity zones, and there's been a fair amount of discussion on how the maps look, and we're trying to make sure that we have appropriate flexibility, to make sure that we are partnering more with each other in an appropriate way from a regional perspective, with the perspective of the industries in these clusters as well. And this is – there's plenty of discussion about the maps, and I think we could draw maps all day. We could engage in a map-drawing effort, and on what counties should be partnered with which counties, and the focus of these prosperity zones is to focus on customer service across departmental lines. And to make sure we have our Department of Transportation, Department of Commerce and DENR all working together under one roof to make sure we're delivering the best customer service for economic development and job creation. We have proper oversight and ethics provisions contained in this legislation as well, and I think this is an effort that would help streamline and deliver services from an economic development perspective, bettering each one of our communities, both rural and urban, and make sure that we have a direct line from the Department of Commerce in your community instead of this kind of a patchwork and myriad of efforts. We want to make sure that we're all signing out of the same songbook, and I think this is a way to streamline this and achieve savings in our Department of Commerce, and deliver better customer service to each one of our communities for economic development. I'd be glad to be available to answer any questions, but I do have a couple of amendments that I would like to send forth at this time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Murry, I know that there are four pending amendments you have to, I believe, Representative McElraft and Representative Graham. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The first amendment I'd like to send forth is S127-AMC-37. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to send forth the amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is amendment AMC-37 (v1). Representative Murry moves to amend the bill on Page 16, lines 7 through 11 by rewriting those lines to read: [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr Speaker. Section 6.8 of the current version of the bill addresses how the regional economic development commissions and how the Department of Commerce can retain 50 percent of that funding. This broadens that language to enable the public/private partnership for state marketing and re-branding functions that are currently being performed by the regional economic and development commissions. That on January 1 of 2014, anything that has been appropriated for that will be available for the Department to allocate to this public/private partnership for those similar functions. So we took the 50 percent language out, and made it a little broader and more flexible to meet the needs of the public/private partnership while we work in concert with these regional economic development commissions over this transition period. So I would ask that members would vote yes on the amendment, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or further debate on the amendment? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the amendment sent forth by Representative Murry for the House Committee Substitute of Senate Bill 127. All in favor vote Aye. All opposed vote No. The clerk will open the vote. [RECORDING ENDS]
The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. One hundred nine having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative, the amendment passes. Representative Murry, please state your purpose. SPEAKER CHANGE Step forth on the amendment. SPEAKER CHANGE The gentleman is recognized as stepping forth on the amendment. The clerk will read. SPEAKER CHANGE This is Amendment AMC-34B4. Representative Murry moves to amend the bill on page 2, line 8, by deleting. SPEAKER CHANGE The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. SPEAKER CHANGE This is technical in nature and clarifies general assembly, that means the Speaker of the House or the present Pro Tempore of the Senate, and has additional clarifying language. This is a technical amendment in nature and I would move adoption of the amendment. SPEAKER CHANGE Ladies and gentlemen, without objection 12D is suspended. Is there objection? So ordered. Further discussion, further debate on the amendment. If not, the question before the House is the passage of the amendment set forth by Representative Murry for the House Committee substitute of Senate Bill 127. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. One hundred and nine having voted in the affirmative, one in the negative, the amendment passes. Now we're back on the bill. Representative McElraft, please state your purpose. SPEAKER CHANGE Step forth on the amendment. SPEAKER CHANGE The lady is recognized as stepping forth on the amendment. The clerk will read. SPEAKER CHANGE Amendment AMC-36B3, Representative McElraft moves to amend the bill on page 1, line 24, by inserting. SPEAKER CHANGE The lady is recognized to debate the amendment. SPEAKER CHANGE Thank you Mr. Speaker and members of the House. This amendment just clarifies that the funds appropriated for tourism development will be used for such and not co-mingled with the money for ancillary activity, such as statewide branding and business development marketing. And then in the second area, page 3, line 1 and 2, it adds the North Carolina Travel Industry Association to the North Carolina Travel and Tourism Coalition, and that position will be recommended jointly by those two boards. Thank you so much. I appreciate your support. SPEAKER CHANGE Representative Murry, please state your purpose. SPEAKER CHANGE I would ask members to support the amendment. Several folks in the travel and tourism group wanted to make this belt and suspenders amendment to make sure that we have our travel and tourism efforts not co-mingled with our state branding efforts, and I think this is a good amendment to help protect the funding for marketing, are the reason why everybody wants to come to visit North Carolina. SPEAKER CHANGE Further discussion, further debate on the amendment. If not, the question before the House is the passage of the amendment set forth by Representative McElraft to the House Committee substitute for Senate Bill 127. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. One hundred and ten having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative, the amendment passes. Representative Charles Graham, please state your purpose. SPEAKER CHANGE Step forth on the amendment. SPEAKER CHANGE The gentleman is recognized as standing forth on the amendment, the clerk will read. SPEAKER CHANGE Amendment AMM-32B1, Representative C. Graham moves to amend the bill on page 9, line 51, by re-writing the line to read. SPEAKER CHANGE The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. SPEAKER CHANGE Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment will allow a member from a North Carolina Indian tribe to be represented on the North Carolina Board of Science, Technology and Innovation and it would be one member. One of the six members would be from private industry, and I certainly appreciate your support. Thank you. SPEAKER CHANGE Representative Murray, please state your purpose. SPEAKER CHANGE Debate the amendment. SPEAKER CHANGE The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. SPEAKER CHANGE I wanted to thank Representative Graham for bringing this to my attention. Just make sure we have, of the private sector members that are on the board of the Science, Technology and Innovation Board, that one of whom will be from a recognized tribe to make sure we have appropriate diversity. Representative Floyd ran an amendment in commerce to make sure that some of the university representatives were from the ?? historically black colleges and universities in our state. I think this is a good amendment and I ask members to vote for it. SPEAKER CHANGE Further discussion, further debate on the amendment. The question before the House is the passage of the amendment set forth by Representative Charles Graham to the House Committee substitute for Senate Bill 127. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will
[Speaker Changes] The machine will record the vote, 107 having voted in the affirmative, 4 in the negative, the amendment passes, we’re now back on the bill. Further discussion, further debate? Representative Catlin, please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] To debate the bill. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill as amended. [Speaker Changes] I have a tremendous amount of respect for the bill sponsor and the secretary of commerce and Governor but I will be voting no on this and so I thought I would explain why. One issue that concerns me is this sets the path forward to redistricting the deemer regions, which I thinks something that needs to be vetted separately. Secondly, I’m afraid these nonprofits will be judged by how much incentives they recommend, and I think that moves us in the wrong direction. These non profits will be allowed to pay theirself 120 thousand dollars with your tax dollars for their salaries. And there is no clear plan to offset that cost by staff reduction and commerce, so I respect whatever you guys decide to vote, but I just wanted to let you know where I was. [Speaker Changes] Representative Bumgardner, please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] To debate the bill. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I have had every intention of voting against this until today, and I’m gonna tell you why. I don’t like incentives. I think its a mistake to take money from people that are here, tax payers, and use that money to entice, or whatever other word you want to use, other people to come here, and I disagree with the whole premise and principle….. [Recording went blank] [Speaker Changes] Is a very diverse state with regions, and our regional partnerships certainly up in the Western part of the state have been very effective. They are mature organizations, they have worked very hard for well over a decade. I’ve been involved with them for at least a decade. They are doing a great job identifying the opportunities of the Western region. Regional partnerships were developed because all of the power was central to Raleigh in previous efforts for economic development across our state. The Regional partnerships help bring some real local leadership, some real local input and development, and they work very well in my area. What this bill seems to do, this direction, I hope it doesn’t work this way, but I’m quite skeptical of it because what we have had, our biggest trouble in Western North Carolina, is getting any attention out of Raleigh to the special needs of our region. And our regional partnerships have done a very good job in developing our assets for opportunities and innovation and everything. So for that reason, just for regionalism in this state, I think the regions need to be well represented. And the authority and power, needs to not reside in Raleigh exclusively in the department of commerce, so for that reason I’ll be voting against the bill. [Speaker Changes] Representative Millis, please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] To speak on the bill, Mr. Speaker. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentleman. As you know, I usually sit back here very quiet, and whenever there are times for me to speak, I am very reluctant. But today I wanted to stand up and give you some justification of why you will see a red dot next to my name on this bill. As I say that, I really want to qualify some things that are very positive about this bio, for the efforts of the bill sponsors, as well as the efforts of the administration. That is for the first time in a very, very, long time, or maybe forever, we’re actually gonna have a comprehensive economic development plan. It’s a very positive thing for this state. In addition, we’re going to have some collaboration between economic developing zones...
