Paul Stam

Defeated 13-16 as amendment to SB 897 in Finance (6/1/10)
Defeated 51-65 as a motion to suspend the rules to allow an amendment to SB 897 on the House Floor (6/3/10)

DEMOCRATS REFUSE TO CONFRONT IMPORTANT ISSUES

Paul Stam, NC House Republican Leader — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:20:17 +0000

The 2010 “short session” of the NC General Assembly is winding down with plenty of unfinished business. The Democratic leadership has refused to allow consideration of a number of important bills, primarily sponsored by Republicans.

Recent public opinion polls emphatically indicate North Carolina citizens resoundingly support these Republican initiatives. However, they have been refused a fair hearing in the legislature.

The most important business in the 2010 session has been to complete the budget. Fiscally responsible Republican amendments were either ignored or, if approved during floor consideration, summarily dropped during the budget conference committee deliberations.

Important work left undone this session:

Responsible budgeting decisions – Critical questions remain about the budget adopted last month for the upcoming fiscal year. It remains to be seen whether the budget is balanced as required by the NC Constitution. However, there is no doubt that the refusal of Democrats to make tough decisions in this year’s budget will bring state government to a severe crisis next year. Estimates are that next year’s structural budget deficit will exceed $3 billion. Adopting zero-based budgeting and pursuing thoughtful spending priorities this year would have lessened the pain we all know is coming next year.

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs – The Democratic proposals for job creation are anemic and will do little. We need regulatory relief as well as a reduction in the marginal tax rates so that small businesses will have an incentive to create jobs.

Health Care Freedom – Consideration of a bill to protect the freedom for North Carolina citizens to choose health care and health insurance. Senate and House Republicans requested action on a bill to allow individuals to continue to make their own health care choices and forgo federal mandates under the recently adopted federal health care legislation.

Executive oversight for state employee’s health care plan – Republicans attempted to provide accountability for the fiscal stability of the state health care plan by placing its responsibility in the Executive Branch. This proposal was thwarted by the Democrats.

Eliminate cap on Public Charter Schools – State law caps the number of public charter schools at 100. Demands for these innovative educational options continue to increase. This limitation severely hampers state efforts for federal “Race to the Top” funds. Even so, Democrats still refuse to raise or eliminate the cap.

Marriage Amendment – Consideration was not allowed for a constitutional amendment to provide that marriage in NC is between one man and one woman.

Tax Fairness in Education — A bill to allow parents in North Carolina to choose which school is best for their child. It allows an individual income tax credit for part of the expense of each eligible child who is educated in a nonpublic school or home school. The House used a procedural issue to avoid having a vote on this important issue. The fiscal note shows savings to the state and counties of $50 million per year.

Prohibit illegal immigrants to attend NC Community Colleges – A bill to disapprove the regulatory change by the NC Community College Board to allow undocumented aliens to attend degree programs at community colleges was not allowed to be considered.

“We have a few days left in the session with a lot of business left undone. If Democrats refuse to take care of business the people are entitled to a new governing majority in January,” said House Republican Leader Paul Stam (R-Wake).”

Senate Republican Leader Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) said, “Unfortunately, this legislative session will be remembered as one where there was a complete failure to deal with the fiscal problems facing our state. That failure means that our people will continue to struggle with double digit unemployment and a tax burden that renders North Carolina unable to compete with our neighboring states for jobs. North Carolina’s Democratic leaders have compounded growing health care problems by siding with the Obama administration and national Democrats rather than standing up for citizens in connection with federal health care mandates.”

STOPPING EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE

Paul Stam, NC House Republican Leader — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:12:54 +0000

The General Assembly is one step closer to stopping eminent domain abuse in North Carolina. On Monday night HB 1659, a bill which seeks to protect private property from being taken for the use of economic development, passed its second reading in the House by a margin of 100-14. It also provides for just compensation to landowners whose land is taken for public purposes.

The bill changes current law by using the “public use” test rather than “public benefit” (now allowed by the N.C. Supreme Court) or “public purpose” used in federal law. It also brings North Carolina in line with 49 other states by constitutionally requiring trial by jury in contested compensation cases.

The House will take its third vote today. If it passes, HB 1659 will head to the Senate. If approved by the Senate voters would see a statewide referendum on the proposed amendment to the state Constitution on the November 2012 ballot.

DEMOCRATS SEEK GOVERNMENT MANDATES FOR YOUR CHILD’S DIET

Paul Stam, NC House Republican Leader — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 18:41:07 +0000

Say goodbye to the juice box. A vote of 63 to 45 in the House gave tentative approval Thursday to a measure that would dictate what children could have to drink in private child care facilities.

