- Hi, I'm Marc Rotterman.

Coming up, a conversation with the leadership of the General Assembly.

We'll discuss Tuesday's primary results, the economy and we'll get a preview at the upcoming session of the General Assembly next.

- [Man] Major funding for front row is provided by Robert L. Luddy.

Additional funding provided by Patricia and Koo Yuen through the Yuen Foundation, committed to bridging cultural differences in our communities and by, funding for the Lightning Round provided by, Boddie Noell Foundation, NC Realtors, Mary Louise and John Burress.

Rifenburg Construction and Helen Laughery.

A complete list of funders can be found at pbsnc.org/frontrow.

[upbeat music] ♪ - Welcome back.

Joining the conversation, Tim Moore, the North Carolina Speaker of the House.

Dan Blue Democratic Leader in the State Senate.

Mr. Jim Perry, the majority whip in the state Senate and Robert Reives, the Democratic Leader in the house.

Let's begin with the results of Tuesday's primary.

Mr. Speaker, you've got the floor.

- Well, thank you.

I think the results of the primary show that voters overwhelmingly were choosing to vote in the Republican primary If you look at the unaffiliated voters.

If you look at Republican voters, there was a huge turnover.

And so there was a very strong outcome for rep Congressman Bud who's now gonna probably be, I would say our next US Senator, we had a couple of surprises and some legislative primaries probably on both sides of the aisle, but I would say that our side of the aisle, we feel very poised, very strong going into the elections this fall.

I'm glad the primaries are over that we can now focus on the general.

- Dan, what struck you about these primaries?

- I think the far reaching arms of Donald Trump still in the Republican party in North Carolina.

- Is it a populous party now, America First Party?

- American First Party it is, I don't know whether it's really populous because I don't believe it's addressing the real concerns and issues of Americans in North Carolina.

- Was it a loss for the Republican establishment you think?

- Oh, yeah, it was a big loss for the Republican.

Does the Republican establishment exist anymore?

That's the real question.

And I think also the turnout, I'm not like the speaker, I'm not really that encouraged by unaffiliated turnout either in the Republican primary or the democratic primary.

- Yeah.

But 60% of people who are independent went to get that ballot, the ballot were Republican, right?

- They were, they pulled that ballot almost two to one for the Republican party.

I think that was very encouraging for us.

And for what we anticipate will happen in November.

- Robert, your thoughts.

- Well, what I liked about what happened at least on our side of aisle is I liked the fact that you saw really similar to what Senator Blue was saying.

People voting for those local candidates, people voting for people that they knew, people that they trusted and that were part of North Carolina brand.

- Well, Dan, are you concerned about democratic turnout in the fall?

- No, I think it'll be up.

You gotta understand, on top of the ticket this fall is United States Senate race.

On the democratic side, there was very little opposition for our nominee.

Sherry Beasley was gonna win going away.

- Will Biden come in for her?

- If she invites him in, I guess he would come.

But you know, Marc, on that line I'd like to make one issue.

Democrats in North Carolina are accustomed to running a separate independent campaign from the national ticket.

That's what we've done over the years.

It's just Obama brought us back into the fold.

So that Democrats started identifying really with the national ticket.

We are running on issues that are important to people their everyday issues, putting bread on the table, putting money in their pockets, giving their kids a good education and that's what our issues are and that's what the democratic party will be known for after this election.

- Mr. Speaker, is this gonna be about kitchen table issues in the fall?

- Well, I think it certainly is because right now the folks in this state see what's happening nationally, they see a president that has stymied the production of energy and now we're paying more than $4 a gallon for gas.

- 4.59 today.

- Just today it was announced that in Washington State, that they've reprogrammed the gas pumps to be able to charge $10 a gallon, unheard of.

And you have that, you have just ridiculous inflation, you have a border crisis.

And the voters of this state, the voters around the country realize that Washington is failing them.

And that the policies coming out of this president and the democratic Congress and Senate are nothing that we need to keep in place.

- Robert, I know you agree with that, right?

- Absolutely not.

[all laugh] And what I think I do believe it's gonna be about catch table issues, but a lot of that's gonna be determined by the folks at this table and about the folks that are in leadership.

I think the bottom line is people need something to happen for them right now.

We've gotten through COVID, but we haven't gotten through all of the bad things that have happened to us as a result of COVID.

We gotta keep working on that.

- Well, I wanna stay on the economy and talk to you.

What are your folks telling you in your district about the economy?

- The one thing is everybody's concerned about energy.