Which is a great measure. We're also going to have the, we're actually going to look at the examination of the collaboration between these agencies. And for anybody who is trying to expand an existing business here in this state or who is actually trying to come in this state to do business, as you know, you get the run-around in regard to the regulatory measures that you have to meet. Whether it be with DOT or ?? or anything of the like. So the idea of we're making efforts on a regional aspect, to allow an individual not to have the run-around, just because he or she decides to expand their existing business or to come to North Carolina to do business. So I applaud all those efforts. But the reason why that I will be voting against this bill is a continuation of something that I feel that is truly negative for this state. And that measure is the role of economic incentives, by way of direct cash incentives to private businesses, or even by way of shifting the tax burden from one business to another by way of a credit. Now, the term economic development is a broad term. And that includes some very positive things. Infrastructure, the idea for our roads, our water and sewer, which is a direct public expenditure of tax payer dollars, that has a direct public impact. They could have indirect, private impact, but that is justifiable within the role of government and state. But to take taxpayer dollars, that are being taken from their pockets for the role of government, and to directly invest those dollars into a private business, to me is extremely harmful. And I can't find anything on the Constitution here in this state that I actually took the oath to uphold that actually gives me the ability, as a legislator, to do that. And this bill here, on page one, in terms of the contracting functions of the Department of Commerce, lines 14 to 15, basically says this non-profit will render advisory, research, and recruiting recommendations regarding incentiven and grants awards. So not only are we taking something that currently exists within the Department of Commerce, but we're contracting out with a non-profit corporation, that may not necessarily directly make the expenditures of these incentive grants, but will actually make the recommendations to the Department of Commerce to these incentive grants to be issued. So, to me, I have some reservations about that. And as the committees that I was on actually articulated those reservations. And that is, that a non-profit corporation that is going to use public dollars to leverage more private dollars, then how does that work in regard to if you're not a member of that non-profit organization, or a paying member for private funds? And even under the terms economic development of infrastructure, then what's the odds of you actually having those public dollars of infrastructure come near your place of living or your place of business, if you're not a paying member of that non-profit corporation? Those things concern me a little bit. Also, in regards to the formation of the non-profit, on page two, it talks about the appointments and the expertise that are needed on this board. Which I think is a great thing for anybody who is actually talking about economic development to actually be informed about it. And I think this is a positive thing, but as we talked about, economic development also includes incentives. With that, it's kind of hard for me to flip on the next page and see that it says here on page 3, line 12, that no member of the board shall take any official action or use of the member's official position to profit in any manner. It appears that is a Catch 22, that how can you be an expert on this board, in regards to all the aspects of economic development, but then to make decisions in regard to page one of the bill, like I expressed in the recruitment of businesses by economic incentives, and actually not have an economic gain behind it? These things concern me, and I just wanted to provide you, the members, with some justification of why that there will be a red light next to my name on this bill. And I hope that as we are doing these wonderful things to reform our commerce and how we actually approach economic development in our state, that we can do so within the role of government. That we can do so that takes these taxpayer dollars and invest it into items of infrastructure that affect all, versus the taking of taxpayer dollars for the role of government and directly giving it to a private business. It seems fine, but there are constituents in your district, and in my district as well, that are actually working, earning income, and also paying taxes. And for their monies to directly go to a business that could locate in the district, by way of economic incentives, that they are actually funding their competitor. And indirectly, it could be viewed that they are funding the own knife that cuts their throat. I think we need to head in a different direction in this state. And while I commend the positive things this bill.
The good does not outweigh the bad for me, and i hope that we will have a different vision here in north carolina to actually fund the dollars of our tax payers in a way that is in with the proper rule of government, i thank you for your time. (SPEAKER CHANGES)Mr speaker (SPEAKER CHANGES)Representative Murry please state your purpose (SPEAKER CHANGES)I would like to ask representative mills a quick question (SPEAKER CHANGES) Representative Mills does the gentleman yield? (SPEAKER CHANGES)Absolutely (SPEAKER CHANGES)Are you familiar with the existing oversight on how economic development incentives as are issued in this state currently (SPEAKER CHANGES)Representative Murry i am currently aware that whether it be jdig or one fund or jmac, i understand that this direction taken is actually a positive aspect in that step, my oposition to the bill was in reguard to were continuing something in my view that is wrong period, even though wee are making it, we are polishing it, we are polishing something that is not positive for the citizens of the state. (SPEAKER CHANGES)Thank you (SPEAKER CHANGES)representative Susan Martin please state your purpose. (SPEAKER CHANGES)To speak on the bill (SPEAKER CHANGES)The lady is recognized to debate the bill (SPEAKER CHANGES)Thank you mr speaker. Members of the house, i rise in support of this bill and i want to commend the spon sors and the secretary and her staff for all of the hard work that has gone into this comprehensive legislation. Change is disconcerning for many of us and it is a great vision but it is difficult to see from where we are today for how we are going to get top all these great things, and its not finished, there is still work to be done in the planning process. I want top share with you that i had the directors of economic development in the 2 counties i support, to meet with secretary Decker individually and express all of there concerns, whats working well whats not working well, and i found her to be exceptionally interested and really listening to the input and addressing there concerns and they are both on board with this direction= and really support these changes, so i will be voting for this bill, and i also want to share that i will be objecting the third reading, because in working with the sponsor and the secretary, some information ahas been communicated that is not exactly outlined in the bilkl, as stated and, with this bill sponsors agreement i will be working up a small technical amendment, so i appreciate the support of the bill (SPEAKER CHANGES)Representative Martin the chair anticipates a bit more time than the session today based on a couple of the other bills we have i wondered if its possible if we could have the amendment drawn up, we may still be able to take it up before the session is over today if you confer with the staff and the bills sponsor. Representative McElraft please state your purpose (SPEAKER CHANGES)Speak on the bill (SPEAKER CHANGES)The lady is recognized to debate the bill (SPEAKER CHANGES)Thank you mr speaker, members of the house my partner and i over there in crime, in the NER commitee have gone over and over this many hours because nwe had real concerns about the rule center and weve had many many meeetings weith commerce and secretary decker and i can assure you that this bill and the intentions of this bill are good for rural North carolina. We were worried that the Rural center would go away and that the good things about the rural center would not be like representative said in the various rural areas, everything would be back in Rally. I can assure you that the mission of the prosperity zones is to actually take commerce out of Raliegh and take commerce to work with our individual rural areas and our urban areas also, and to make surtwe that they are listening and that they are devoting the time they need to to those areas and working on jobs specific to the areas. I herard the commerce secretary talk many times and she is a brillkiant woman if you just listen to her and her background, you will understand her compasion for making sure that this does work. These prosperity zones are going to working with our regional, our regional groups, those who want to stay intact. Those who dont want to stay intact maybe some of there good members would also like to participate in those prosperity zones, but i do know that this should be a very very good thing for north carolina and i hope you will support this. Things that needed to change in commerce, commerce has not been reaching out to our rural areas and the variety of jobs that are needed in a specific way in our areas. All of us have different needs, its not a one size fits all state and secretary decker and her team understand that and we are going to work hard with her to make sure that these prosperity zones work, and the Rural areas will be taken care of if thats been your concern.
Thank you so much. Please support the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Carney, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and ladies and gentlemen of the House. I, too, have great regard and praise for Secretary Decker. I've worked with her in Charlotte on numerous projects. I'm having a little hesitation about jumping into this new plan, which, although it has been vetted in committee, the development of it has been, over the last few months, we had competing bills in the Senate and the House, we had differences, people didn't think we were ready for it, both sides of the aisle. I just have concerns about the prematurity of this. I wish that we could have had this bill and taken it a step further during the interim, and come back with all the questions that are still out there. I have a great concern, and I've raised this question in both committees that I'm on where the bill came through. And that is, in the dissolving of our regional partnerships, we now are going to come back and say two or more counties can join together and form their own Regional Economic Development Commission, and they have to adhere to the same guidelines in this bill. But what I asked in both committees, and the Secretary did say in the first committee, her response was -- and I'll tell you my question is, when we move to a public-private partnership -- and by the way, I support those for North Carolina; I've been on those study committees, too, and in that effort -- but when we move in this direction, and we're creating this non-profit oversight committee, my concern is that competition down at the local level with two or more counties forming their new Economic Development Commissions, the competition for those private dollars, with those smaller groups, and then the state going after those same private dollars. I have a concern there, and she said that was a good question, and that was a concern, and that's something we have to work through. I just wish that we could wait... I know this is moving... I'm not sure where the votes are in this chamber, but I do ask you to think about those things. I have a concern about changing the ?? zones, just... all-encompassing in this one bill, how's that going to work. I know we've had various answers from... it depends on who you ask if that's going to be impacted. If you have a project in one ?? office, is it going to be impacted? The speed of it, or... is that going to be impacted when those ?? zones are changed? And I know there are different answers for these, and that's my point. I just think there are too many unanswered questions. I think Secretary Crisco did a great job in North Carolina when he was here and I am convinced that Secretary Decker is going to do equally as great a job, and hopefully a little better because we need to grow a little better, but I think this plan needs to slow down just a little bit and let's study it just a little further or develop it a little further before we jump out there and move with it. And I really, regrettably, and going to have to vote no today. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Iler, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wasn't going to speak, but I did have a few comments on one of the committees, but... Last year, my county lost a major project, and that project could have been in North Carolina, in my county. And I'm not just pushing my county, I'm pushing the whole state. We lost that project to Florence, South Carolina. One of the major reasons that is being credited that we lost that project is South Carolina had a board in Columbia of department heads that could react very quickly to put offers on the table to this corporation. And this corporation already had outlets and manufacturing facilities in North Carolina and we had an empty industrial park where they were going to go, and they went to Florence, South Carolina. And I want to tell you, we need more clout in Raleigh, not to compete from county to county, but to compete for all the counties. That Raleigh works for all the counties, not one county competing against another one. So, again, we need not just one or the other, we need all of the above. We need to give the...
The Secretary and the Governor of have the flexibility to put it often on the table xxxxxxxxxxx some of these projects and in particular that one there. So I would like to encourage you to work green , you see, someone said if you saw a green xx they would say my name; I have never seen a perfect bill , this is not a perfect bill , this is definitely in the right direction I believe; to get more on that bill and more business finally and get those projects in North Carolina not South Carolina , Georgia, Thank you. Speaker changes: Representative Wilkins please take your papers. Speaker changes: To speak on the bill Mr. Speaker? Speaker changes: To speak on the bill till it is amended? Speaker changes: Thank you Mr. Speaker: Our discussion so far has been all over the map. Very good, very good [xx] .And I am going to try to localize my comments. A concern that I have with the bill, I have been through it several times, I cannot find anywhere in the bill who does marketing . Oh I can find is tourism marketing, I can find growth areas and growth centers but I can’t find anything about who markets [noise]( Thank you Mr. Baker.), about who markets my little County? Your County represented upon I can’t find it. The partnership approach has the key and that key is marketing. The current partnerships do that function that probably 90 of our one hundred counties couldn’t do if they had to; I mean you could tell the folks in my county that they had to market themselves to the industrial and business worlds next year, we couldn’t do it. So I am concerned that I don’t see them marketing peace in that, I don’t see responsibility for it. I am also concerned about that other wording, growth centers, growth areas to me that smacks of the big series and once again, [we have to sell our souls out?] The way this bill is right now, I can’t support it and appreciate it or recommend it to you . Speaker changes: Representative Davis please take your papers. Speaker changes: To comment on the bill. Speaker changes: xxx till the bill is amended. Speaker changes: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the house, I had an opportunity this week to talk to the Governor and he asked us, this House to support his reorganization of the commerce department as well as his efforts to promote economic development in the state by supporting this bill. I agree with what’s in the bill like representative Arnold said no bill is perfect, we have to work on it, we can make it better in the future. But I can’t support our Governor and support his request that we do support him, and hope that he would do the same and xx thank you. Speaker changes: Representative Stone please take your papers. Speaker changes: To xx the bill. Speaker changes: Speaker changes: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen I would urge you to support this bill; and I’ll give you many reasons why. The current policy or program we have is about a 5.0, this xxx about 10.2.So we are headed in the right direction. Our men have concerns on some of the incidents but at the same time can talk about a bill, this is for North Carolina, and we have got to move forward and we have got different avenues to try that out. The business community throughout the states, the United States said they wanted something different. They want a quicker answer, they want quicker turn around, they want direct co-ops come in and do business quicker than we currently are, If you live in a rural community like I do, you got a great reason to vote for this bill because you probably have property taxes or on unemployment. So xxx are promising that they are doing probably everything they could do. And talking to Secretary Baker she might want to commitment. She said she would come to every community and talk to us about how to better market, how to better serve our communities with commerce. So I think it’s very important to have that, that discussion back home what we can do to better our communities. So I am looking forward for her come talk to me in community directly. We have got to find..
