We going to start now? The sergeant of arms [xx] Jefferys and [xx] Luis, we have some pages up in yesterday? [xx] we read this Justin [xx] I thought anyways closed. I want you to stand up and tell us who you are, this is your future here. My child tells, I'll tell you my child tell us your names and tell us real quick about yourselves, and tell us if you've learned anything being in up here Can you all come up with the microphone. I cant here you very well My name is Jackson Caundry and I'm going see my senior of high school. I've learnt a lot from this program and I'm having fun and I do want to become a senator whenever I get older. Where do you live? I live in Jacksonville North Carolina. Alright. I was thinking may be we can move to the other bands. I'm Anne Hotton and I'm fro [xx] North Carolina and I'm a rising junior, and I have enjoyed my time here. Actually, I want to become a doctor some day but I'm thinking in double majoring in biology and political science, so odd combination but. Wow you must be a very smart lady. My name is Jeffry Condrey and I'm also a rising senior. And also from Jacksonville and I want to go the college and double major in political science and economics and then go to law school, my ultimate goal is to become a United States Supreme Court Justice. Alright, good luck with that, God bless you. Alright, welcome everybody to Senate Committee on Agriculture Environment Natural Resources. We're going to start off with bill number HB 255 building code regulation reform, is their a PCS on this? Do we have, alright, my co-chair moves for adoption, do we wait a second, anybody? Alright, all the favor say aye, all opposed? Thank you, ayes have it. Let us begin with PCS. Thank you Mr chairman, my name is Mark Broid[sp?] representative and I too would like to grow up to be a senator one day. Me too. This bill, I'm going to go through pretty briefly but accumulation for a couple of years worked that I started my first time that and certainly we want answer any questions at the end section one of the bill just clarifies the house bill last year where we identified the certain amount of eliminate number of inspections that they are during the inspection jurisdiction can perform what this does is to separate the difference between the specific inspection and the manner of reinspections the new spy is doing unlimited amount of reinspections to determine if something qualifies for the privacy or pastures under inspection, section two is a scary nut believing as public the most important thing in this while bill, this study of alternative proved methods, basically the construction industry like any other industry as new innovative project designs and methods that come forward while the problem we went instruction industry is that all these has to be added to the building code so this process is going to streamline and is in developer process by which we can do that, section three was the qualification of the official misconduct for court officials this just lists several basically things that are already violations of code we are just emphasizing these basically we don't anticipate any new language this is most is already existing just bringing it forward section four is raising a threshold of what requires of inspection from
5000 to 15000 reason we did this was the 5000 was developed probably in the 1970s and at that time you could do query of work for $5000 nowadays you probably can't get the whole of your house painted for $5000 so And some of those type of remodeling projects, pretty floors and carpet pins and things like that, you really don't need a permit to do that. There's no logical reason, why an inspector would need to inspect those. So raise it up to $ 15000. Section 4, creates a two sub building cord council committees, one dealing strictly in commercial property, the other residential property. Basically what they would do, is they will analyse any proposed changes to the building cord, and get referred to that particular committee, and then automatically that committee would approve that, and send it to the full committee, for a passage. And the full committee always has amendment rights to these, any recommendations that may come through. Section six, is the require in the building counsel to required to have all the decisions, and interpretation supposed to down the web site, so the all state the contractors, inspectors, everybody knows exactly whats been aproved in an unattitude building cord, in a relatively quick fashion. So we don't have municipalities that may take, am sorry this isn't part of cord, when they actually with contract you can't pull up, the information right under phone and particular, and show the inspect will see here is the interpretation to this. And what we do is we had a lot of them 10 days in which to do this. The original bill had three days but the department said they could accomplish what they needed to accomplish within 10 days. Part seven is the inspection fees that are charged can only be spent for activities of the inspection department currently the decision by the North Carolina supreme court has stated that anything, any fee that's charged, that will be charged that would develop a surplus would in reality be a tax and therefore wouldn't allow the municipalities to charge more than what is exactly needed. No, we know there's no real way to calculate the exact amount and there maybe some small surplus. As to why we're doing is that we're preventing the accumulation of funds and the sweeping out of those funds from the inspection department into the general fund. A good, smart administrator would find uses for those including setting the side money for potential technology increase, updates and all those, those type of things section eight is inspection to be performed in a full and timely manner, now we was we had little issues with that, and we approached the legal