[BLANK_AUDIO] [SOUND] Can the meeting please come to order, while we're waiting on some other senators to arrive, they may not be as punctual as those that are here and we appreciate you for being punctual. I'd like to introduce the sergeant-atarms Steve McCraig, Hal Roach, and Steve Wilson. We really appreciate all you do for us as a Sargent of Arms and we hope to see you a lot today because we have meetings all day long. Okay, now we're gonna introduce the pages just stand if you're a page wave your hand so we know you are here, I guess we're all on this side. Benjie/g Jack, thank you for being here today, Joy Cregg/g I said that, Joy or Jay? >> Jay. >> Jay I can't see that far without glasses on, Jay [UNKNOWN] Thank you for being here wit us. [UNKNOWN]. [UNKNOWN] Tison/g, if I'm murdering your name just say something, Ebery/g Hilbert, Avery Hill Macole Hawlings/g and Luis Frank is that correct, Little as Frank. Trying to read it off here. Seeing and I will show you that you need do. You either printed or put it out or we can read it and I'm a good one to say. [BLANK_AUDIO] Or given it just a little bit of time here. Senator Jackson do you wanna start or do you prefer to wait a minute. I'm ready to roll if you are. We have a PCS Do I have a motion. Senator Alexander moves and all in favor. >> Aye. >> Motion carried Senator Jackson you are on with senate bill 770. >> Thank you Madam chairman, Brooke and chairman cook and members good morning. I'm gonna go through the highlights so going through the [INAUDIBLE] I actually [INAUDIBLE] severity calls at the end I'll be glad at any point and time to ask the questions you might have on his bill. This is going to be 2016, for mark and I will get started. Section number one is the department of Agriculture is requesting the betting program We give them that betting program a couple of years ago from DEQ or Denr at the time, and they are needing some language to clarify what they can and cant do. Because they really don't have a whole lot of push to enforce this and so we're giving them a little authority to do what they are supposed to be doing. Section number two is the department of Arg emergency. Emergency response team this is giving them the authority so that they can go in when there has been an Agricultural disaster or the rest is tornadoes recently and I believe it was Gramble county they put together an emergency team to out there and help the farmers whether it be cover up grain bins or catch livestock. So this has just given the department of Arg the authority to do that as other emergency response teams in the state. Section number 3 is allowing the wild life resource officers to cull wild hog from aircraft, predominantly helicopters. This has the potential to become a major problem for agriculture if we allow these wild federal hubs to continue producing and they produce faster that rabbits so it is a major problem down south and other states and this has given them the authority to do [INAUDIBLE] as they deem necessary, only with land owners with permission I might add in. Section number 4 is the department of agriquest asking that we change the rendering plan inspections from a committee and put it over to the meat and poultry division, the industry [INAUDIBLE] the ones we've spoken to have no concerns with this, section number 5 there is required training for Water district [UNKNOWN] supervisors, currently of the appointed ones are required to take minimum of six hours of training, this will sort of make mandatory that elected ones do it as well. So [UNKNOWN] so the same page and on the same [UNKNOWN] facing the same direction. Section number six is the board of agri rule making authority for [UNKNOWN] shelter fund,
the animal shelter welfare section does not have the rule making authority. So this will [UNKNOWN]. Section number seven is very similar, he gives rule making authority an exemption for forest management plans to get to board of agri rule currently already have it for the state affairs and farm with market so they're accustomed to this setting schedules. Section number 8 is a local preference for the school boards for food procurement in the 2008 Federal Farm Bill it allowed that a local school system could really solicit local foods and produce fresh fruits and vegetables, and actually if they meet the same processing level as an out of state then they will get a little preference there. Section number nine a allows HCG to be be injected for veterinary use. This is a controlled substance but you can currently give it in a pill form but this would allow for the injection by a licensed veterinarian or someone under their direct supervision. Section number 10 extends the sun set for castration renewable fuel facilities this is basically changing the date from 2017 to January 2020, and this is a feed stock project down in the east and they have had some setbacks so let's give them a little bit more time to get their act together. Section number 12 will allow a referendum to be held among the dear farmers and [INAUDIBLE] and if a majority of them solely agrees they can assess them on the feed and it will start to follow the same procedures as the whole council has done and many other associations is done as far as trying to raise money for research and development of the herds, section number 12 would exempt our court for operations from capacity use areas, currently there is only one capacity use of area in the state but this would actually give our courts an exemption as long as they done their annual reporting and it would not require a