new ways and to do things different in the state of North Carolina. No one likes change, and it's very evident from the discussion in this room today. But one other thing happened in discussion. She also assured us that she'd come back to the Commerce committee here, and we'd talk about the results. So it's great that we have people in the past that's committed to doing things, but she's actually willing to come back and talk about the results. And if we need to change it, we change it. But doing things the same way expecting a different result is just not gonna get us where we need to go in North Carolina. So I'd ask you to vote for this bill, and let's move North Carolina in the twenty-second century. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before this House is the passage of the House committee substitute to Senate Bill 127 on its second reading. All in favor vote Aye. All opposed vote No. The Clerk will open the vote. [PAUSE] The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. Seventy-six having voted in the affirmative, 38 in the negative, the House committee substitute to Senate Bill 127 as amended has passed on its second reading without objection -- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Objection. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Objection having been raised, the bill remains on the calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker -- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Re-referral of the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, Senate Bill 337: NC Charter School Advisory Board, may that bill be removed from the committee on Finance and referred to the committee on Rules? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Objection having been raised. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I ask to be heard on the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that the sponsors of the bill have asked that this bill be moved. This is a bill that creates an advisory board for the North Carolina Charter Schools in the state, and I would ask the Members support it. And if I may be heard for an additional motion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move the previous question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We have two motions before us, ladies and gentlemen. The first motion is to effectively end debate on the motion to re-refer. The question before the House is the motion to move the previous question. All in favor vote Aye. All opposed vote No. The Clerk will open the vote. [PAUSE] The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. Sixty-one having voted in the affirmative, 49 in the negative, we now grant by rule three minutes for the Minority Leader to speak on the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I designate those three minutes to Rep. Luebke. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Luebke is recognized for a period not to exceed three minutes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to refer simply here to the process. I objected and simply wished to be able to raise my objections. As you recall, Rep. Moore was able to make his speech about the bill, wanting to move it to Finance. He said what he wanted to say. My button was on, and I wanted to ask why the bill was being moved there, why the bill would not be sent to Finance. I don't think that's such a difficult question, but more importantly, without knowing what my question is, why was there an attempt to call the question on the debate? I simply do not understand why the process is so hurried, why the process is not going through the normal processes. I simply wanted to ask why was the bill no longer in Finance. Why was it being moved from Finance? I think it's wrong when the power is used in such a way as to prevent Members from even expressing or asking questions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Stam is recognized for a period not to exceed three minutes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I hope this explanation will satisfy Rep. Luebke, and I'll be short, so you can even ask me a question. The intention when it goes to Rules is to remove a tiny, minor provision that is the reason it went to Finance, about the tax exemption allowing a tax exemption for the ownership of charter schools that are maybe privately owned but [CUTS OFF]
…operates with charter school. So we plan to remove that exception, which would mean that it would not then have to go to finance again. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke, please state your purpose? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, the – just by explanation the chair has used discretion actually by a rule on a motion, three minutes is not granted, the chair did that, so that we could clear up the intent. This is also being lax on the rules, but the chair will allow you to ask the question, Representative Sam, if that’s your intention. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir, that is my… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ??, can you tell me why that change could not have been made in the finance committee, why we did not let the normal process go forward? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just that it’s June the 26th. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the house is the motion by Representative Moore for the re-referral. All in favor of vote aye. All oppose vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 80 having voted affirmative, 35 in the negative, the motion passes. House Bill 490, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee Substitute presented Bill 490, a bill to be entitled and act to exclude custom software from property tax. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman Wayne, Representative Bell, arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill of North Carolina ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We had a good debate on this, I believe it was on, I'm trying to get my days together, I think it was Monday. It passed this chamber in the second reading 95 to 8. I know many of the stakeholders have been involved, have number of questions answered and we ask for your support again today on the third reading. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Randolph, Representative McNeill, arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Can I ask the bill sponsor a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Wayne yield to the gentleman from Randolph? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Having heard from a county in the interim, that they are opposed to this, have you vetted this with the Association of County Commissioners or the League of Municipalities and they have any objection to the bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] As far as we have and as far as I know, they were neutral to last I heard, but I would ask you to just take a question to the senior finance chair for clarification. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Durham, Representative Luebke, arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I want to just follow up with Representative McNeill. My county is opposed to this also because of the revenue loss. First calculations when I was able to ask them on Monday about this was $1.7 million to $2 million. The County Commissioners are indeed neutral on this, not because they don’t think it’s a bad idea, the County Commissioners realized this is going to hurt many, many counties. At last count, I spoke to County Commissioners today, at last count, 39 counties will lose revenue, that’s at a minimum. And my county as I said was told that it would lose two, when I was told by a staff that Forsyth, they'll lose 2.5. So there's lots of money involved here. And remember when we vote for what seems like a little change. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] What purpose does the gentleman from Rutherford, Representative Hager, arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would like to have Representative Luebke yield for question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll yield… [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Durham yields to the gentleman from… [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll yield when I'm finished, Mr. Speaker, thanks. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He doesn’t yield at this time. The gentleman from Durham continues to have the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. As I said, a little thing like this seems like not much, but if you check with your County Commissioners it has some impact on the county budget. The consequence of this will be perhaps just a little bit, but it will lead to an increase in the property tax. When you take away revenue from one source, it’s got to be found in another place. And overall, if you are not getting it here, you are going to have to raise the property tax in order to provide the same level of services to your constituents. So for those reasons I will urge you to vote against this bill, it hurts your counties. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose…
him. Rutherford represented by Darius was neutered as a resolute duty of request is the general term yield this time to question from the general Robert fields. I greatly looking to be a idea how they value to software how they come up with this salt coursework one. seven two million dollars. [SPEAKER CHANGES] well, I know that in in my county. they looked at the impact seven in terms of the customized software and they the map manager asked the finance director that the look and that's what was reported back to August the is the a gentleman from Derby of the second fields didn't do the software that is customize what's it worth to somebody outside the company was visiting customers of ribs of [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hager. the point here is that we have had this provision in our statutes for a long time. it is been of benefit to our counties for a long time. the bill is move forward without a thorough examination of all counties that are affected because the County commissioners refining simply to get the bill delayed by one year because otherwise would have a negative impact right now on budgets that are being voted on this week so the county commissioners do not support this bill. the only went neutral because they were able to get the concession of not hurting the budgets that are being voted on in our home counties right now. they got back in session. otherwise, they would continue to be opposed to this bill because it was the gentleman from Rutherford has reported to make the bill initially this is issued aware where the only think one of maybe so. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Louisiana made it. it was stated in the union to do this is issue where you taken it something you ball whatever it is, it's up on scar whatever you're doing something to new Rams on the car and all of a sudden are. you're like I said last time you're trying your name on the side Nelson County civil work more enough that were more anybody else can't figure out where the value is in what you tax and what's about the tax and service that you used to do customized software are you tax and what you have down the street got asked about to customer you have resolutely talked about Well es, the health counties more vote in wellness now understand that the aforesaid equation exactly reduce costs while nightly. I'll try that sometime but I smiled this does not increase the value software, software, that's the probably worth lesser of nothing. anybody else. so I'd ask you to vote for the bill [SPEAKER CHANGES] what purposes. the gentleman from Gaston, represented by Garner rocks to break the barrel. the gentleman has coordinated them. [SPEAKER CHANGES] thank you, Mister Speaker, I want speakers for this video. I work in a business that we had to write our own software. we took the canned program that we ball and highly modified and make it fit our situation in our business and a lot of people probably do that nowhere on a small scale, and so to come for the candidate. come on the site now you got this custom software. we want you to franchise on what an insult where trying to create jobs and grow a business were not in business the county afloat and I'll support this bill [SPEAKER CHANGES] , what purpose of the generals under represented. all rats revealed the gym as the Florida debate [SPEAKER CHANGES] at felt like he was speaker in the I have the same concern resolutely addressed about them also. tax revenue to our County. certainly our County commissioners those are opposed to this in our education use the word of the supper is also two million dollars. there's no provision on how to make it up or provide us an opportunity also the way we just got to debating and having a rewrite door a proposal on taxes and how they would be collected in North Carolina and I don't know that this was figured in what we thought about the impact on counties, but what I'm really concerned about is that you and I do want to address that it was stated that once the software is purchased by business and modified it has no bag to anyone else other than the business will anything a business buys and uses to improve his performance make it more efficient and what it does increase of profit margins, etc. increases the value of the business overall is certainly worth something to the business of the web, we would presume they would do so