municipalities and we've gotten some clarifying language so, they are on board with this so basically what we say is you have to perform all the inspection that is requested and when you do that, the inspector has to list everything that would be considered a violation for a correction. Section nine is part of the PCS that was added but what this is, is apparently Senate Bill 44 and House Bill 760 both had this identical language, they haven't met in the middle yet so we figured this is a good place to be the middle, and we'll meet these two and pass it along but basically what is real important, is that, originally, any component of a building that the inspector might not understand and so they would in turn require an engineers report to clarify that, but ultimately the inspector is right now totally responsible for it and they can accept or reject the engineer's opinion on it. Which will leave us in quite a dilemma. Right now totally responsible for it and try to get passed. So, what we say is if an engineer or an architect
seals off that particular component that the inspector has to accept it, but also that they're relieved of viability, in case that system or component would fail. And lastly, also part of the PCS is, there's an exception to commercial buildings, i. E. If it's less than 2500 square feet or less than $90, 000 that it doesn't require an architect's seal and these are basically free standing buildings the particular situation that was brought by one of the senators was that, what would you consider if it was a building inside a mall and this particular instance was brought by, I believe a Iredell county and they actually recommended this language to say, if it's in a mall they would, generally the law says it includes that in a total afford it so it can be a million square feet but because we're dealing with a small section within the mall, that we're creating a an exemption for an individual space within our covered mall less that 2, 500 sq. Feet in less the 90, 000 towers and Mr. Chairman, that's the bill. Thank you Representative. I believe that Senator Barack has an amendment Thank you Mr. Chairman. To all the members here, I just made two quick changes on page five when it has someone on the board with experience in the fire safety is recommended by the Fireman's Association, make sure we have somebody's worthy and well qualified and representative Brady just talked about the facility, inside there was an ice cream stand inside of a mall, but that just clarifies that language and removing the covered mall area, so it's more of a technical issue just getting out language out of it. Any discussion on the amendment, any questions? Mr. Chair. Yes mom. Can I just get a brief explanation about this cover more area I was filing my documents, reading the amendments, I was so at multitask and I missed that point Are you on the amendment? Yes on the amendment. He is amending the located within the covered mall building and I just missed, I didn't, I was focused on other part of his amendment so I wasn't attending to that information from the bill sponsored, could you just review that for a minute? Senator Blogger. Senator Badive was brought forward by add the county, Adel County that senator Card is not represent, and senator Card is recommend this causes of could tell what was happening that we have a shopping mall and inside that shopping mall, someone want to build a small ice cream stand, but under the current law they would have to get the whole mall re approved through the whole signature instead of just little ice cream stern so is very not controversial. Thank you. Any other discussion? One more, no if there were any people here from either the cities or the building officials or insurance that we will need to hear from it's just barely new to me, I'm just asking that's all. May not be. Is anybody here to speak to this? Was this on the amendment? No discussion further on the amendment. Mr. Chairman? Yes sir. Make a motion to approve the amendment. I already had one from Trudy Wade, Senator Trudy Wade. Will I support the amendment? All in favor say aye. Aye! All opposed, no. The ayes have it. Thank you, we're back on the bill. Any discussion Senator Ford? Thank you Mr. Chairman. I got a question for staff as it relates to section 1B Inspection working in progress, it says that subject to the limitations imposed by the general staff 2168 412 subsection B, but it goes on through the explanation in the bill that a local inspector shall make as many inspections, therefore as maybe necessary to satisfy them. It seems like a contradiction to me, can I get some clarification from staff on what exactly that means Please. Thank you Mr. Chair, I'm Caren [xx] of staff attorney Senator Ford, that
refers to the new language that's added to the bill in section eight of the bill and basically that the new languages being added to that section in section eight requires that the inspections be performed in a timely manner it also sets the required inspection task to be, they have to perform a required inspection that are requested by permit holder and they have to inform the permit holder of any instances which the work is incomplete or fails to meet code requirements so, basically it's just a cross reference to that new provision in the section of the law that deal with inspections of work in progress, basically saying they have to do those inspections on work in progress in the manner provided in the new section. Powel please, Thank you I just want to make sure that I'm clear that the inspectors still have the right to inspect to satisfaction, meaning satisfaction is my interpretation as the meeting calls, Correct last follower please, Thank you Representative Brody, my question for you is that part of what I understand especially from the developers, one of the biggest challenge in dealing with inspectors and inspections is a lack of consistency