permit, but if there is an emergency called by the governor all those rules fall back into place where the governor would have the authority. Section number 13 excludes minor repairs from building permits, this is basically clarifying language, in 2015 we enacted a bill that if you build something under $15,000 for ad and residential you did not have to go get a building permit if it was like minor repair such as window replacement, replacing doors, but if you are doing anything that requires a major renovation such as a load barring wall you still have to get a permit and this would just sort of exclude those folks for having to get their permit, and that's what the intention of the language was in 2015 but some of the local municipalities in counties are still requiring folks less than that to get a permit and in this order, just clarifies what the intent of the language was section 14 it will include horticulture in the term of agriculture, currently it's not in there and this is for settlementation control exemptions, currently I'll add is exempt from settlementation control but horticulture for some reason has been left out and this is actually putting the word horticulture in into that agriculture definition. Section 15 will clarify qualifications for [INAUDIBLE] for natural gas, economic development program, then again this is clarifying language this program was passed two or three years ago and they still have issues getting the money out though the door, the department of commerce that these were actually clarified so the intent of the language as it was originally written is [INAUDIBLE]. Section 16 will require a written notice for automatic contract renewal, notices must be [INAUDIBLE] in 30 days before renewal and not later than 15 days before renewal, there are some exemptions such as bank utilities or contracts outside the purview of North Carolina jurisdiction. This provision is not retro-active but it will be moving forward and I know of no industry opposition to this section number 17 modifies deffered taxes, owed when selling PUV lands below market value and this is to a known profit so if you were to, say you've got farm land or forest land that's under PUV and you were to sell it to a known profit at the PUV market rate, you will now have to go back and capture the last three year of [INAUDIBLE] types, but now if you sell it above the PUV you will
have to pay that difference by it for the three years, for this if you're settling at PUV budget there will be no consequences of the three year back pay. Number 18 authorizes well drillers to install water pipes and electrical lines in a single ditch and that's fairly self explanatory basically what you do is you bury water around one depth and the electrical wires in another depth but they're in the same ditch. And that's it, Senator Burrow. He has section 19. >> Section 19 take Senator Jackson's. A few years ago we moved the limit from a thousand up to ten thousand and that would be expanded over average over three years. The issue that the special in Peamont North Carolina with some of our smaller That was a pretty steep curve and just a little bit of time. Especially those that senior citizens and those retirees that were having the small farms cuz it did not also take into account those that ate their own vegetables or ate the beef from their cattle. That didn't count into the part of the process so I think taking it down to 5,000 is a good step forward. We're looking at the fiscal impact of that. This will be discussed in finance. It's about $1 million a year to the state, but I think as much money we put in farmland preservation for ability to use this million dollars of revenue to protect thousands and thousands of acres of potential farmland is well worth it. >> Does that conclude the presentation? >> Yes madam chairman. >> Okay we'll go to questions then Senator Brian I know he's already come to the chair and said you have several so we'll start with with you. >> Thank you madam chair my first question is in regarding both section two and four in moving from the executive branch to the be Agricultural Department those two functions as it relates to the declaration of emergency I was concerned that you would be taking out the impact of the Department of Public safety and emergency management that you would have in terms of the governors role in this declarations of emergency was that your intent? What was your thinking about it and then in section four with the animal carcasses, the rendering plans you are taking out DHHS and a department appeal which might have a role in this situation should this carcasses be diseased or I don't know what their condition would be so that's sort of my question what was your high level thinking about that? >> Jackson you are the [INAUDIBLE] staff. >> If I'm not satisfactory to Senator Brian, we'll get staff to jump in. Section number two basically be that was it is not trying to supplement DPS in any way or merge the management but it is allowing the sector of agriculture the authority to go into this facilities sometimes cuz they don't have the immunity that indeed like the others and this sword is showing that up as well it is separate that sort of it's the same statue but they are actually moving into a different area which gives the commissioner to go in this places and do this clean ups and emergency response teams, whereas perfect example during Hurricane Irene. We were fortunate here in the state, we did not have a lot of structural damage, but there was, I believe 180 $187 million of crop damages green