[0:00:00.0] And we know that’s basically the way we tax other things that businesses have. So, I think to say the software is unlike anything else a business does to increase it’s value and the productivity of this personnel whether it’s modify an equipment that you buy or other things I think to look at in that in not accurate and again we are squeezing our counties and our local governments, we have taken away their ability to function and have revenue without giving them alternative. So, I would ask that you consider that on vote no on this bill and again I’m opposed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What purpose does the gentleman from Lee Representative Stone arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. Thank you Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen I would say simply currently look at one stake allows this practice to go forward and if they just started this last year I would say that’s probably be some huge exciting future they have but we don’t see that, they have been doing this for a long time, we have been doing it a good while or both doing it wrong because no one else is taking on the practice if this is something great 46, 47 states would do it. We have made huge changes to bring business here to said an example that we want large manufactures, we want sulfur producers, we want to come to North Carolina, we are open for business. This is a modern change and I see we vote for this and move forward and we are open for the business and we are supporting moving forward for business, thank you again and support the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What purpose does the gentleman from Wayne from Representative Bell arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and Gentlemen this is pro-business bill this bill will actually had one bill was fall into the house with a companion bill in the Senate, this bill has been out here for three months been oppose fallen two days between the second and third reading to get out a question answered and our County Commissioners are neutral, this is a pro-business bill and I urge you to vote green, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What purpose does the gentleman from Randolph Representative Neil arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, the Representative bill tells me to redirect my question to Ms. Howard. So, I redirect it to Ms. Howard. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the lady from Davy Representative Howard yell to the gentleman form Randolph? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Sir I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] She yells. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, one of my questions Representative Bell was and I didn’t mean to start all this debate but maybe I did but I haven’t heard from my county and be an oppose to it, my question was what is the position of the municipality or the County Commissioners or what this their position on this bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We have consistently met with the County Commissioner Association and they are not opposing the bill and as they said this morning about 11:30 I got that information reconfirmed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What purpose does the gentleman from Iredell Representative Brawley arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I apologize for taking up additional time but I would offer the prospective based on comments made. This is not taking away at tax it is in effect interpreting the way we think that tax should be applied. This is the only property that I know of that is being taxed that has no market value. Everything else we pay property tax is own it can has some type of market value but this has no market value because the companies cannot saw it and if we are gonna let the counties start taxing things that have no market value some of you understand what I’m saying when I say, “Relationships have some value but I don’t wanna be taxed on it as being property.” That’s what customize sulfur same today, I urge you to vote for this bill, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion further debate? If not the question before the house is the passage of Senate Bill 490 on its third reading. So, many as favor the passage of the bill vote aye, those oppose will vote no, the clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 95 having voted in the affirmative and 21 in the negative, Senate Bill 490 passes its third reading and will be sent to the Senate. [0:04:59.9] [End of file…]
Senate Bill 132. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 132, a bill to be entitled ‘An Act to Include Instruction in the School Health Education Program on the Preventable Causes of Preterm Birth Including Induced Abortion as a Cause of Preterm Birth in Subsequent Pregnancies’. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Stam, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, members of the House, this is an important bill with big consequences. It’s a unanimous recommendation from the Child Fatality Task Force with an exception that was added by a helpful amendment by I believe at the suggestion of Senator Josh Stein in the Senate, and I’ll explain that in a little bit, and I would invite the members of the house to look at the Senate vote and see how bipartisan it was as it left the Senate. The section of the bill that this amends is our sex education bill, where in line 98 we’re talking about reproductive health and safety education programs in 7th grade. Well one of the things we teach in line 28H is factually accurate biological or pathological information related to the human reproductive system. Well this bill proposes to amplify that in subsection I because we have an epidemic of preterm birth in North Carolina. Now child fatalities, infant mortality the way that’s measured has gone down drastically in the last 15, 20 years since the Child Fatality Task Force has been recommending one thing after another to reduce the death rate if infants, but we still have a huge problem with preterm birth and we need to do something about it. In the last session we passed the Women’s Right to Know Bill, which requires at the point of an abortion that the abortionists have to inform the patient of the problem of preterm birth and the effect on subsequent pregnancy, but it occurred to many of us, including the members of the task force, that it would also be appropriate, maybe even more appropriate, to prevent this information when it is most useful – that is before either a woman gets pregnant or a man tries to get a woman pregnant, realizing that this may affect the future health of their family, because preterm birth does more than just have a small baby; it results in a lot of complications. You may be familiar with some of them, but one of those is cerebral palsy and a lot of others. Now there are other causes of preterm birth, and that us smoking, alcohol consumption, use of illicit drugs and inadequate prenatal care, and this was added in the Senate and I think is a very helpful addition by the Senate because there’s more than one cause and by listing all of these major causes, the teacher won’t forget to mention one. You could potentially have a teacher who just believes that smoking’s the greatest thing, so if you just said “We’re going to talk about the causes of preterm birth,” that teacher might say “well I’m not going to talk about smoking because they didn’t list it,” but by listing the major causes, that will be in the curriculum. If you look at section 2 of the bill on page 2 – it’s not underlined – where will they get this information? Are they going to get it from Representative Stam or are they going to get it from Representative Blackwell? No. Actually, the Division of Public Health of the Department of Health and Human Services will provide this to DPI annually so that they have education materials related to it. Now let me mention a couple things. The information about this has been slowly gathering over the last 50 years, but it’s been in the last 3 years that overwhelming statistical evidence has been provided by statisticians through what’s called meta analysis – that is where you collect a lot of studies and then analyze the studies of the studies – and the conclusion is this: That one induced abortion raises your risk of having a preterm birth by somewhere between 25 and 60 percent. That’s huge. A second one raises it around 93 percent. That’s huge, and people considering this decision need to know that, and it also has financial implications for the
back in 2008, and then they updated it to 2012, we had fiscal research look at what the cost- if this research was accurate, and looking at North Carolina statistics, looking at North Carolina population data, what is the attributable risk to not doing this, and the conclusion was about 120 additional infant deaths. I'm not talking about the unborn child in the abortion, I'm talking about the infant death in the subsequent pregnancy. About 120 additional and about 32 additional cases of cerebral palsy per year costing us about $50 million a year. That's what's at stake. Supporting the bill, coming to every meeting were three experts with wonderful credentials from UNC school of medicine. I put on your desks a letter from Dr. John Thorpe, the Hugh McAllister distinguished professor of OBGYN, who's a division director of womens' primary healthcare, and he explains the consistant relationship, that it's still there after controlling for confounding factors, that there's a dose response effect that is- and plus there's a plausible etiology. So therefore he says it is scientifically accurate and appropriate to educate young men and women about this modifiable consequence of the termination of pregnancy. We also had presented to us from Dr. Watson Bowes, who is a professor of fetal and maternal medicine for decades at Chapel Hill, and he got all the studies together comparing it to smoking. We debated smoking in prior sessions many times when we were talking about restaurants and whatnot, and it turns out that the attributable risk differential between smoking and pre-term birth is almost identical to the attributable risk between a prior induced abortion and pre-term birth. In other words, if you're concerned about women smoking during pregnancy and the effect that's going to have on their child, then you need to be concerned about this because the risk differential, which he says is the adjusted odds ratio, is virtually the same: 1.28 for induced abortion and 1.25 for smoking. So the point is obvious. I'll conclude my remarks there, and - oh, one other thing and then I'll conclude. I looked at all these amendments, and I think Rep. Jackson has a great amendment that adds to the bill, and that's all I'll say about it if he chooses to offer it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Rep. Jackson rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To offer an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The member may send forth his amendment, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is amendment AMK-40 v6. Rep. Jackson moves to amend the bill on page 1, line 5 by rewriting the line to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Jackson has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentleman this is a rather simple amendment, passage of this amendment would require the same information, risk, and causes listed in the bill, to be taught not only to public school children, but also in charter schools, private schools, and home schools. You can follow along with the amendment, but as you can see it's drafted under- each part is underlined you'll see above it, it's drafted to be just like the information's already being required for the same schools on cervical cancer, HPV and vaccines. And we just copied the language exactly like that. Last night I got an email from someone at North Carolina right to life, and in it was two quotes that I wanted to read to the body. It said, "If young women do not get this information in the health curriculum in our schools, they might not otherwise learn about the ways to prevent pre-term birth until it's too late." And then she concluded her email with, "This education information has the potential of sparing many mothers and their children from the devastating experiences of pre-term birth. And if you believe that to be true, I would ask why you would only require it in the public schools, why not require it of all schoolchildren, whether they got to public school, private school, charter school. And I think that if this bill is really about education then we can all support this amendment. I'd ask your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] There are several lights on, do any of the members desire to debate the amendment? If so, if you
[0:00:00.0] Representative Pittman from ___[00:02] does the gentleman wish to debate the amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes Sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I agree with the spirit of the amendment but I have a problem with the idea of the state requiring something in home schools. We did not control our home schools, home schools exist in large measure to avoid state control and so I’m just little uncomfortable with requiring something in the home school and that’s the only point I have with the amendment, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What purpose does the gentleman from Wake Representative Stam arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Again, I redirect my support for the amendment I think Representative Jackson has amendment rights but I think if he explains more accurately even Representative Larry Pittman will vote for. The amendment doesn’t require anything to be taught in the home schools, it requires the information to be available at the division in non-public education on their website. So, home schools can dial and get it if they want it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is there further discussion or further debate on the amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker… [SPEAKER CHANGES] What purpose does the lady from Guilford Representative Adams arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, a question for Representative Jackson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Wake yell to the lady from Gilford? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yells. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, I think Representative Stam probably just talk and to support it but I wanna clarify, I want you to clarify for me you remember there was another part of the curriculum for health education, sex education the matter of fact comprehensive support that’s not what this is but if that’s not going to be provided for home schools and other schools I mean I might support it if everything else in terms of the other comprehensive aspect was included but your amendment doesn’t do that, does it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to respond to the question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The bill, my amendment would require that Charter Schools provide this information to students. Public schools and home schools would be provided the information this is the same setup as we setup years ago for cervical___[02:21] camps or HPD vaccine information, it’s identical language what we are requiring for home schools now to provide that information then we would provide in with this new information, it would not require that the parent teach child in the home school if that’s what your question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do any members desire for other debate on the amendment if you would please ask? Seeing none, the question before the house is the adoption of amendment 1 to Senate Bill 132 on its second reading. I give members a few moments to get back to their seats. The question before the house again is the passage of amendment 1 to Senate Bill 132. So, many as favor the passage of the amendment will vote aye, those oppose will vote no, the clerk will open the vote. All members wishing to record at this time please do so, Representative McGrady… [SPEAKER CHANGES] [Inaudible] [SPEAKER CHANGES] The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 84 having voted in the affirmative and 25 in the negative, the amendment is adopted. What purpose does the lady from Guilford Representative Adams arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill and amendment, speak. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the lady wish to send forward the amendment first and then debate the amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It’s already up there. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright, the clerk will read the Adam’s amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, mam I would like to speak first. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright, we are not be ready this time, the lady has the floor to debate the bill at this time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the house and we have had a number of people, new people here, we are not in this chamber when we pass the healthy ___[04:46], this is a counter attack as I’m concerned but this bill like many others this session is really about anti-choice and about limiting access to… [0:04:58.9] [End of file…]