House Bill 1726

These dictates would include a prohibition against serving sugar-sweetened beverages to children of any age; a prohibition against serving whole milk to children two years of age or older; a prohibition against serving flavored milk to any child; an absolute daily limit of six ounces of juice for any child regardless of age or how long the child is cared for; and a prohibition against juice served in a bottle, regardless of age. Primary sponsors are Democratic Representatives Jennifer Weiss (D-Wake), Bob England (D-Rutherford), Marian McLawhorn (D-Pitt) and Doug Yongue (D-Scotland).

These mandates would apply to every child in child care, without regard to each child’s health or nutritional needs, and without regard to parental wishes. These requirements go well beyond current minimum nutrition standards for day care centers. HB 1726 will be up for a final vote in the House Monday night and then must be considered by the Senate.

“This is a prime example of a well-intentioned idea – to help prevent childhood obesity – turning into a means for the state to control yet another aspect of our lives,” said Rep. Paul Stam (R-Wake). “Parents who choose child care should not be subjected to the nanny-state mentality that government always knows best for the family.”

For excerpts from the floor debate, please see below.

###

Rep. Weiss’ Debate

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This bill comes to us from the Legislative Task Force on Childhood Obesity. As you know, we have an obesity epidemic in this country and in North Carolina with our children. And the title explains that it addresses the nutrition and physical activity standards in childcare facilities. It is based on recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatricians, has the support of the American Cancer Society and the Heart Association and it is supported by the Childcare Coalition Folks. I would ask for your support. If you want, I can give you all kinds of statistics about children and their health problems and lifelong implications of obesity and how the obesity rate is increasing. But I will spare you that since you’re all hungry. I’d ask for your support and be happy to answer any questions.”

Rep. Stam’s First Debate

“Again, I apologize. I’m reading this for the first time today and I see that we’re going to make a rule that even if a parent wants their skinny kid to fatten up by having some milk, or chocolate milk – we’re going to have a rule against it. Is that what we’re doing here? That’s a rhetorical question because it says that’s exactly what we’re doing here. That we’re going to solve the obesity problem by adopting a rule that applies to all children in daycare no matter the individual needs or the individual conditions of that child. I’m hoping someone will pop up and show me where I’m wrong.

Rep. Martin’s Debate

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just want to reemphasize one point that’s already been made. This does not restrict the ability of the parent when the child comes home from daycare to fatten that child up as much as they want to. They can cram him with ice cream, sweets, 50% fat milk, anything they want. All this says is when they are in daycare certain standards apply. I think there’s a good point that’s been made – why punish the children who are skinny whose parents might need to fatten them up in daycare. Any of y’all who have ever had a kid in daycare, who have a kid in school do not want to hear your child coming home and saying, ‘Why can Judy have chocolate milk, 50% fat chocolate milk and I can’t?’ It would be a nightmare for the people who run daycares and the teachers. You do not want that happening. It is important that we have a consistency in our daycare centers.”

Rep. Blust: “Mr. Speaker?”

Speaker Hackney: “For what purpose does the gentleman from Guilford, Rep. Blust, arise?”

Rep. Blust: “To see if Rep. Martin would yield for a question.”

Speaker Hackney: “Does Rep. Martin yield? He yields.”

Rep. Blust: “Rep. Martin, if this goes forward and the state can determine what a child eats at the daycare, what is to stop that same government from later saying, ‘We’re going to determine what the child can eat in the home too.’ What’s the difference right there?”

Rep. Martin: “Mr. Speaker, I’ve got an easy answer for you. Rep. Blust, it would take all of us, or at least a majority of the General Assembly voting that way. And I’d expect you’ll still be here should anyone actually introduce such a bill to vote against it and I will join you in voting against it…Everyone who has spoken on this, pro or con, seems to acknowledge that childhood obesity is a problem. Wishing for a solution ain’t going to make it so. We’ve got to take action.”

Rep. Stam’s Second Debate

“I’d like to point out a couple of things. First of all, the sponsor told Rep. Wiley that of course this Commission could make exceptions for children in particular situations, at least that’s what I thought I heard. That’s not the case. The bill itself says on line 19 that ‘nutrition standards shall include all of the following.” And what it includes are prohibitions, requirements, etc. It doesn’t say ‘subject to such exceptions as the Commission shall say.’