Everybody's concerned about inflation, but I think the good thing about the folks in my district is they also understand that that's a lot of factors going in.

So, for instance, when you look at the gas prices, at any point in time, the oil companies could say, you know, we're getting a little bit much.

We can try to bring this down a little bit.

When it comes down to inflation, you look at things like what happened at the Texas border where there was stymying, all this produce coming in, you got 240 million worth of produce lost because we're doing extra security checks.

The bottom line is this, we should all be working together to try to figure out things that bring these prices down for people that make people more secure in the economy and have more faith in the government - Jim, are Biden's energy policies driving inflation?

- I think if you look at the latest Politifact that I saw released cause we've heard a lot about the war in the Ukraine driving gas prices.

Gas prices have been going up for a long time before that happened.

We certainly saw a spike.

So, you know, I think we can complicate it.

We can make it very cloudy, but there seems to be a direct correlation in my mind.

- Well, it's spending too, right?

My friend.

- Well, it's unparalleled spending at this point.

We've never seen a federal government spend so much money that it doesn't have.

Mortgaging our children and our grandchildren's future.

It's absolutely reckless what's happening.

And so you can compare that though to what we have done in North Carolina, where we have reigned in spending, where we have lowered taxes, we've cut regulations.

You have a lot of states that are under different leadership that populations are fleeing.

You look at North Carolina, still one of the most desirable states in the country for people to move.

And it's because of a lot of the policies here, but we are frankly dealing with a lot of the national policies that are now having an impact on us.

You mentioned energy prices, inflation, I mean, this is a big deal.

And despite all the great work that's happening these things are going to impact us.

- You know I think the two greatest kitchen-table issues that are not political, but do impact every family, price of gas, price of food, and no one here denies that they are through the roof and impacting people in our state every day.

- What's the cure for that, my friend?

- Well, the first cure is we have an excess in revenue, much more than we projected, the first thing we oughta do is immediately put money in people's pockets, suspend the taxes that we charge on gas, use that money so that we can offset the reduction in the highway fund.

We can still build roads and repair them, but give that money directly to those who are having to pay the additional taxes on gas.

Around this table we could agree to do that.

Drivers around this state would then pay less for gas, because they wouldn't be paying the state tax on it, and we pay it until this, until we dig out of this situation.

It is not just what's happening in Washington.

- Does this remind you of 1970, Dan, recession?

- It does and these guys won't remember sitting in gas lines for a long time, sometimes three, four hours at a time, because of the Arab embargo, but there are all of these international factors that impact the price of oil.

I don't control any of the cartels, I don't know, maybe some of you do, but you're absolutely right they could reduce it, they're jacking the price up.

The oil is the same oil that it was before, all of these other pressures, before the war in Ukraine, and all of these things are coming together.

We're coming through a pandemic we got all of the issues with supply chain and the ability to deliver goods, and so I'm saying that we could take immediate action though by not placing blame, but simply put money in people's pockets right now.

- But weren't we energy independent under Trump, pretty much?

- Yes.

- I think we had a much different situation and my friend mentioned the 1970s, I think the worst budget shortfall we had since the '70s was around 2009 with about a $4.5 billion hole that we had on about a $21 million budget.

And with the uncertainty we have in the economy, the difficulties we've already faced with DOT funding, $11 billion of unfunded projects out in the future, I have serious concerns about touching a gas tax when they're already low on funds.

- Well, I wanna come right back to you and talk about what's on tap this session at the General Assembly.

- Well, I think, you know, we hope to keep it a short session, we all agree on that, we want to get in and out.

- Well, he was talking about going on vacation.

[laughing] - Well, we hope to be able to if we can get outta there, but I think you'll see continued policy decisions that you've seen in the past, there is uncertainty in the economy.

We do have concerns about growing spending at any time to unsustainable rates.

Going back to 2009, revenue was growing at 1% and expenses were growing at 9%, that's a classic bubble, we want to avoid that and be methodical in our approach to spending.

- What's your top priorities, Robert?

- Well, again, back what Senator Blue was saying, is trying to figure out ways to put money back in people's pockets, you know, whether that be through some type of tax cut that we do for personal people, whether that be for any type of issue that gives us an opportunity to make sure that people get to spend money.

- I love to hear Robert talking about tax cuts, we totally agree on that.

- And of course the difference is though- [laughing] I'm looking to cut - - As long as it's supply-sided.

- Yeah, I'm trying to cut taxes for people that I see every day, they're cutting taxes for people they see every day, and that's a big difference- - Is Medicaid expansion on the table this cycle?

- I do not see Medicaid expansion having much legs in the House at this point.

It's a very detailed conversation, it's an issue that's been around for years and years, but as far as seeing that in a very short session, look I'm anticipating us being in session about six weeks, in and out, we're already working through, we've already made a great deal of headway on our state budget, in terms of the parameters, the spending amounts.

The tax issues are still something that are being held up and I wanna talk with all these gentlemen about other ways we can engage in tax relief.

So I think issues like Medicaid expansion, there's issues about marijuana, there's all these issues- - Medical marijuana.

- We keep on bringing up- - Is that on the table?

- Those are issues that need to be dealt with in a long session, not in a short session.

- Dan, what about the rural hospitals though?

They're really hurting, they could use Medicaid expansion couldn't they?

- They surely could, plus, that Senator Perry was talking about, the lack of being able to project reliably as to what revenue's gonna be, everybody knows that that would generate an additional $4 billion because the state would not have to pay one dime to expand Medicaid, it's already paid for in various other proposals that have been before us.

But also, that 4 billion, plus the 4 billion that we're talking about that we know that's coming in from the excess revenue, that we already have in the projections, could be of great help to people immediately, there's no need in looking further down the road.

Then restoring the tax holiday for folk trying to buy new supplies for their kids to go back to school, we could make it without that revenue and that would be money in people's pockets, along with, as I said, giving them relief at the gas pump, giving them relief at the supermarket, those are the issues that they're dealing with.

Those are the table-topic issues that this, this session ought to be about and I hope it is.

- Jim, Medicaid expansion, the fear though, is 90% of it's federally funded, right?

- Yeah, I think that has been a concern over time that many people have expressed, there's also policy concerns amongst some members.

I think anytime someone expresses sincere concerns, or thoughts on an issue, and you begin the conversation by dismissing them, or telling them they're wrong, the conversation's over.

So I do think it requires a great deal of thought and conversation and it's an important topic, you know, healthcare's a big issue in our state.

Senator Blue mentioned that hospitals benefited from Medicaid expansion.

I also know there's a federal program out there to adjust Medicaid rates right now that could benefit hospitals.

I think that we have a lot of opportunities for conversation going forward.

- But it's an eight-year conversation, it's time to reach a conclusion.

- Broadband, how are we doing on that?

I see the feds just gave North Carolina $100 million?

- We're doing well on broadband, we need to do better, 'cause the bottom line is in these rural areas you still can't get it and some of that's gonna have to come from some policy changes within the building.

We can have all the money that you wanna put out there, but if you don't make some basic policy changes so that this broadband can immediately get into these rural areas, then you just hit into, in a real tight spot, and I think we need to just do that.

- Jim is broadband and necessity in those rural areas?

- I think it is and I think we've seen the impact of the pandemic really shine a spotlight on that for quality of life, for healthcare.

For academic reasons, it is something that we will continue to push forward on.

- Are we looking, Mr. Speaker, at a bonus for teachers and state employees or an increase in pay?

- We're actually looking at a pay increase and an actual raise.

Don't want to reveal what the number is just yet, but it's a pretty, it's a very generous one to help out to really deal with inflation, plus to take into account the fact that we do have this surplus.

But it can't be stated enough, a lot of this surplus that we have is not recurring or ongoing money, it's one-time, non-recurring money.

- Are you talking to the governor?

- We will be talking to him next week.

- What's your reaction to his budget proposal?

- You know, I think he has some good points in there, but I think there's some, the numbers don't necessarily add up in a lot of ways.

So we need to, I think we'll do a better job of it.

- Have you looked at that, Dan?

- Yeah, I've looked at the governor's proposal, and I'm encouraged that the speaker is talking about permanent pay raises for teachers, I assume, as well as state employees.

- Has he got 2.5 in his budget for teachers?

- He's got 2 1/2 for teachers, he's got 2 1/2 for state employees and teachers.

- We have 2 1/2 already built in built for our second year.

- He's talking about in addition to the current raise that's built in.

- Okay, any final thoughts, my friend?

- No, I think that we all hope to get in and out and have a nice, short session.

And I think we'll see consistency in our approach to budgeting, as you've said.

- Well, don't lead too soon, we won't have anything to talk to you, wrap this up, my friend.

[all laugh] - What I would simply say is this, we've got a lot of opportunities in this budget.

I agree this is one-time money.

We've gotta use that one time money to make our economy better.

- And I'll say this on that, a lot of the great capital projects we funded, it's more expensive to build now than it was months ago when we passed it.