this is the way verbs in full derived from the moment them as the board to debate even as a spam reference to the floor, but wanted to enlarge about his credentials as sciences and is right and duty to speak on this subject is also professor of maternal child health, school of Public health and division director, women's primary healthcare and vice chair for research using Department of OB/GYNis not accurate to say that there is no scientific evidence for these findings. they both of the multilateral obstetrical and gynaecological Society came out in support of this bill as it is written, I have made comment in committee involving interchangeable use of the term 's causation recalls and risk in regards to scientific information imparted to the patient in regards to their judgements about one hour procedure was safe for them to do. I gives an example, my personal background as a neurosurgeon, while the surgery would be involved discussions prior to that time as to the patients assessment. what else can I build up taking someone's life into your hands is not a easy thing to do until a lot so we try to lay it out very carefully and understand in a common question, for example, would be blocked because of the fact that I smoke two packs a day that arrested my cultivated by surgery. yes, high-risk probable calls at least these firms that are silly to argue about is a Latin phrase" Post review proper home meeting just because it is, therefore, it is as though it just doesn't follow to have the scatological of confusion about what you can't, until the patient is poor of causation. these people were sciences, total world recognize these risk factors involving the possibility of pre term birth. this is doctors over the slave mentioned huge problem in the state. in his youth problem and build entire country in the faster we can deal with this problem, butter,many studies medicine, analysis studies, Finland, Scotland, America has shown that increasing risk involving pre term births related to the number of abortions are two types of abortions are being done surgical, medical, probably the medical abortions involving pills only, with no surgical manipulation will prove the cipher. we don't know that yet the current knowledge in this build is required to be imparted to us versus them also mentioned is that if the public health, legal and current annual updates will be made by think [SPEAKER CHANGES] this moment is not helpful post. what purpose does the gentleman from Mecklenburg to arise stated in the gym as before to make in all I would ask that other members who want to just debate a bill to document it shall turn your lights off and then what's unanimous then [SPEAKER CHANGES] we'll will come back to let the external icepack retracting company some smart enough to know what causes what we comes to medicine. he right to get employment would be undergone when it comes to medical decisions, I will do. I committed my respect for these that give his life worked in this industry my seat mate revs& will have the utmost respect for review hands and put forth is that I want to say why I support this amendment and it's not a God have anything to say what is your gallery discussing the bank that were focused on that one word… right now because this amendment is going go further in this list.one two eight three four five six different things that are preventable call as I said, I don't know what it is a preventable cause is obvious in medical studies that say what it is a by law people a lot smarter than the
But one of the things that struggles me, and we've done it on the Republican side of the aisle, we've formed a regulatory reform committee to do away with bills that were so specific they became outdated. My concern here is not whether or not any of these items does or does not cause these problems. that's not my issue, that's not what I'm debating. What I'm saying is we shouldn't make an amendment so specific that every 2 years we come back and fix it. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES]For what purpose does the gentleman from Union, Representative Arp rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]To see if the gentleman would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Does the gentleman from Mecklenburg yield for a question from the gentleman from Union? [SPEAKER CHANGES]I'd be happy to. [SPEAKER CHANGES]He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Jeter, the way I read the item in question, it says teaches about preventable causes of pre-teen birth and subsequent presses, including abortion, smoking, alcohol consumption, the use of illicit. In your reading, is that an exhaustive list, or more of an open list. [SPEAKER CHANGES]In my 5 months in this chamber, if we don't list it then they don't teach it. If we don't say it, it doesn't happen. So in my opinion, it may be contrary to you Representative Arp, that is an exhaustive list. That's exactly what DPI will do, and that's the only thing on the list. Maybe I'm wrong, probably am wrong, wrong a lot, but I ask the body to look at the next paragraph. The next paragraph says 'materials used in this instruction shall be age appropriate for use with students, information conveyed during the instruction shall be objective and based upon scientific research that is peer reviewed and accepted by professionals and credentialed experts in the field of sexual health education.' If everything that is said here is true, everything that we talked about here will be taught. Everything. There's not one thing that this motion eliminates being taught in our schools. Not one thing. All it does is allow a bill to live with medicine. I'll give you a prime example. When I was growing up, or when I was born, if you took powerful cold medicine, it could cause problems. That's not in this. We know for sure that's a preventable cause, it's not listed. It says illicit drugs, it doesn't say powerful prescription drugs. We know that's a cause, why didn't we list that? If we're trying to make sure people make safe decisions, and we're trying to attack and eliminate these problems, then let's do it. And let's teach anything that's scientific, regardless of what it is. Let's not make this singularly about abortion. Let's make this about what the issue is, which is trying to make sure that our children are born healthy and safe. If there's scientific evidence that says one thing over another, fine. I'm not smart enough to know what that is, but let's not write a bill so specific that we've got to come back every 2 years and find out what the new definition is. Because we created a brand new committee to eliminate just that. [SPEAKER CHANGES]For what purpose does the lady from Guilford, Representative Adams arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]To speak a 2nd time, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The lady has the floor to debate the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes, I just wanted to make the chamber aware that there are a number of organizations that support this amendment, and the fact that there's no adverse effect on future pregnancies in terms of abortions. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, these are recognized organizations that do good work in this area and have a legitimate concern, and I would ask you to support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Stam rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. Speaker, members of the House, I would ask you to vote no if you believe there is not scientific evidence for this, if you think the Child Fatality Task Force just makes things up, if you think these professors just make things up, vote no, but vote yes on the amendment. As far as my friend Representative Jeter's argument, he wants you to vote yes, but his words tell you to vote no, and here are his words, 'If we don't list it, they won't teach it.'
If we don't list it, they won't teach it. Please vote no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What purpose does the lady from Chattam representative McManis rise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If that's the case do we need to list prescription drugs, diabetes, obesity, previous preterm births, poor nutrition, in vitro of fertilization, multiple infections, previous miscarriages, physical injury, high blood pressure, all these other things because those are all factors that we know contribute to the likelihood of preterm birth. I think the amendment makes perfect sense because we are not listing every single factor. If we want them to teach every single factor and the only way they're going to teach it is to list it, then we need to list all of these things. I think Representative Juder is exactly right. As we get new knowledge...even the study that's been cited most frequently in support of adding this is a relatively new study. I think it came out in 2012. As we get new information, this is going to change. It's going to change maybe every year as to what we know contributes to preterm birth. And I think causes is a bad word. I know as a physician my husband would never tell a patient cigarettes will cause you to have cancer. He will say cigarettes will increase your risk of cancer. But he's not going to tell you it will cause it. Because we don't have absolute causal relationships there. Nor do we with the abortions. We have relationships, but not causal. So I think we have to be very careful how we phrase that. But if we're going to say the things that contribute we need to list every single one of them. I support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Miss Speaker. With what purpose does the gentlemen from Wake [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would the lady yield for a very quick question [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the lady from Chattam yield to a question from the gentleman from Wake [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes I do [SPEAKER CHANGES] She yields [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do you realize that the surgeon general's warning on every fourth pack of cigarettes says smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I realize it does. But I also know that physicians are very careful about telling you what will be caused. And it's like there is the occasional physician that will say this gives you six months to live. But most physicians very much avoid doing that. They don't go out on that limb. And the surgeon general may say that but most physicians will not. And even with this data is does not show causal relationship. It shows a relationship of increased frequency but not cause. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What purpose does the gentlemen from Randalf representative McNeil rise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just wanted to point out that some of these diseases that representative mentioned doesn't have a thing to do with these because the things that this bill talks are things of personal choice such as alcohol, illegal drugs, and abortions. I know nobody's going to choose to have high blood pressure or diabetes or stuff like that. People can't help health conditions. But they can help making bad personal choices. And thats what this bill deals with. It deals with the bad personal choices that a person makes and it lists five of them that will cause this problem. Not...we shouldn't list high blood pressure and things that people do not choose to do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker [SPEAKER CHANGES] What purpose does the lady from Chattam representative McManis rise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the amendment for a second time. Many of these things... [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Things like obesity is preventable. Diabetes is treatable. High blood pressure is treatable. Poor nutrition except in extreme poverty is usually something that's preventable. These are things that can be preventable. They're not things that you choose to have but they are definitely something that you can treat and not have to suffer the impact on a pregnancy from those things. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What purpose does the lady from, excuse me the gentleman from Cumberland representative Glazier rise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. To debate the amendment briefly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentlemen has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I was not actually going to engage in the debate on the amendment. I have comments for the bill. But with all due respect my friend and colleague representative McNeil I really couldn't let...