Secondly, my friend, Tim Moore, here says that this is an 8 oz. cup. Six ounces is about right there. Now, children are unique. My son was…what do you call it when you set the weight record for being born at Durham Regional Hospital? A big boy! But that was many years ago, of course. Almost 12 pounds when he was born. And we were really afraid when my daughter would come along that she would follow but she’s very normal. Many of you know her. But when he was a month old…No, when he was two weeks old he was already drinking enough and eating enough sleep through the night. He was big. Some kids are big. Some are small. Now, I never left my kid in daycare all day long, but if you left your kid in daycare all day long, all the time, and they’re a big kid and they get 6 oz. of juice…Are we going to dehydrate these kids? I mean, kids are different.

…….

We have come close in the past to nanny-state legislation. But this is probably it. The parents do not have the choice. They can’t send something to the daycare and ask that it be given to their child. Rep. Starnes told me and that was also mentioned in committee. We’re telling them what to eat or drink even if they’re not sick, even if they’re not obese, even if genetically they’re skinny as a rail. And I think, listening to Rep. Martin’s repartee with Rep Blust, I think I have finally got the nub of what the real issues is. And that is the majority thinks that private daycare is really state institutions. They think that parents get to do a little something at home but whenever the kid gets out, they’re really under the control of the state. Obviously the state has a role in preventing abuse and neglect and those kinds of things. And I don’t deny that. But the state doesn’t get to decide everything. And this bill basically, right at the basic level of telling kids how much milk to drink, is saying the State of North Carolina, the House of Representatives, not even an expert commission, knows how much milk you should have to drink.

I remember, and I won’t sing it for you, but when I was about three and four years old we had a little phonograph and we learned a little song, ‘Health can be fun…’ How many of you have heard this? ‘It’s fun to be healthy…’ “Y’all know that song? And it was all about you’ve got to drink your milk and all this kind of stuff. Well, the people thought then that what was really healthy…You want me to sing? You know, we’re in a fad right now of what to do about obesity and this isn’t it, telling parents through their daycare center what to do.

ELECTRONIC SWEEPSTAKES BAN CONSIDERED BY THE LEGISLATURE

Paul Stam, NC House Republican Leader — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 14:31:40 +0000

The NC Senate overwhelmingly passed House Bill 80, “Ban Electronic Sweepstakes” on Monday night by a margin of 47 to 1. The House is expected to take up the measure in the near future.

HB 80 would prohibit electronic machines and other devices used for sweepstakes activities in the state. The bill makes it “unlawful for any person to own, lease, or have possession of and place into operation an electronic machine or device to conduct a sweepstakes or to engage in any process or activity associated with a sweepstakes.” The bill exempts video games that do not provide prizes and the traditional sweepstakes games conducted by retail merchants such as MacDonald’s.

The General Assembly outlawed video poker in 2006, but an estimated 600 so-called “sweepstakes cafes or parlors” have been established all across North Carolina in the past year or so in an attempt to circumvent the ban on this gambling activity. Individual sweepstakes machines have also been located in various retail, restaurant and bar locations in the state.

HB 80 is strongly supported by the NC Sheriff’s Association, the Family Policy Council, and the NC league of Municipalities and the Christian Action League.

“This practice preys upon the poor, those who don’t know the odds, and those who don’t appreciate arithmetic,” said House Republican Leader Paul Stam (R-Wake). “It is an unfair trade practice on its face.”

NC LEADERS MAKE QUESTIONABLE DECISIONS ON HEALTH CARE

Paul Stam, NC House Republican Leader — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 14:18:10 +0000

Democratic Leadership Unengaged, Erractic in Response to Federal Law

As part of the federal health care law passed earlier this year, the federal government set aside $5 billion to dole out to states that set up temporary high-risk insurance pools by July 1. North Carolina already maintains a high risk insurance pool at the state level.

In April, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told states they had until the end of the month to decide whether they would create a new a federal high-risk pool, operate a federal pool alongside an existing state pool, or opt out of the program altogether. In response, 18 governors across the country decided to opt out choosing to forgo federal money to set up a federal high-risk pool because of concerns that these pools represent another unfunded federal mandate that could strain state budgets and leave taxpayers to foot the bill for future deficits from the program.