I do not see in the bill and maybe you can point to me where in the bill that you could address this issue and I'm going to give real a quick example where you have a developer who is doing multi family, and they have five different complexes buildings that are the same and I have seen and I have been a witness to a developer having occupants in a building and is replicating the same building with the same inspector and same processing procedures same contractors but the same inspector will give them a difficult time with passing inspections when they have done the same thing, does this bill help out developers as relates to the of inspections when inspecting replicated building structures. Mr. Chairman. Please. Thank you for that question and that's the $64, 000 question that the industry wants answered. This is the beginning of this. We're trying to align the inspection process so ever inspector licensed by the state is reading from the same code book and interpreting from the same code book. That process that has been neglected for quite a long time which is why you see that variation in the different inspections from one jurisdiction to the other. In fact they're even within jurisdictions you'll find that, we're trying to address that on a gradual basis but I had the very same question in the House committee when we did this and that's coming, but what we want to do an initial one is we want to say folks we're starting to watch this now. We would like you to self-correct and begin to align yourself in addition to that, why we want to start putting interpretations in that online quickly is because some inspection departments don't necessarily follow up on the latest interpretations or the latest things so they will in turn have the latest information. We're trying to get there. This is just the beginning. Last thought, Mr. Chairman, and I understand through the summery that that's a no. To me that's a major financial issue for developers as it relates to increase in cost that they have to do in these various jurisdictions. Is there to your knowledge, based on the work that you've done, some language that we could add to help strengthen the bill to bring in some consistency. Representative? I would say at this time we need to start process and the municipalities will get the message that we're moving in that direction. It's a longer process than what you would probably imagine or maybe you could imagine. It's a longer process and this point we need to begin it and now we say it's really not an appropriate time at this time to do that. I believe Senator Tommy Tucker had a question? May I just clear a comment on the bill, some clarification for Senator Ford Senator, I do concur with you that a lot of these inspections are subjective. These folks decide what they want to do. I serve five counties around your area including Mecknberg. We carry different stock keeping units in the warehouse because one county will want one type of dart while one will want another type and so the consistency and subjectivity is still there in the bill but what Representative Brownley is doing is moving forward to try to begin to try to correct it.
I think to try to take the language that you're talking about which I'd like to see as well puts too much emphasis right now on the municipalities in the county inspection. They're trying to back into this and allow them to self-correct, if they don't do it then perhaps a tougher language can come along but in this bill the one thing that I see that is good is if an inspector goes out to inspect one my [xx] system and he walksin and sees a piece dirt work hanging down he fails the inspection in this proposal will have to do is to inspect the entire inspection the entire system because what happens a lot of time we will fail the inspection. We'll go out repair the dirt work, the inspector will come back and do another inspection and find something wrong with the furnace and fail it again and then another trip so, what this does is that it makes it mandatory that the inspector inspects the whole system, let us know what he finds wrong so we can fix it, so we can only make one trip, he or she make one trip back and that's what's happening in reality. This bill corrects that and starts going down the path of consistency but are we there yet? No we just have to have to continue to live with the subjectivity but also putting our interpretations online quicker so that in a lot times that developer you're talking about that has five buildings he didn't want to make the inspector mad, I don't want to make the inspector mad but if you can refer to interpretation online that the inspector can look at then he can correct him or herself or hack ways off the rigidity of failing the inspection. So, Representative Brody and the municipalities and the counties, home builders, developers all of them kind of came together on this and we will start down that road and that's the only explanation I can give you for the work that's been done on this and I applaud these gentleman for bringing forward Senator McInnis oh you have a motion? Yes Sir, a motion to accept the PCS and favorable to the PCS, unfavorable to the original bill. Thank you. We have a question from House amendment. House amendment and so thank you all. Senator McInnis. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I just want to applaud Representative Brody and everybody that worked on this I know we worked on it on the senate side and I concur with senator Taker, on his analysis of this situation and we got to start somewhere. I mean this thing has been out of control, will not handle long term and I'm most especially great for the part about misconduct because if there's a situation where alright in respect to most of politically punish someone that has been occasion on several cases and this will give that developer or that builder or that home owner so that modern avenue to have seek redress on that matter and I'm proud you follow this I guess is a great bill, is a great start, I stepping forward. Maybe we have some folks in the back who want to speak to this. would you cumbly you microphone and say who you are. Thank you Mr. Chairman, can you hear Thank you Mr Chairman, my name is Dave Clifford an executive Vice President for the American Institute of Architect here in North Carolina I hadn't planned on speaking on this bill but with the addition of section 10 is trying to point out something to the group here this is abrand new section, this issue first came up earlier this month at the Building Code Council meeting and it was debated there to let the building code council check this over the next few months, what I want to draw your attention to is well, it may seem innocuous 90, 000 dollar project, 2500 square feets within another enclosed building each one of the spaces does have some defined exiting and egress issues as they relate to fire safety as well as American with disabilities act issues all those things are contained under the the building code generally are the preview of the license design profession, so as its provision put in AI's is going to have to oppose that provision of the bill, thank you Thank you, is there anyone else want to speak? Senator Smith-Ingram had her hand up. Your name and position I will get to her, turn your microphone on please, sorry my name is Jim Robertson representing North Carolina Building Inspector's association. Apologize I'm little disorganized I printed the Bill [xx] but
2 hours ago came in and there have been additions and some changes I agree with a lot of this bill we as inspectors have ask for some of this inconsistency should be absolutely right some of this they will for and don't do our jobs as we should but the majority of inspectors are proud of what we do and what do professional job in a professional manner, couple of things that I would like point out part two of the alternate methods provide the provision for the building called council to review and approve this I think typically this are done by the North Carolina department of insurance and the engineers we creating two separate paths to approval, will there be conflict between the two? Part 4 number 6 provides inspections in a timely manner, do we have a definition of that? Will this taken account periodic fluctuations in work load? In the spring time thing start to burst loose, we may fall behind. Occasionally we've had to roll an inspection to the next day. I do know of a jurisdiction that our work in one time, we were 2 weeks behind. That was ridiculous, there was no excuse for that. We could not get our calendar commissioners to add staff. Part 5, the creation of the subcommittee for the Residential Code. I think that's a worthy committee. My objection is that there is no representation from the Building Inspection side. We have a representation for fire services, but residences is residential codes, specifically examined for our services. I understanding fire services should be on there because of fire fighters who respond to the calls, as a volunteer fire fighter, I value that input. Part 9, occasionally engineers make mistakes. We don't know what they know, we don't have the training, but sometimes we spot something maybe on air, and we want to ask the question. But, again coming back to consistency that has been a problem all along. The only way we know to address that is by meeting with other agencies, and many of us do that. North Carolina on a Building Inspectors Association, in our regular seminars we try to address that. Thank you for this opportunity. Thank you, is there anyone else who wants to speak from the public? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mike Carpenter, Executive Vice-President, North Carolina Home Builder's Association. I just want to thank the sponsors and the statements that have been made this morning. This is an important piece of legislation into our industry but as Representative Brody has indicated it is only a first step there needs to be more done and we promise to work with all the parties to bring additional legislation forward let me speak just very briefly with respect to some of the comments just made by the enforcement Representative, the timely inspection is something that I think I something self evident but the licencing board that is the code official qualification board has the authority and we would anticipate that they will prepare rules and regulations that probably define a lot of this term which is what licensing boards do with respect to recent enactment of the general assembly so their would be the opportunity for the refine of that definition with respect to the consistency issue I could agree more with what's been said that is a problem but I would also say in support of the [xx] enforcement officials, most of those forks do a really good job and we appreciate and it is a partnership, but their are instances as Senator Force[sp?] has pointed out in which their is allot of inconsistency and we hope that we can come up with a system that better defines that and makes it more uniform across the state, but we appreciate your support of this bill, thank you. Is their anybody else from the public that wants to speak, seeing none I'm sorry I senator Smith-Ingram not to long please, Oh I'm sorry. I'm very new to him I'm Director Wake County Building Inspection right here, I guess I really only have one comment when it comes to creation are they residential committee do residential codes? I think it will be a serious mistake not to have a building official on it, I have been in construction all my life life at 22 years old I started priming and superintended for a large company and I owned my own company. At 38, I came to work Wake county and I ha started as an inspector working all the way up to the director there. I learned more the first year
than I worked as an inspector than I did in the other 16 years. Why? Because I was doing 20 inspections a day. I saw more ways to do it wrong, and I saw some really creative and great ways to do it right. It's an opportunity to learn. You go out as a builder you work on your house. You've got two friends that are builders you talk to them, you learn from them. As an inspector you see everybody, you see everything. There is a great deal of knowledge in that pool of people. They need to be represented and that's my comment for this bill. Thank you. Is there anyone else? I know. Sen. Smith-Ingram, please offer your comment Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Brody, there were some previous concerns by NEMA, The National Electrical Manufacturers Association in terms of the residential review committee and the composition. I believe there were some concerns about the I guess the potential that you could have a representation that is special interest or overly high the opportunity exists. So, do you know if that's been corrected in your language in the formation of that Residential Board and as well do you know of any other opposition? Please. Thank you, Senator. The Residential Board is a subcommittee of the total committee. So, I would guess that we could all think of people who would be really important to be on it, but in reality is, the industry itself, what I mean is, the construction industry is getting pretty well separated as commercial and residential and less and less, is crossover type cord. The folks that you talked about, they came and seen me about that and I answered them the very same way as they have an opportunity to, once the residential committee makes the recommendations, they have to go to the full committee, at that point is the very same committee that's been around for along time and they have seen that I've worked quite well within that committee. So, there really is a need, additioned, at this point to add people to the Building Council. Senator Angelo Brian again. I'm sorry to raise this issue again, but am still confused I just need [xx]. It looks like now that I've looked at section 10, by the amendment remove, I know we passed it, but I think the committee needs to be clear, by removing located within a cover mall building, would you clarify for me, it seem like we are saying any commercial project that is less than 90, 000, and less in 2, 500 square feet is exam from the architecture CEO regardless of whether is in a mall, can we talk about the impact of that, and is that the first room staff, and then to know if that was the sponsors and tension because I thought he said he was exempting these projects within the mall which made perfectly good sense to me. so can I hear from Staph[sp?] first? Certainly, staph[sp?] Thank you Mr Chair. Senator Brian[sp?] I think you are correct when the amendment removes the language located within a covered mall building. That means that any commercial building project will the total value of less than $90, 000 and a total project area of less than 2, 500 square feet will now be exempt from the architectural seal[sp?] but can I follow up? Would that have I think we might have an answer for you from amendment sponsor. Senator Brian, I think I could answer. It does remove the architectural stamp but not the other types of inspections or review of that project. It's just the stamps of the architects will not be needed. So if we want to build an ice cream stand, we can build an ice cream stand that be still compliant under everything else. It will still be inspected like every other project it just won't have to have an architect to be hired to build an ice cream stand Mr Chair, the reason I wanted Staph[sp?] to explain, what are we losing in making that change? It may be insignificant but the gentleman back there was talking fire and ADA and do we lose anything for these structures and maybe in insignificant what do we lose if they know? Staff this provision is
currently the requirement for this is currently contained in the architectural board licensing statute so this provision is included within a list of exemptions of situations in which you do not have to obtain an architectural seal. I don't see anything about this that necessarily exempts other requirements from the building code or other statute. Alright, thank you. Next I had Senator Rabin. Thank you. This question really could be for the bill sponsors Staph[sp?] or anybody in the audience. When we're starting to do things with inspection codes and things like that, my concern is can someone just assure me that we haven't lowered the standards then put the public's safety at risk in any way through this bill? Representative, please Senator absolutely no, we have not touched the code whatsoever, all we're trying to do is is get everything consistent to the very same code. Follow up. Yes sir. So changing the number of inspections and the way the inspections are conducted by not putting public's safety at risk in any way. Is that what you're saying? I understand what you're doing by the way but when we start manipulating the number of inspections and how they're conducted, I get a little bit concerned for public safety and I just want to be sure that we're on the right track here Thank you senator, yes in fact the provision that you're talking about, the number of inspections we actually passed that legislation last year what we're doing is clarifying that we're actually clarifying to say that inspectors can make as many re-inspections as necessary so we're giving confidence in the public that somebody doesn't try to get away with anything. Thank you last question is Tommy Tucker, Senator Tommy Tucker. Thank you Mr. Chariman I know you're trying to move on I'll be quick I'm just asking the bill sponsors would you be amenable to amending it on the floor to add a building code official to the residential council as we move forward? Please. We don't really have a problem with that that we could add that really wouldn't change the intent of the small sub committee. Alright thank you sir that don't clear up a lot of their concern and I think it will be viable input on the committee so I will or whoever you asked Mr. Chairman to handle that on the floor Senator Brock can handle it [xx] thank you. Thank you we have a motion to give a favorable report to the PCS as amended all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed no. The ayes have it thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Let's do one more quick. Alright I would like to try to move ahead as quickly as you can, we have to leave here in about 10 minutes. So let's try HB634, let's be quick though. There is a PCS somebody got PCS 634, you got it? It has the trails language of the [xx]. Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, first of all, I want to. Representative? Sir you need to accept a motion for PCS. Yes. Thank you. We got a motion to approve the PCS, all in favor say Aye. Aye. All opposed Thank you the Ayes have it. You may begin please sir. Thank Mr. Chairman, and I first I want to share something with you we work often at two dimensional with most of what we do, we are going to work immediately on three dimensions, I want you to see something, I want you to see the difference between pervious and impervious what I'm about to show you is the substance over the county sound that is currently designated by the state in impervious which means water will not run through but, this will be good As you can see the water standing in front of the stem actually. That is the record show. Actually is not so what this bill
does it addresses that structure [xx] on top of that micro fibre as impervious it make that correction and without out stand I stand for questions Mr chair Any question Sorry about me adoption for the PCS available to the regional. I have motion, second all in favor say aye all oppose say no, thank you God Lord you all did good. Alright, we got to go. Guess we have to quit there. You want to try one more? We've got at 705, let try 705 little quick. Is a PCS move the adoption of a PCS? So moved. Alright. All in favor say aye Aye All opposed No, aye's have it. Let's go. Thank you Mr. Chairman I want to know if everybody's favorite subjects is septic tanks, believe me if you don't have one you got to need one. you will miss it. This is, I guess I can call it an acceleration of a rule that in progress, currently the department is under the mandated rule review and it's going to take a while and what we said is their is a lot of lots available across this state and just in my own county I originally found two but we found about close to about 80 of them so far they can be identified. This are a lot step, they can qualify for a conventional septic system but under the rule they also have to have an equal size repair area, and what this does, it says that in that repair area, often times this lads will qualify in their initial but they don't have enough for the repair area. So what this is is that, that repair area we can use an alternative system that has already been approved by the Department of Health and Human Services, they have a list of about 20-25 different acceptable alternatives that can be used and then that lot which right now is, basically has little value all of a sudden becomes valuable and buildable. The other, that's section one, section two was part of the PCS and what that identified in particular situation was that some particular septic will require monitoring by a, what do we call that, I can't think of them being with the person but anyway, they require a duo-monitoring. One from an engineer and one from a systems analyst and what we're saying is that we can use the system analyst we really don't need an engineer to duplicate the very same service and section three is also part of the PCS it's called the saprolite system rule. Saprolite is a form of soil and what we're doing is we're saying that this soil can now be used, it would be eligible to have the septics system put on a [xx] and put on it and if you want the real details on the geology of it we have somebody here to speak but basically that's the end, we had really no objection from anybody on these, anyone of these three items. Alright. thank you representative that way there is siren noise who wants to speak on this, you are out there please change the Microphone and say who you are and where you represent? Thank you Mr. Chair and committee members my name is Dermo[sp]Somebody so more sensation[sp] in North Carolina and I do apologize there was no other issue to speak on the liased bill was just started on, thank you. Okay thank you, okay new comments should question from the committee. Senate begins. Again this was thankfully responsible to bring in this bill with in really North Carolina we evade problem for a long time with the evolment[sp?] with developed 25 or 50 lots or maybe five or ten of them could [xx] stage and there's no avenue we echo we could use mapping technology to make this word useful and is a question of user-ability and
also value a lot that will not park at a very low value and one that will or accept some type of modified system that we can use for our housing units. This brings for and Mike Roizen for value award against just absolute tax value of that community and the value of that community I uphold sponsors from this I totally recommend a daily one. Thank you for your applause, anybody else Senator Black Jackson? Thank you Mr. Chairman Think I am on your side Senator McCain is to make a motion we approve this bill. Well a motion to approve the PCS, all in favor say aye! Aye! All oppose no! The aye serve it, the bill passeses, thank you very much, we're done. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you but.