That go on challenge them and there are and I agree choices for a lot of those things that are listed as opposed other things that may not be but to say that abortion would include that in your list of bad choices suggest that in so many cases there are a real choice and in many they're not and I just rise to not want to paint that across the broad brush and I say that as a result of lots of things but if you haven't read it every one of this chamber ought to read an editorial that was a New York Times last week my woman from Seattle who was a professional from both she and her husband Catholic she was 38 years old and she rose to talk about exactly the issue you raise represent and that issue related to the fact that she had struggled to get pregnant she her husband may have a child they decided they wanted to have a second and so they continued fertility drugs and she got pregnant with twins they were related one of the twins at the 20 weeks determined based on testing and in a follow-up MRI that all of their her his organs were pushed up against his chest in the long was not developing and they struggled as Catholics trying to figure out what to do in the end it up after the MRI confirmed that she talked the doctors that if that it was her son is the daughter the other fetus was fine if that son was to be born it would be gasping for breath probably not live more than 24 hours maybe a little more on a ventilator suffering the entire time she said the day before the 23 week limit when it in I think it was at that time either New York or another state that they since moved to Seattle that they struggled and cried and cried and she chose to abort the male because she said I did not viewed it as them as killing or making a bad choice for that fetus I viewed it as saving my son from hours of nothing but pain and so he died in my womb knowing that he was loved in the places he was conceived by his parents she said if you call that a choice that was the choice we had to make so I don't want us casting this debate is I don't think it's the issue over whether that's good choices or bad choices people make there are abortions made for thousands of choices in the most impersonal and intense ways and and I just hope that we don't go that route so thank you[SPEAKER CHANGES] further discussion further debate on the amendment if not the question before the house is the adoption of aid to the amendment sent forth by representatvie ?? As many as favor the adoption of the amendment vote aye those opposed vote no the vote will open the vote the machine and records the vote 43 having voted in the affirmative and 72 having voted in the negative the ammendment fails members on the motion of the lady from ?? Mep. Turner the tears I fixed in the courtesies of the gallery to her husband Donald Turner Mr. Turner come to the stand and let us welcome you [SPEAKER CHANGES]rep. ?? I understand that the lady wishes to be wishes to change her vote on the Senate bill 4-90 is that correct [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is correct [SPEAKER CHANGES] change my vote from yes or no I forgot how I vote. record that he's but me and it didn't matter that I have yet ?? ??in with me at the before you are against that are lady record is that I believe the lady wishes to be recorded as the yes back ?? ?? Is vital for the Senate report Representatives Jordan and McGrady recognized this and for the committee report or parade stridently administrative matters of away with continual the rest of the Jordan McGrady for the Judiciary subcommittee the Senate bill 638 North Carolina format 2013 five most of the House committee substitute number two
him will soon ask me such a number one single six thirty eight committee settlement based on counter. the original bill replaced on the unfavourable counter [SPEAKER CHANGES] for what purpose does the gentleman from Lake represented [SPEAKER CHANGES] all riots contact that the record of the no. one seven one two seven. the demo will be, but it will be so recorded [SPEAKER CHANGES] for what purpose does the gentleman from white represented Martin Russ [SPEAKER CHANGES] missed her more personal privilege, and then sedate the pyjamas recognized for three minutes ago one a personal privilege. it will be based that on the speaker of ladies in the body all note that away from him about six months and it's wonderful to come back and see an issue that so contentious with emotions. how both sides debated what so far has been a think of a very civil manner and root brings great credit on this body makes me proud to be a member of this body and my debate on the bill. the authors do not spirit industry to debate the bill. the Gemini has the board to debate the bill, [SPEAKER CHANGES] thank you very much. the speaker list them. this is what I learned in my first term is a nothing but a feel-good bill et al., but doesn't actually do anything. the lady from Chatham zoning talk about a lot of causes or correlations for pre term birth are not mentioned in this bill and I'll mention some of those also talk about some that are specifically enumerated in the bill in its current form. one risk associated with pre term birth. one risk factor an interval of less than six months between pregnancies. another thing, poor nutrition,diabetes, obesity, if this body were seriously committed to not just talking about the problem, and one particular aspect that may or may not be part of the problem together, Democrat and Republican, and I am certain we could find a way to seriously reduce the number of pre term birth, the North Carolina boy that look like well with regard to an interval of six months or less between pregnancies, contraception, including, of course, within a committed relationship, made relationship with the debate and in any sort of pre term births associated with that respect smoking. well, we could make some serious progress in smoking cessation and if you look at the literature, and this is come up in the body of these folks have been here for a few terms are familiar with this. there are studies that show a risk between pre term birth and exposure to second hand smoke. what might this body due to reduce exposure to second hand smoke, poor nutrition. this body has the power to address poor nutrition amongst mothers of childbearing age in the state and I'd say that both parties under both parties control. we are not yet met the standard. we need to in that area and and let me I think are correct. my friend for Randolph County in talking about diabetes at least type two diabetes can be the risk can be reduced obesity is a risk factor. if you can reduce obesity. you can make a dent in type two diabetes, and then let's talk about obesity. as you draw our state obesity in and of itself, separate from diabetes. that does seem to be a recurring theme here to recurring theme in the state. yet when this body over the years is attempted to do something about childhood obesity, which I think it's safe to say could lead to adulthood obesity and obesity in expectant mothers when we thought it is up and walked out that we get accused of trying to run a nanny state, so we could get together and do something about pre term births if we really wanted to him us. it just talks and it doesn't just talk and talk to scare women, both young and old in the decisions they make about their body cannot urge you to vote against it. what purpose does the lady from New Hanover represent Hamilton wraps to send forth an amendment, ladies recognize dissent for the amendment and the corporal reading represented Hamilton moves the amended bill on page two eighty. by adding the following is the end of the line like New Hanover has afforded by even thinking this figure I and then this is quite simple in and frankly along the lines of us on the other discussions that we had to say about adding information to further educate our children about. I went to reproductive health, specifically my and then it will add language that that state materials showing
Cervical pretreatment as a method to avoid complications associated with preterm birth in subsequent pregnancies following abortion. Women who have had an abortion are no longer at an increased risk for preterm birth in subsequent pregnancies, and it may be time to adjust counseling guidelines accordingly, a studies has shown. I'm quoting from the Internal Medicine News, a digital magazine. The report came out on March 7, 2013. The report states that, "We think the reason why there has been a loss of association between previous abortion and preterm birth is because of the changes in the abortion practice. There are no longer surgical abortions without cervical preparation, and that was the driving association all along." So what my amendment does is further educates children-- women, specifically-- who are giving consideration to an abortion to prompt them to ask questions of their physician as to whether or not they are being pretreated in such a way that will prevent future preterm deliveries. I'll be happy to answer any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment? For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Stam, arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES} To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would ask you to oppose the amendment. As recently as about three years ago when the Shaw medicine analysis came out in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the editor of that journal said, after explaining the increased risk of preterm birth with induced abortion, "However, the finding that even one termination can increase the risk of preterm birth means that we should continue to search for ways of making termination less traumatic, such as cervical preparation with agents such as prostaglandins or laminaria tents. " So, you have a possible way of doing this that may, in the future, reduce it, but what she is asking is that we teach seventh graders that it's actually done. And that's just not the case. And that has not been shown, like in the studies I've mentioned, through 122 studies and lots of meta-analysis. And I will remind you that Section 2 of the bill does say that the Division of Public Health will provide these materials annually, so that, if sometime in the future this becomes real, then they can amend their materials. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I ask you to oppose the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from Guilford, Representative Adams, arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like to ask Doctor, or, Representative Stam a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Will the gentleman from Wake yield to a question from the lady from Guilford? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do have a doctorate, actually, Representative-- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] -- But I try not to brag about it. Though it's just a law degree. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Dr. Stam. You mention that the Department of-- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the lady wish to propound an additional question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield to an additional question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. You mention that the Department of Public Health-- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Division of Public Health. [SPEAKER CHANGES] --Division of Public Health. Have you had conversations with them about the material that they have and if they're prepared to do this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have actually had discussions with them on this subject but not the materials that they would be provided. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield to an additional question from the lady from Guilford? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So, you don't know if they even have it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, they're not required to have until 60 days after the bill passes, so I doubt if they do. I would be surprised if they did. But, 60 days, they have 60 days. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to speak a second time, maybe not now. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Wake still has the floor, I believe, at this time. Does the gentleman from Wake yield the floor at this time? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm sorry? Do I yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is the gentleman done speaking on the bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment? I was to make sure. We've got several lights on. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Fulghum, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm in opposition of this amendment for two reasons. One is that this publication was certainly not a peer-reviewed scientific
...journal, articles by a PhD student, not a researcher in the field of OB/GYN and it certainly is not recognized as a settled science at this point, I think there may be validity to this as a way of reducing the instances of preterm birth in multiple abortion patients. However, again as I said, it's not settled science, and also the amendment says, “...shall include information as a method to avoid complications associated with preterm health – birth,” rather. “A method to avoid complications,” implies it's settled, and there's really no question about the situation. I just don't think that's true. Therefore, I oppose the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from... for what purpose does the lady from New Hanover, Representative Hamilton, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just to debate the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think it's notable that this was, these findings were given at a medical conference as recently as 2013. and I appreciate Dr Fulghum's acknowledgment that there is validity to the use of preterm cervix treatment that would reduce the potential for preterm birth or preterm delivery later on in life. I think it's notable that there were over 400,000 women studied between 1992 and 2008, and those who had previous induced abortion had a significant increase in spontaneous preterm birth. However, more detailed analysis over a stratified period of time showed that the association weakened and disappeared altogether by the year 2000. The trend coincided with a shift toward the use of abortion practices less likely to injure the cervix, a sharp decrease to almost zero in surgical abortions performed without cervical pretreatment. So, there seems to be obvious correlation between the pretreatment of the cervix prior to induced abortion, and I think that's something our children would benefit from knowing, if they so choose to follow through with this kind of procedure. I urge your adoption of the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lucas, does the gentleman wish to debate the amendment or the bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And Representative Glazier, the amendment or the bill? Further discussion or further debate on the amendment? Seeing none, the question before the House is the adoption of amendment A3, sent forth by Representative Hamilton to the Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 132. So as many as favor 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. 39 having voted in the affirmative and 76 having voted in the negative, the amendment fails. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Floyd, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr Speaker, inquiry of the Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman mentioned that he knows about trucking, and I'm trying to get some thoughts about this bill. Is there any way that we can have the amendments come, and then those who want to debate the bill? Because we get into the debate of the bill, then we get into the amend of the bill, and I have to go and sort of dissect all of this. So is it in any way possible that the Chair can allow the amendments to come forward and then the debate to occur? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think that's what we're doing, but some of the debate's going so long on the amendments, it might seem that we're debating the bill. But with that being said, I believe there's an amendment being offered by Representative Farmer-Butterfield. For what purpose does the lady from Wilson, Representative Farmer-Butterfield, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have apparently two amendments? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Which amendment does the member wish to send forth? [SPEAKER CHANGES] S132ATK-94 v1 [SPEAKER CHANGES] That amendment was withdrawn. We'll move on to another. If you'll come forward and see the clerk, we'll determine which amendment and we'll come back to it. For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Lucas, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, I have sat here for quite some time now, I guess better than an hour, as we've deal with this bill. [RECORDING ENDS]
and it seems like we as legislators, or at least some of us, seem to have an insatiable appetite to delve into the reproductive and the family circumstances that ought to be a private matter. Coming from my religious background i was instructed that a family, the family, should be the first social institution, and here we are discussing things that ought to be discussed in private family circumstances. All of this chronological exercise, I don't need an expert delving into not just sexual activity but were delving into not first term abortions. Were delving into second and subsequent term abortions, and were saying that this is appropriate for seventh grade students. Sixth and seventh grade students, i don't want my sixth and seventh grade students learn about second and subsequent term abortions. Maybe high school or college ought to be learning about that, but i think our sixth grade students would do well to stick with the first segment of this instruction. We talk about abstinence, im fine with that, but evidently you don't believe that abstinence is sufficient,. because your now going beyond abstinence, your saying you don't believe in your curriculum, your saying that it doesn't work, your saying that students need to know about abortions, not the first time, but second and third times, and what the consequences of this would be. This is for adults as far as i can see, again i don't want this talked to sixth and seventh grade students, your WAY out of line here. And i don't know if your going to vote that way i guess you will, but i hope you will examine your conscious if your doing that, because this has no business in middle school grade curricular. I urge you to vote no on this. (SPEAKER CHANGES)For what purpose does the gentleman from Chowan, representative Steinburg rise (SPEAKER CHANGES)Speak on the bill please, mr speaker (SPEAKER CHANGES) The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill (SPEAKER CHANGES)Ladies and gentleman , with all do respect for my colleague who just stood eloquently as he always does, spoke about he does not want the, doesn't think we should be informing kids that are middle school children to, get the facts so do speak, as it relates to abortion and re productivity, and so on and so forth. I would like to share with you a story that was shared with me, which would refute respectfully what my colleague just said on the floor. I talked recently with a anesthesiologist who was called into our local hospital to deliver a baby, he was going to administer the anesthesia, i guess it was need to deliver this child. When he arrive laying on the table was a 13 year old African american girl who was pregnant. It didn't have to be an African america girl, it could have been a white girl, but in this particular case the girl was African american, And he was very very disturbed, he said to the mother and the grandmother who were there, "How does this happen?". And the reply was "well how does this happen, you know how it happens." And he said "well yeh..."