beans and that type of thing that didn't fall under femur/g or anywhere else. This just allows the commissioner to put together a team and give that team the same authority as if it was coming from ENS/g in there. >> Follow up. >> Madam chair, in that regard I do and I have to look more closely the language. >> Sure. >> This is my first time reviewing all of this. >> INAUDIBLE] >> I'm wondering, cuz it seems like a complete shift, so is there somewhere we should indicate that they were working conjunction with the executive branch in someway or something to make sure we aren't implying that they don't have a role but i could be missing something in the language a little bit, senator [INAUDIBLE] >> But that's not the intent to this as a totally new program from the department for there's no emergency teams. >> Staff would you like to address that? >> Thank you madam chairman Senator Brian if you look on page three, line 30, it says the event of a state of emergency declaration,
where this is inconsistent with Chapter 166A, which is the North Carolina emergency management act, >> Wait, I'm not [INAUDIBLE] page. >> Page three, line 30 under statement of purpose and authorization. And so it basically says that when there is a state of emergency declared, everything in the North Carolina Emergency Management Act Cap 166 A would control so that the hierarchy of the governor and DPS would be in place. >> And then in section 4 is it >> [CROSSTALK] In section four is it similar? And I don't know a lot about rendering plants, I'm gonna confess and haven't been one I might visit or something. But are these carcasses sometimes ill or diseased or something and how do we deal with the health consequences? >> Senator Jackson. >> Madam Chairman Senator Brian they're deceased. If you wanna use that term, I actually DHHS even though they were put in there have never participated in this rendering plant inspections and basically what this would do is put it there in the meat and poultry inspection division which is already regulated by USDA and FDA. So there's not any concern, basically what it's doing though, currently it is made up of three member team and DHHS is part of it as well as an industry participant. And what this is doing is sorta taking away from that and putting it into meat and poultry inspectors which is neutral. There's no, what I would consider, confidentiality infringements there when you not got an industry member in place. >> And then- >> Follow up >> Yeah. >> In section 12A [BLANK_AUDIO] Where a we are somehow taking these water uses out from under the regulation, I think am understanding this of the Environment Management Commission and they have declared this capacities use areas and I was just concerned about how that would affect that our ability to respond to drought conditions and all of that. Again, we're shifting controls, so how is the left hand and the right hand gonna work together in the event of an issue regarding the usage? >> Senator Jackson. >> That's an excellent question Senator Brian and I'm glad that you brought it Basically we're not shifting controls but what we're doing is [UNKNOWN] operations in this water capacities use areas but if there is a drought or an emergency declared the governor still has the main control over this, and he also has control if for instance a third party say pumping near your land and you ran out of water and you think I'm the cause of it, you have an opportunity there fro the Governor's office to respond to that and he can in turn address it. >> One final thing- >> Follow up. >> Madame chair, I was just wondering if local government's or manufacturers, my concern is if agricultural users are exempted, I don't know what impact that will have on the regulation of other users if we're trying to control water allocations so I would just be interested if their local manufacturing or environmental representatives here who will wanna speak on that that we allow that before you finish, if we have to- >> [INAUDIBLE_AUDIO] respond. I would like to say though, several years ago we had an extreme drought here in this state and so agriculture took it proactively to figure out how much water we were using so they put in a program where we all reported what we've been using over the last several years and as response in what we found out in there, the perception is that agriculture uses a lot of water because you actually see it a lot of folks here irrigating over head, you see it and so it makes you tend to believe we use a lot of water but the results of the data showed that actually the agriculture uses 2% or less of the water users in this state and now staff you might want to address her other question concerned about municipality and [INAUDIBLE] >> Staff? >> Thank you madam chair well this doesn't really address local governments and other industries basically what this does is provide an exemption from whether to withdraw permitting requirements so if you withdraw over 100000 gallons a day, in a capacity use area and there is only been I believe one capacity use area that has been established since the 1970's it's the Central Coastal plain capacity use area, if you withdraw more than 100,000 gallons a day there you have to get a permit that has certain conditions on withdrawal and reporting requirements and things like that. Like that and so this will basically say that agricultural uses on bonified farm properties are exempt from that permitting process, they still have to report on their water usage. So it doesn't address the local governments and municipalities.