Governor Bev Perdue has sent a letter to HHS announcing North Carolina’s intention to participate in the program by setting up a federal high-risk pool to run in conjunction with the state pool. Industry analysts have predicted the federal program could cost as much as eight times as much as what has been budgeted to cover the costs that will be incurred by the states. (“ObamaCare’s Fuzzy Math: High Risk Pools Will Cost 8 Times What Is Budgeted,” Forbes.com, 5/12/10)

In addition, last month Attorney General Roy Cooper refused to join a lawsuit with thirteen other Attorneys General across the country challenging the constitutionality of the federal health care mandates handed down to the states as part of the new law. Cooper justified his decision by claiming that joining such a suit was an unnecessary drain on state resources because any decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case would be applied to North Carolina regardless of the state’s participation in the suit.

However, last week Cooper rightly chose to join a suit scheduled to go before the Supreme Court and initiated by other states against a Topeka, Kansas church whose members picket military funerals. Cooper made no statement in regards to his previous concerns that such a suit could drain state resources fueling speculation that his refusal to join the lawsuit challenging federal health care mandates was a result of his political allegiance to the Obama administration, not a response to the will of the majority of the people of North Carolina.

Senate Republican Leader Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) said, “At a time when North Carolinians are concerned about the future of their health care coverage, we cannot afford for the Governor or the Attorney General to be unengaged or reckless in their decision-making.

We need leaders who understand the problems the state is facing and have the courage to make the right decisions for North Carolina, not Washington, D.C. Most importantly, we need public servants who are willing to listen to the voice of the people.”

EMINENT DOMAIN AND CONDEMNATION REFORM IN 2010

Paul Stam, NC House Republican Leader — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 20:12:05 +0000

Today HB 1659, a measure to amend the North Carolina Constitution to protect private property from being taken by eminent domain for the use of economic development passed House Judiciary II and is headed for the floor. The primary sponsors are Rep. Paul Stam and Rep. David Lewis.

The proposed constitutional amendment reads:

“Private property shall not be taken by eminent domain except for a public use. Public use does not include the taking of property in order to convey an interest in the property for economic development. Just compensation shall be paid and, if demanded, shall be determined by a jury.”

“The people of North Carolina want to feel secure – that their property will not be arbitrarily taken by the government and then used by someone else,” said Stam.

For the past 5 years Republicans in the General Assembly have fought to protect private property rights including reform when government seeks to take private property through the abuse of Eminent Domain.

HB 1659, will be debated on the House floor probably next week.

###

HOUSE REPUBLICAN BUDGET AMENDMENTS ADOPTED

Paul Stam, NC House Republican Leader — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 21:14:34 +0000

The North Carolina House of Representatives on Thursday adopted four significant amendments to SB 897, the 2010-2011 budget bill. These amendments, offered by Republican legislators, will eliminate unnecessary end-of-grade tests and provide funding to teachers for classroom supplies, prohibit the paying of “golden parachutes” to state employees who are terminated or leave their jobs; forbid the practice of allowing in-state tuition for out of state students, and allow funds from the NC Lottery to be distributed equally to charter and traditional public schools.

Rep. Bryan Holloway (R-Stokes), a former high school teacher, offered the amendment to eliminate EOG tests in U.S. history, civics, economics and physical science. These are not required by No Child Left Behind. The $2 million currently spent to administer these tests would be used to provide classroom supplies that had been reduced in previous state budgets. In many cases teachers have been forced to purchase these supplies with their own money.

“The House correctly decided to eliminate ineffective tests that do not measure student accountability. This amendment will use this money in the classroom to truly benefit children,” said Rep. Holloway. “This is a large step in moving toward the much needed reforms our state needs in education.”

Rep. George Cleveland (R-Onslow) successfully sponsored an amendment to require Morehead – Cain and Park scholarships for nonresident and foreign students in the UNC system to be paid at out-of-state tuition rates. Currently, these scholarships are allowed to be paid at the in-state tuition rate. Rep. Cleveland’s amendment will save taxpayers $6 million annually. The foundations have ample assets to pay for these students.

“The citizens of North Carolina won today,” said Rep. Cleveland. “No longer will they be subsidizing out of state and foreign students to the tune of $6 million. This money will now fund a proven program, Career Technical Education, which has a graduation rate exceeding 90 percent in our high schools.”

A third amendment, offered by Rep. Hugh Blackwell (R-Burke), will limit transition payments or “golden parachutes” for state (mainly university) employees. This amendment will stop the practice of maintaining the salaries of separated state and university employees. This so-called university “standard” was revealed last year in the cases of former NCSU chancellor James Oblinger and Provost Larry Neilsen, and former NC A & T Chancellor Stanley Battle who all received lucrative taxpayer financed deals upon their resignations.

“We cannot support paying public employees for work they are no longer doing,” said Rep. Blackwell. “It is time to stop this irresponsible practice.”