Yes, I know how it happens, but how does this happen? How does this girl who was 13 years old, why did she become pregnant? And the reply almost in unison, from the mother and grandmother was "that's her job." She is not only going to have this baby, but she's going to continue having babies. Now, there are many, many victims in this scenerio and often lost in the argument is the fact that the biggest victim is the 13 year old girl. What kind of a life is she in store for? What kind of freedoms is she going to have? Perhaps, had she been exposed to, what we're trying to do here in this legislation, perhaps she might have been able to resist because she had knowledge. But then again, perhaps she may not have been able to resist. The fact of the matter is, and I share these comments with you today, not to point fingers at anybody. I know I had a lot of instances in my high school career where girls went away for a year or so to visit with their aunt in some distant location, only to reappear again the next year. And knowing now that obviously what happened then was, they went away and they had a child very often. But my point is this, that the more knowledge these young people have, the better. None of us in this chamber, I can't believe there's any of us in this chamber that want to see what that anesthesiologist had to witness on that day. So, it happens, girls are getting pregnant at younger and younger ages. A lot of times they don't even have an opinion, they might in fact think this is their job. Well, it's not their job. This is a life, this is someone who deserves an opportunity and a chance and I would like to think that a lot of the things we've done in this legislation this session, are going to be able to provide these youngsters with opportunies and a chance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do not. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Scotland, representative Pierce rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do not yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Chowan ?? suspend. For what purpose does the gentleman from Scotland rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ask ?? a question. I believe the member indicates he will not yield, is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] When I'm finished. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman does not yield at this time. The gentleman from Chowan continues to have the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So, again, our job is to see to it that the children, to see to it that all of our citizens are armed with the information that they need and certainly the young and the most vulnerable among us should be provided with that. So I think this is an attempt on this particular bill to do that. And with that I will conclude my remarks and I will respectively take the question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Scotland rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ask the gentleman a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Chowan yield to the gentleman from Scotland? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, representative. You made a couple statements that I understand, you explained your way through them. But I'm interested in this issue when you talk about "it's her job", I hear some code in there that I really don't like, what do you mean when you say, they said it's her job? I can't get my hand wrapped around "it's her job." [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, I will try to let you get your hands wrapped it sir, as best I can. And that is, that is the response that was given by the mother and the grandmother to the doctor. Why they gave that that response, I have no idea. You'd have to ask them. But there's no code here, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, another question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield to a second question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is a friendly question, not trying to upset you with it. But I mean, it's just strange to me that you made the point that it was a afican american female, you could have just said. What does color have to do with anything? You could have just said that it was a young teenager or young lady, why was that so important for you to make that statement? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was trying to describe the situation as it occured and when I, as a salesperson, when I get up
when i speak I give all of the details, rather their details that might be thing that you might not find interesting, or maybe no one else does, but im just telling the story as I heard it. speaker changes The speaker speaker changes follow up, for what purpose does, i heard somebody say mr speaker, for what purpose does the lady from gilford representative adams rise speaker changes i yield speaker changes wait a minute thats alright go ahead dr. kat speaker changes well the gentleman from scotland, does the gentleman wish to ask another question of the gentleman from shuan speaker changes no thankyou mr speaker speaker changes does the gentleman from shuan require further comment at this point speaker changes no further comment from me, but i will take a question from the representative she'd like to address me speaker changes for what purpose does the lady from gilford representative adams rise speaker changes thankyou speaker, I'd like to ask gentleman a question speaker changes yes mam speaker changes does the gentleman yield speaker changes I yield speaker changes thankyou, representative pierce asked one that i was going to ask, but I wanted to, when you were describing this situation, you mentioned young ladies or girls who went away for a year and they came back, what was the race of those young ladies. speaker changes well in the community that i grew up in, they (interupted) speaker changes speaker speaker changes for what purpose does the gentleman from ardell representative broly rise speaker changes point of order speaker changes the gentleman may state his point of order speaker changes does the question have any relevance to the issue before us? speaker changes the chair would take the gentlemans point under advisement and would encourage the members to try and limit the debate to the relevant issues of the bill, the chairs tried to give some wide latitude, but does see the possiblility of these questions going a little far from the debate on the actual bill, the gentleman (inaudible) does have the floor to respond to questions, if he desires to do so speaker changes I believe that I have responeded to the questions at hand, I believe the next question that could be addressed is one in which, will be a similar vain, so Ive answered the question and will be entertaining no further, representative with all due respect. speaker changes for what purpose does the lady from wilson, representative farmer butterfield rise speaker changes to send forth an ammendment speaker changes which we're in possestion of the ammendment, the court will read the ammendment speaker changes this is ammendment atk-95b1 representative farmer-butterfield moves to ammend the bill on page 1 lines 3-5 by rewriting the lines to read. speaker changes the lady from wilson is recognized to debate the ammendment speaker changes thankyou mr speaker, on lines 3 through 5 page 1, we would rewrite it by, reading program on the potential risk factors contributing to preterm birth and we would further ammend the bill on page 1 lines 30 through 32, by rewriting it to read, teacher about the potential risk factors contributing to preterm birth, page 2 line 6-8 by rewriting the lines to read, educational materials with the most current informatiuon available about the potential risk factors contributing to preterm birth and finally it would ammend ammendment 1 introduced and passed for representative jackson, by deleting the phrase preventable cause of preterm birth and subsequant pregnancies including induced abortions, smoking, alchohol consumtion, the use of ilicit drugs and inadequate prenatal care, every time it occurs and substituting the phrase potential risk factors contributing to preterm birth, Id like to speak on the ammendment speaker changes the lady continues to have the floor to debate her ammendment speaker changes thankyou mr speaker, as representative adams said earlier today, not a single respected health organization nor professional medical association, recognizes a causal link between legal abortion and preterm births, none of these organizations recognize this, the position of the group, by these groups is in direct contradiction of existing statutory language in the bill on page 1 line 33 as follows, materials used in this instruction shall be age appropriate for use with students, information conveyed during the instruction shall be objective and based on scientific research that is peer reviewed and accepted by professionals and credintialed experts in the field of sex health education
[0:00:00.0] Health information provided to students must be true, the language in my amendment ensures that this is the case as well as it puts teachers and the Department of Public Instructions in an acceptable position of not violating the law that requires information to be accepted by professionals and experts. Where it mean something there is a big difference between cause and risk, by the definition of cause an effect, the cause must always be present if the effect is to occur, the cause of something leave something leave something little uncertainty of the connection I repeat the cause of something leave little uncertainty of the connection, a definition a risk factor on the other hand is a condition, substance or behavior that has not been proven to cause an event or disease. So, a cause is a definitive reason for something and a risk is a possible reason for something to occur or happen. Every time we walk into an intersection to cross the street, we take on risk if a car hits us we know that injury suffered or cause by the car. So, I ask that you give this amendment a favorable vote of yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake Representative Stam arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment and then to make motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, the gentleman is Representative to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker and members of the house I know that that very first amendment changes the type so we will be back on the floor tomorrow. Representative Farmer Butterfield has given a lengthy explanation I will give a short explanation of why I oppose to the amendment and then after that if allowed I move the previous question and move the table and then move to previous question on the debate, I’m very judicious on that I don’t think I have done it more than once in my career but we do have another day tomorrow and we are ploughing the same ground over and over. For an amendment first of all the second part of it is essentially the Representative Adam’s amendment which is already been defeat, secondly the potential she says the potential that’s what she adds in her potential risk factors and I can just imagine if the sergeant general instead of saying, “Smoking causes lung cancer”, if he was to say, “Smoking potentially might cause lung cancer.” And if you will remember the studies on smoking and pre-term birth and prior reduced abortion are virtually identical. In other words, it is a risk factor, it’s a cause factor, it’s not a potential risk factor it is a potential risk or cause factor. As Dr. ___[03:14] explained the difference between risk and cause is immaterial but teenagers understand cause much more they understand risk. And Mr. Speaker at that point I would like to make motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may stay his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To table the amendment, on the table for second… [SPEAKER CHANGES] The motion has been made by the gentleman from Wake that the amendment does lie upon the table and will seconded by the gentleman from Stanley. The motion is non-debatable. The question before the house is the motion to that the amendment number 4 sent forward by Representative Farmer Butterfield do lie upon the table. So, many as favor the motion to table will vote aye, those oppose will vote no, the clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote, 72 having voted in the affirmative and 43 in the negative the motion is adopted and the amendment does lie upon the table. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake Representative Stam arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To state motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move the previous question on the adoption of Senate Bill 132 on its second reading. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Wake has moved the previous question as to Senate Bill 132. So, many as favor, the call for the previous question will vote aye, those oppose will vote no, the clerk will open the vote. [0:04:59.8] [End of file…]
The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 75 having voted in the affirmative and 42 in the negative, the motion for the previous question has been adopted and we will now move to a vote on the bill. However, prior to taking the vote, three minutes will be allowed for the minority leader and the majority leader or their respective designees to offer a closing statement. Representative Paul, does the gentleman wish to speak on behalf of the minority caucus? [speaker changes] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I designate Representative Glazier to speak on behalf of the Minority Caucus. [Speaker changes] The gentleman from Cumberland is recognized to offer the three minute statement on behalf of the minority party [speaker changes] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Representative Paul. For a variety of reasons that my colleagues have eloquently articulated, we ought to not be doing this. But let me add several closing ones. First, wherever you are on the medical science here, the one thing this debate has assuredly made clear is that it is completely at odds with each other. There is no definitive medical science here, particularly on cause, let alone on risk. And the medical science, if you read all the journals, also divides out on whether it is a surgical abortion or whether it is a medical, medicinal abortion induced and the result. So in the end, we've got to remember the bill that we are amending, or the statute. It is the comprehensive sexuality education statute that for the first five paragraphs talks about information that should be given to seventh graders. And so at a minimum, we ought to have a standard that the stuff we are going to teach in the public schools have some consensus in medical science. Again, one thing that is clear, wherever you fall on this, is that there is no consensus in the medical science. And we ought not be putting in statute this requirement that suggests to our children there is. Secondly, words do matter. Representative Alma Adams said this the other day, and she was right. And Representative Jean Farmer-Butterfield did, there is a big difference between risk and cause. I know, because they teach it all the time. And there are hundreds of lawsuits tossed a year, because they don't meet cause, even though there is evidence of risk. So at least if we're going to do this, we ought to get the word right. And finally, the third reason -- my wife. Well, elementary kids are God's face of knowledge, I mean, love. And high school kids are God's face of knowledge. Middle school kids represent God's sense of humor. And they ask lots of questions. And if we're going to now teach them about abortion, I guarantee you that every seventh grader is going to come home, and mom's going to say, "Craig, what'd you learn in school today?" "All about abortion, Mom" And I find it, and I think our Caucus finds it that Alanis Morissette may have had it right. Isn't it ironic, don't you think? So, incredibly ironic that the group in our Chamber who's so fervently opposes the discussion or wanting to deal with the issue of abortion, and I understand that, is now putting in the statute that every seventh grader as part of their curriculum, will be taught everything they need to know and a lot a more that they don't about the issue of abortion. And all the rest of sex education will go by the boards, because I guarantee you this is the question they're going to come home to mom and dad with. And when they say why, we're going to point across the aisle and say, "You're the reason that every child now knows about all of the issues regarding abortion" [Speaker changes] The gentleman's three minutes have been exhausted. Representative Starnes, does the gentleman wish to offer the closing statement on behalf of the majority party? [Speaker changes] I do. [Speaker changes] The gentleman is recognized to offer that. [Speaker changes] Thank you Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Health. What we're dealing with is giving young people information they need to make an intelligence decision. That's what sex education is all about. Our teenagers need to understand that when they make a decision, there is a consequence. If they choose to have an abortion, that there may be an additional consequence that will plague them or haunt them somewhere further down the road in their life. I think this is a good bill. It just informs the children or the teenagers or the public of what their actions will happen. Thank you. [Speaker changes] The question before the house is the passage of Senate bill 132 on its second reading. As many as favor the passage of the bill will vote 'Aye' .Those opposed will vote 'No'. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the ...
?? and record the vote, 73 having voted in the affirmative and 44 in the negative. Senate Bill 132 passes at second reading. And will remain on the count. The House will ?? in just a moment. Representative Jones is recognized to send forth a conference report the court will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To the President ?? Speaker of the House of Representatives ?? Resolve the differences between the Senate and the House of Representatives on House Bill 543 on ?? Act permissible guardianship for roles for corporations and individuals that provide mental health for developmental disabilities or substance abuse services. The ?? recommends the Senate and House of Representatives to adopt this report comperes for the Senate. Senator Randleman chair, Senators Barringer and Robinson comperes for the House of Representatives, Representative Jones Chair, Representatives Avala, Turner and Glazier. [Speaker Change] Calender for tomorrow. Notices and announcements for what purpose does the gentleman from Durham represent a power rise? [Speaker Change] Make a request regarding today debate [Speaker Change] The gentleman may state his request [Speaker Change] Request the comments and debates for Senate Bill 132 be spread across the journal. [Speaker Change] The request has been received, objection being noted the gentleman would have to make a motion at this point that would be debatable. Does the gentleman wish to make this in the form of a formal motion? [Speaker Change] I make the motion. [Speaker Change] The gentleman is recognized for the motion that the comments from todays date be spread across journal. For what purpose does the gentleman from Caldwell, Representative Starnes rise? [Speaker Change] I think we all heard the debate but I don’t know if it’s gonna add any thing to have it in the journal. So I just urge to vote no. [Speaker Change] Representative ?? the Chair would direct the member to rule 11 of our rules and consultation with clerk the Chair does rule the gentleman’s motion out of order. [Speaker Change] Thank you mister Speaker. [Speaker Change] Does the gentleman desire, for what other purpose does the gentleman from Durham rise? [Speaker Change] To announce the discharge petition [Speaker Change] Gentleman may announce the discharge petition. [Speaker Change] Thank you Mister Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the house. I have filed with the clerk this day. A discharge petition for House Bill 922, which would protect from the unnecessary lose of Federal Emergency Employment Benefits for the last six months of this year for the 70 thousand North Carolinian affected. I’d ask that you sign the petition in the clerks office so that we can get this matter to the floor of the house. And help these 70 thousand North Carolinian who will be so impacted. Thank you [Speaker Change] Noted. For what purpose does the gentleman from Guilford, Representative Blust rise? [Speaker Change] Point of personal privilege. [Speaker Change] The gentleman may speak for up to 3 minutes to a point of personal privilege. [Speaker Change] Thank you Mister Speaker, members of the house. I hope you will join with me in congratulating my seat mate, Representative Rena Turner for winning the back to school talent this year. Nineteen school visits which shows her true commencement to public education in our children. Thank you. [Speaker Change] To what purposes does the gentleman from Buncombe Representative Moffitt rise? [Speaker Change] Announcement. [Speaker Change] The gentleman may make the announcement [Speaker Change] Thank you Mister Speaker, members of full regulatory reform committee that we are scheduled to meet at 9 o’clock in the morning. We’ll be taking up Senate bill 159, Senate Bill 174 which we will have a PCS that will not
the one in its current form and once we get the PCS and a self-starter like that among the committee will also be taking a positive note, once well, which would also have a PCS in production for that and once I get that PC has an initial circulate that among the committee I give what purpose does the gentleman from the rep didn't sound rise now Gemini stated that they use English gel [SPEAKER CHANGES] the committee on Government Wilmington morning at ten o'clock, room five forty four win by six bills and TV on the eh purposes. Jennifer rocking Ampligen Jones rides on announcement Gemini state is left. thank you, Mister Speaker, the legislative prayer Caucus will meet at seven thirty in the morning andran for fourteen. what purpose does the gentleman from Vance Ferguson of Baskerville arrives like to be recorded. yes oh one two seven dramas that will be fortunately changed to a yes vote on Senate Bill one twenty seven Agnes big. what purpose does the lady from deity reps in our rat snake announcement was ladies recognized Cybernet House finance will need an eight thirty a.m. in room five four four standbys for the agenda later this afternoon. what purpose does the gentleman from Caldwell purchased on drugs for an announcement. the Gemini state is left. the Republicans will call this in the auditorium and in ten minutes to a full further notices, announcements, incorporate the rules committee will meet at nine thirty tomorrow morning. in twelve twenty eight further notice him him. Sam Abrams and the birds recognized things become a bit. [SPEAKER CHANGES] the House do now adjourn. subject to the ratification of deals, messages from the Senate in the reports,conference report free reform of bills and resolutions. modification of the calendar until Thursday June the twenty second at our twenty seventh at noon. I can Jennifer 's family moved up after now adjourn to reconvene tomorrow, Thursday June twenty seventh at noon, seconded by record of Cleveland, this would left it to the ratification of bills, messages from the Senate committee report Scott portray referral bills, resolutions and modification of doubted it just cut out the Pandora was not yet adjourned izzard debate on the motion to adjourn for what purposes the gentleman from Buchan, what I will simply set aside the most remote of what purposes the gentleman from bucket represent mock arise a point of personal privilege. the Journal makes mid-August, and that recognizes Jennifer one of personal privilege. thank you members given the fact that finances announced immediate eight thirty we may be changing the right reform committee meeting from nine o'clock until possibly ten of those of you that remember the committee. please watch your e-mail for the appropriate time like the speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] White House is the motion estate appraiser to adjourn all this unfavourably signify by saying I is no guys have it now stands adjourned