>> If I may, Madam Chairman, sort of if you take, if you're using 100,000 galons for 365 days a year, that's one thing. But when you're using 200,000 gallons a day for 60 days, that doesn't equate it out to the 100,000 gallons and that's sorta why we were sort of addressing this issue in this manner. >> Are you finished Senator Bryant? Senator Smith >> Thank you madam chair. My first question is from Section eight page seven, as it relates to allowing local preference for school food procurement, this will allow a local school board it appears to not honor the bid on record and go with what is termed as a price percentage preference, can you tell me how this provision compares with current policy, does it violate any existing requirements? >> Thank you madam chair and Senator Smith Ingram thank you for that question that's an excellent question. No, to answer your question no, to my knowledge is that correct [INAUDIBLE]? >> I believe that's correct. >> Okay that's what [INAUDIBLE] mean what this basically means is for instance because of the 2008 Firm Bill the Federal Firm Bill it allowed this local [INAUDIBLE] to give preference to local growers which means for instance let's say you're local and I'm out of state and we're bidding on use of asparagus and let's say you are $10 a box and I come in at $9.50 a box well under our normal laws in North Carolina you'll have to take that $9.50 but what this allows this local area to pick up the following and say Senator Smith-Ingram. You're 50 cent higher, can you match this 9.50 and if you can you got the business because you're a local. Is that pretty accurate? >> Stam. >> So with state procurement, that's what we have now. There was executive order from the [INAUDIBLE] administration that allowed a matching. This is actually allowing, local LEAs/g to set their own preference so it's outside of state procurement, and all those laws are still the same. The 2008 Federal Format this was explicitly authorized for LEAs to set their own percentage preference when they're acquiring unprocessed agricultural commodities themselves, so outside of any state agency procurement. >> Follow up. >> Thank you that answers that question, I had a second question okay, yes of the section below that and you have to help me, what is this the chorionic gonadotropin? >> [LAUGH] >> [LAUGH] gonadotropin is >> [LAUGH] >> It's called gonadotropin [CROSSTALK] the expert behind me here that's way above my sums/g and accounting language ability so I've been using the HCG. [BLANK_AUDIO] I just want to know have there been any studies done, is there opposition to the inclusion of this as allowable to be administered by veterinarians? >> Madam chairman, I would like to take a stab at that unless, you're the expert now if you wanna- >> [LAUGH] >> Jump in that's fine. >> Senator Jackson if I need to jump in after your explanation, I'll feel free to do so. >> Thank you. Actually all the other states, most of the other states in the union allow this to happen and it was for cattle and livestock. and so just allows the injectible because I don't know if you've ever been around farm animals, large farm animals sometimes they don't always just stand still like you do in the hospital and get your medicine. So an injection is much better than like a pill going in from that effect. To my knowledge there is no objection to this [INAUDIBLE] you might wanna be more [INAUDIBLE] right I would say that I haven't heard from any veterinarians on this particular item but I would say that the [INAUDIBLE] now can be detected in the blood stream and what we are having a problem with, they have a test if you are an athlete now they'll check you for that so we are not seeing much of that use anymore and we used to have a problem with people breaking in and trying to steal certain drugs from us and with it being one of the items they check for now in the blood we are not really seeing that problem with it, it's just makes it safer for a veterinarian but right to administer but I would ask Senator Jackson if you know that, okay and I would like to know if in the legislation here in the bill if it allows the
veterinarian to prescribe can add a tropen and then someone else administer it without them on the premises. >> Madam chairman that's an excellent question now I had to refer to stay. >> Senator Wade it allows [INAUDIBLE] would administer by injection four veterinary use by or upon the order of a licence veterinarian. >> Senator Jackson I might as this moves on suggest that we maybe qualify that a veterinarian has to at least be on the premises >> Is fine by me. >> As I could see a problem with that. >> And also Dr. Marcus, I'll state veterinarian is here if you'd like to address any of the questions to him, if need be. >> Senator Jackson any other questions, Senator Jackson. >> The young good looking woman [INAUDIBLE] >> Good to see you Senator Jackson and passes way more legislation than I do, can I see about section one it appears and I'm unaware of the scope of the problem so if you could just educate me it sounds like we are trying to tackle a black market that I didn't even know existed in the second hound bidding. That is my interpretation Senator Jackson that there is some issues going on out there and that when we moved the program over to the department of ag we did not give them the authority to really have some enforcement ability. This is actually doing that. >> Follow-up please. >> Follow-up. >> On the bottom of page two there are a number of criminal provisions that are created which seems appropriate. Dr. Marcus Section E which goes from page two to page three says it should be a class two misdemeanor for any person who assaults among other offences. One of these authorized agents who are authorized to do this investigation and then at the end of section E on page three, line four, it says if they use a deadly weapon in the commission of this offence then it's a class one misdemeanor. And my thinking here is that right now if you assault someone with a deadly weapon, it is a felony. So my question is if I agree to vote for your very good bill today, can we have a conversation about making sure that that language which fits the crime. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you appreciate you. >> Any other questions from the committee? I got you right here Senator Tucker. I'm gonna let you. Is this your birthday? >> Is today his birthday? >> Actually it is today. >> Well Happy Birthday. [CROSSTALK] [APPLAUSE] >>Thank you- >> We always save the best for last. >> Well that's right and I was expecting a song rather than a clap [LAUGH] [CROSSTALK]´ question quickly on section 18. Senator Jackson on the well drillers. There was a big brew-haha/g about well drillers and them connecting pumps without an electrician which has been going on for years I might add and you know it and I know it. Has this got anything to do with me there or is it just putting a line and saying [UNKNOWN] water line? >> To my understanding but I'll ask the staff's clarification, this just allows them to put it in the same ditch. >> Staff? >> That's correct Senator Jackson, this is only about the ditch issue. >> Okay- >> Follow up Senator? >> Follow up, thank you Ma'am. That's fine, I'm good with the answer, go to Senator Brock. Senator Brock, we took that up a $10,000 for some reason two years ago because people were gaming the system by saying they were a farm and excluding sales tax and have them going back down to a thousand, this help me understand how we gonna address the problem we did it forward to begin with and then to not impact the folks that are Salem B for produce or small farms as you want to address. >> Senator Roy/g. >> Thank you, Madam Chair, what I hear from people by back home that they donate meat, donate eggs to the church for breakfast or for some of the food shelter surround, and I look at what they will bringing and go from a thousand, or ten thousand and all these people as the day is a special day gotten up in years and it has been tougher, and tougher for them and in the feed month the land can be literally developed in a moment's notice just because the impact is so, people wanna move to North Carolina especially for the last years the things that we've done here, with that being the case there's great pressure on the farm land being developed into a housing development and so I am trying
to keep as much farm land as possible that we have out there and also we think about some people who have tagged this, who are these people don't, they're not real farmers and I would say I would put their hands against anybody else to show you how rough they are and on top of that when we say this is a happy farm, I must take there are a lot of golf courses that are nonprofit and we look at that tax value and what they do, the NFL is nonprofit, a $5 billion corporation that has identity issues of what it really is. So, if we wanna take farm land and put that money from farmland preservation we can do that but I think this is a way which will only cost us a million dollars, is a good way we can protect a lot of farm land in North Carolina. >> Follow up Senator. >> So, the reason we did before we're taking back the 5,000 so the problem can't exist again, is that what I am hearing? I didn't mean to get in to NFL or any of that, I am just trying to understand why we did something two years ago and it's not good, I mean if you wanna do it it's fine but I'm just trying t understand, but if somebody is gonna come along and buy that phone for [INAUDIBLE] price he knows has been a farm land for a lot of years in fact we give him a tax deduction of $5,000 would not have been a farmer from selling that property at a high price, would it? >> Senator Brockman. >> The issue that we're looking at going back to when we changed it from 1000 to 10,000, you had people that were claiming they were a farm selling $1000 worth of chickens or whatever they were selling at the time but then they would go out and buy 10 to 15 chainsaws, really doesn't fit the definition. And when we were looking a tax reform, how do we get through looking at a tax on consumption rather that a tax on production. And with that we are saying, what is a bonafide farmer? who is a farmer? Some people were taking advantage of it. One reason why I jumped up to 10,000 and rightly so, that people were worried about it were that large farmers were worried that they would lose that exemption as well. And large farmers were telling me, the ones in my area, the large farms were saying, they feared as a problem or potential problem because land could be leased out for farmland in the future, or have a house on it or a bunch of houses on it and we'll lose that land forever. And so that was I believe in farmland preservation, we've put it in our budget we've put money in, if thus is a way we can do it and just give the small farmers a little break. Then we can do it that way. >> Just one- >> Follow up. >> I don't mean to belabor the point, what was it before, a $1000? >> A 1000. >> And we jumped to 10. >> Yeah. >> Now we're going back to the middle of the road is what you're asking. >> Right. >> And so those people that donate eggs to the church and etc. and all will be exempted of this $5000 count, they'll be able to do their thing and Okay, all right. Thank you. >> Senator Smith-Ingram. >> Madam Chair thank you so much. I just need a redirect on my question regarding the HCG. Because that particular drug is used to enhance or improve the performance of sub fetal/g cattle enhances reproduction and to add this as an inclusion for vets to be able to nail or administer I would just like rethink we can hear from the expert on the room. If we can get additional information and studies and also if we have vetted this, if there is any opposition in terms of those who support the ethical treatment of animals, that would be great, can we arrange that? >> Is the state veterinarian here today? Would you like to come forward and address the committee please? He does look like Steve Jobs [LAUGH] But he's much better looking. >> Much better looking. >> And thinner. >> And Senator Jackson as a farm girl myself and having to milk cows, I just wanna be concerned that we're making sure they are controlling measures and there's no opposition to this. >> Yes sir would you give your name and the division you're in. >> This drug HCG, human chorionic gonadotropin- >> Dr. Marcus, if you would introduce yourself. >> Oh sorry, I'm Dr. Marcus I'm the State Veterinarian within the Department of Agriculture and Consumer services. This drug has very specific uses in reproduction in farm animals and And in horses and small animals and the classification that the controlled substance classification mandated a specific set of requirements for purchasing this drugs, storing this drug and tracking the use of the drug.