Rep. Paul Stam (R-Wake) was also successful in offering an amendment to strike a special provision in the budget bill which would have prevented classroom teacher funds from the NC Lottery to be distributed to charter schools. The effect of this amendment would provide approximately $5.3 million in additional funding to public charter schools.

These Republican supported initiatives, if retained in the legislation by the Senate-House conference committee, will help provide fiscal responsibility to the budget package.

Paul Stam

SENATE DEMOCRATS CONTINUE PAY-TO-PLAY POLITICS

MURDERERS GET ANOTHER REPRIEVE

REP. STAM’S 2009 – 2010 BILLS (UPDATED)

HB 4: Good Faith Exception/Exclusionary Rule (Stam)

Judiciary I: 2/12/09

(Tolson, Stam, McLawhorn, Wiley)

Ch. SL 2009-46: 6/1/09

(Glazier, Lucas, Stam, McGee)

Vetoed: 9/10/09

The contents of this bill became Sec. 24 of SL 2010-169

HB 162: Elec. Record Interrogation/B1, B2, C Felony (Glazier, Blue, Ross, Stam)

Judiciary II: 2/16/09

(Stam, Blust, Dollar)

Appropriations: 3/11/09

Earle budget amendment in Appropriations 6/9/09

– Sole Source Medicaid

Sec. 8A.(a) & (b)

Final Budget: SB 202/SL 2009-451 Sec. 10.58B.(a) & (b)

(Ross, Stam, Glazier)

Ch. SL 2009-356: 7/27/09

(Stam, Howard)

Judiciary I: 3/4/09

Did not pass 5-6 in Judiciary I

(Current, Samuelson, Brown, Stam)

Rules: 2/23/09

(Stam)

Rules: 3/5/09

Companion bill SB 435: Ch. Res 2009-4 (3/5/09)

(Stam, McComas, Killian, Barnhart)

Education: 3/2/09

Defeated 13-16 as amendment to SB 202 in Finance (6/10/09)

See HB 1988 below

(Haire, Blue, Daughtry, Stam)

Ch. SL 2009-82: 6/11/09

(Stam)

Ch. SL 2009-155: 6/23/09

(Moore, Current, Stam, Killian)

Election Law: 3/9/09

(Stam, Wiley)

Education: 3/9/09

SL 2009-451 (Final Budget): Section 7.8(b)

HB 516: Increase Revenues Without Raising Taxes (Stam)

Rules: 3/10/09

Similar bill – SB 420: Redirect Master Settlement Funds (Clodfelter)

Senate Appropriations/Base Budget: 3/5/09

(Bryant, Spear, Stam, Michaux)

Ch. SL 2007-155: 7/27/09

(Stam, Wiley, Randleman)

Education: 3/23/09

Failed 21-26 in Education on June 23, 2009

(Ross, Stam, Weiss, Dollar)

Ch. SL 2010-170: 8/2/10

The original contents of this bill became Sec. 22(a) & (b) of SL 2009-541

This bill was stripped in 2010 and passed as “Citizens United Response” with Stam, Dollar and all Republicans in opposition

HB 765: Revise Elective Share Statutes (Stam)

Ch. SL 2009-368: 7/27/09

(Stam, Neumann, Stevens, McGee)

Education: 3/25/09

No Action

(Moore, Stam)

Ways and Means: 3/26/09

Decided by the N.C. Supreme Court and therefore the bill is unnecessary

(Bryant, Rhyne, Stam, Ross)

Judiciary I: 4/1/09

Companion SB 763: Ch. SL 2009-231 – 6/30/2009

HB 937: Innocence Commn./Limited Witness Immunity (Glazier, Ross, Stam, Lucas)

Ch. SL 2009-360: 7/27/09

(Glazier, Stam, Ross, Tillis)

Senate Judiciary I: 5/7/09

The contents of this bill became Sec. 13(a) of SL 2010-169

Changed to “Gov’t Ethics and Campaign Reform Act of 2010”

The “Pay to Play” portions were deleted by the Senate.

(Glazier, Stam, Ross, Goodwin)

Ch. SL 2010-169: 8/2/10

(Tucker, Hall, Cleveland, Stam)

Ch. SL 2009-198: 6/26/09

(Faison, Ross, Stam, Moore)

Senate Judiciary I: 5/5/09

The contents of HB 1048 became Sec. 7(a) & (b), 8(a) & (b), 9(a) & (b) and 10(a) & (b) of SL 2009-534