So we're gonna have to even adjust that just to keep where we were.

- Great conversation, I wanna talk about something that's been in the news, it's very controversial, and that's the overturning of Roe versus Wade.

What's the impact on North Carolina if that happens?

- Well first, not just North Carolina, but you're gonna have a hundred million women who are disappointed that a bunch of males do not respect and do not adequately protect their right to autonomy over their own bodies.

This is a country predicated on liberty and freedom.

And when you take away the ability of somebody to determine what happens with their own body, you're taking away those freedoms.

But in addition to that, I think that you're gonna have, if in fact Roe versus Wade is reversed, you're not gonna end up ending abortions.

What you're gonna do is drive a lot of them to the back streets, back alleys.

And so you're gonna have more people who are in hospitals, more people who have permanent physical damage because they get a botched abortion.

They're going to occur, Roe versus Wade made it safe, and it's progeny, Roe versus Wade and Casey, and the other cases that followed.

So what ought to happen in North Carolina is we ought to codify the current status of Roe versus Wade into law in North Carolina so that we can allay these fears of all of these women so that we can have healthy abortions occurring.

They're going to occur anyhow, we just need to make sure that they're safe.

- Tim, they're protesting in front of the judge's house, the Supreme Court justice's house, is that legal?

- Well, it certainly, this whole thing, - [Marc] Are they intimidating the judges?

- Well, the fact that a decision was leaked in such a way, or a draft opinion, I don't know that that's happened in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court.

And that actually bothers me a lot.

I mean, that's a problem, that's an institutional problem there.

In terms of where things go, I've been in the general assembly long enough that I've seen the vitriol at a very high level where folks, where protesting happens.

And so there has to be that balance between, folks need to have the right to protest, but we don't need to allow it to become violent at all.

- Jim, do you agree?

- If Roe v. Wade is overturned, and that's if, all we've seen is a draft opinion, I think the impact on North Carolina immediately is nothing.

The question for Roe v. Wade is, is there a constitutional right to abortion?

Is it guaranteed by our United States Constitution?

- Well, should it be voted on in the states?

- Well, we will see what happens with the opinions, right?

Or is it a state's rights issue?

But I think we have the cart before the horse right now and we need to see an opinion actually come out at some point.

- Robert, is the Supreme Court becoming too political?

- The Supreme Court has definitely become too political.

Part of that is the lifetime appointment.

Part of that is the fact that when we started lifetime appointments when the Supreme Court was originally put together, you had 60-year-old men that were being put on whose life expectancy was 69.

Now we're putting on 40 and 45-year-old people whose life expectancy is 90.

And we expect that to be able to keep up.

And I think one of the points that you don't bring up about Roe versus Wade that is salient to me is if you look at Alito's draft opinion, that's not just about Roe versus Wade.

That's about rolling back a lot of different rights that have come about as this country has grown and changed over the last 200 years.

Alito prefers a strict interpretation of the constitution, which, to be candid, I wouldn't be sitting here on your show right now if we had too strict of an interpretation of the constitution, and that's something we've gotta be conscious of.

And that's what my concern is, and that's where the politicization has occurred.

- But someone in the progressive movement would like to see more justices on the court.

They'd like to pack to court.

Is that a wise idea, quickly?

- I'd have to look at it, that's not in our purview.

What I would tell you though is I do think you've really gotta look at having somebody on a court for 50 years is a bit much.

- Okay, I want to change gears and talk about the opioid crisis, Tim, in North Carolina and then across this country.

It's plaguing this nation.

How are we doing here?

- We're like so many other states.

I've actually heard this said, and I think it's accurate.

North Carolina is essentially a border state, if you will.

Most of these drugs are coming in through Mexico, and ever since President Biden was elected, the border has essentially been thrown open.

And the record amount of drugs coming through are just unmatched by anything.

And if you talk to any folks in law enforcement, any folks dealing with this, they'll tell you that's where this is coming in from.

That with the fentanyl that's being used to lace it, it's an absolutely terrible situation.

And not only from those who were knowingly taking it and knowingly abusing it, but folks who may not know in fact.

And we've put a lot of resources into it, all these gentlemen here have all voted for that, but we are struggling to keep up with it.

We have to find a way to stop the flow of these dangerous drugs coming into the country.

That has to happen.

- Attorney General Stein, Dan, has worked on this problem.

- You know, he has.

I think he was part of a recent settlement.

- [Marc] Opioid settlement.

I think it was about-- - 20-some billion dollars.

- [Marc] Yeah, yeah.

- But some of the 50 million of it-- - Comin' here, right?

- Comin' to North Carolina.

- Right.

- And we've all been working on it.

But I think part of the problem, Marc, is that what we have with this addiction now, and especially with opioids, is a new way of doin' it.

We got the synthetic stuff, which is totally different than the plant-based stuff that we have built a system to detect and to snuff out.

Now you can tell when somebody's plantin' it, you know?

We could look at poppy fields and stuff and know where stuff was going.

Now, somebody can just get their material, a chemist, get in a lab somewhere, and you don't know that the production is going on and it gets put out in the circulation.

Not in the same kind of volumes, but much more dangerous stuff and so we're paying that price, which means that we gotta change the way that we're policing it.

To change the way that we're treatin' it and maybe emphasize even more the treatment part of it and dissuading people from taking these drugs in the first place.

- What do we do about the cartels though who are just sending the poison in this country, Jim?

- I think that goes back to a comment the speaker made about securing those borders and trying to stop it before it gets into the country.

You know, another aspect that people don't think about and don't talk about 'cause the epidemic is horrible, and we see the front end and we see the death, but families on the back end when-- - Foster kids.

- Well they have individuals who have to go through autopsies.

We have to get toxicology reports.

Those families are living, continuing to live that nightmare for another nine months in some instances and we've gotta do some stuff to relieve that as well.

- Robert, your thoughts?

- I just have to push back a little bit 'cause if I'm not mistaken, Biden's been in office for a year and a half and the drug problem, my recollection is existed in America before President Biden got in office and-- - We lost 100,000 people last year to fentanyl overdoses though, right?

- Right and we've had a drug problem in this country for years that neither Republican nor Democratic administrations have adequately addressed.

It's not about just securing the borders.

It's about drug education.

It's about drug enforcement within the borders.

It's about stiffening some of the penalties that you have for people who do bring drugs in here, but it's not just a problem from South America.

It's not just a problem from China.

It's not just a problem from Europe.

This is the entire world dealing with this.

So I mean, if opioids are being dealt with in Europe, their problem isn't from South America.

The problem is that we've got a culture that has not done what it has to do to adequately address drug enforcement for those who sell as opposed to those who use.

- Mr. Speaker, just wrap this up in about 30 seconds.

Go ahead.

- No, and I agree with what Robert said but I think if you look at the trends and the numbers, everything now shows that the amount of drugs coming in across the border right now is just simply overwhelming the system.

That's the problem.

But it needs to be in all of the above.

It needs to be dealing with that.

It needs to be treatment.

I think you're exactly right, Dan.

We need to put more on treatment and we need to do more as far as other things societally.

So it is a treatment base for those who use it.

But there's also a significant part of punishment of those who are distributing it and selling it and then-- - Are we too lax on punishment?

- In some cases we certainly are.

- And I agree with him on that but what I'm saying is it is an overwhelming supply because folk have figured out new ways to generate this stuff.

It's not just coming in from South America or Central America.

It's being produced here in the United States with people with chemistry labs and stuff so that they can make all the synthetic stuff.

That's why you got such an increase in death from it.

It's much more dangerous than the plant-based opioids that we had gotten accustomed to and that we've been trying to enforce the law on.

- Great conversation on that.

We've gotta wrap real soon but I want to talk to you quickly and go around the horn.

Should we lift the COVID state of emergency in North Carolina, my friend?

- We should have already lifted the COVID state of emergency.

We're one of just a handful of states that still have it in place.

You gotta remember the reason all of those initial things were put in place was a concern about the overrunning of the medical system.

We don't have that now.

We need to lift it.

- Quickly, yes or no?

- We probably should, but we ought to take precautions because we know it's still with us.

- [Marc] Jim.

- The general assembly's in session.

We should absolutely lift it.

- Okay, quickly.

- Yes, and we gotta work together to make sure we put things in place to protect us otherwise.

- Great job, gentlemen.

That's it for us.

Thanks for watching.

Hope to see you next week on Front Row.

Have a great weekend.

[dramatic music] - [Announcer] Major funding for Front Row was provided by Robert L. Luddy.

Additional funding provided by Patricia and Koo Yuen through the Yuen Foundation.

Committed to bridging cultural differences in our communities and by... Funding for the lightning round provided by Boddie-Noell Foundation, NC Realtors, Mary Louise and John Burress, Rifenburg Construction, and Helen Laughery.

A complete list of funders can be found at PBSNC.org/FrontRow.

[upbeat music] ♪