Remove all of the occassion of controlled substances will allow a much easier access to the drug but I prescribe veteranians and I would say it's almost unimaginable in the world to me any individual a farmer and a small owner would ever use this drug without guidance from the veteranerian because it is such a specific requirement for you to choose. A lot of times certainly in cattle it's used in ovulation and you wouldn't know the status of the ovary unless you were doing rectal palpation on the cow and you wouldn't know the status of the ovary once that happens as a veterinarian you would specifically prescribe the use of this drug. >> Paula. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Was there any known opposition as this provision was being corrected so to Jackson. >> Senator Smith Ingram. >> I have not heard from anyone on this, you're welcome. >> Any other questions from the committee, just one reminder of what we have time to see if there are any members from the public. >> Thank you senator Brian I was getting ready to do that, I know that the association has joined us do you understand recognize You're here today and did you all have any comments? >> [INAUDIBLE] >> You wanna step up to the podium please, would you please give your name in the organization you're in? >> My name is Timmons/g, I'm the director of Govern affairs of the North Carolina Home Builders Affairs, and we just wanna thank the committee, section 13 is dealing with, this is just a very minor clarification in terms of the current law and we just thank you for including this is this legislation. >> Thank you, are there any members of the public that would like to speak on any section, would you please come to the podium, you have two minutes and state your name, and if you are with an organization. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> My name is Mathew Starr, I'm the [UNKNOWN] Haven't had much time to review the bill but do have a couple of concerns especially around sections 12 and 14. Section 12, exempting much from [UNKNOWN] control act. I work a lot with trying to reduce pollutant loads to our surface water, exempting mulch would give me great concern because of this impact to surface water. I've seen this happen now current with the way the law currently stands and as we all know there's lots of dyes and other products used in the [UNKNOWN] process and to exempt that from the Sedimentation Control Control act. I think we would see a direct negative impact to our surface water. And Section 12, the exemption for uptake of ground surface water haven't had much time to review this but I believe there are two exempt areas or two pre existing exemptions, I would be concerned about not being with the track, the draw down of aquifers or surface water, obviously being able to know that is important especially in the east it depends heavily on [INAUDIBLE] for surface water, I would be worried about salt water intrusion, so thank you for your time and thank you for allowing to comment. >> Thank you, and sergeant at arms could you get a sheet and get the names please for clerk on piece papers that they will know how to spell everyone's name and who they are with, are there any other that would like to speak, seeing none the care would entertain the motion. >> Could I make a comment? >> Senator [INAUDIBLE]. >> Senator [INAUDIBLE] thank you for your leadership in bringing these important changes to our committee, particularly too that I'm grateful for the home owners is a clarification on contraction, that's a big item I think it's gonna spur particularly in the other banks, and also they serve it, voluntary assessment is gonna be really big to help that industry fight disease, disease is a serious problem in the server as you know so thank you. >> Welcome sir.
>> Senator [INAUDIBLE] is making a motion favorable to the PCS, unfavorable to the original, with ability for staff to make technical corrections with recommendation to send to finance and J1 or 2 Okay, all those in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Oppose nay. The ayes have it. We're adjourned. >> Thank you madam gentleman, thank you members. [BLANK-AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO]
[BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO]