The clock on the wall says we're about right for Senate time, it's ten after. I would like to welcome you to the education committee meeting today and let us see if we don't have some sergeant at arms with us today, Anderson Meadows, Jiles Jeffers, Charles Harper, Steve Wilson. Thank you all, you do a great job for us, gentlemen, and we appreciate you ever so much. We have a big list of pages today. Darrian Evans, suit check sponsor and Emily Weatherspoon, Senator Rucho, Lane Hickman, Senator Walters, Charlotte Thomas, Senator Daniel, sponsor, you all raise your hands up, ladies, if you're here. ??, Senator Craywick, Benjamin Hebda, Senator Berger, Benjamin Daniel, Senator Daniel, excuse me that's Brianna Daniel, and we got Sarah Mock, Senator Soucek, Landon Rainer, Senator Brown, and Davis Jones who I know much better than Senator Berger but he sponsored him. He is a friend of my little grandson over in Greensboro. We're glad to have you all serving. I know you'll learn a lot this week, certainly hope you do, and at this time we will move in to the agenda for today and House Bill 230, Clarify the Read To Achieve school performance grades. Senator Berger. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Still trying to learn my way around. Mr. Chairman, I think there's a [SPEAKER CHANGES] Excuse me Senator, excuse me. Do I have motion to adopt the PCS, Senator Brown. All in favor Aye. Opposed. Adopted. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you members of the committee. This Committee Substitute is an effort to address some concerns that have been expressed about the Read To Achieve Bill that's currently state law and there are a number of fairly technical aspects to the Bill and, Mr. Chairman, if it's permissible I would ask if staff would go through section by section as to what each section does. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright, staff, it's yours. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Senator Tillman and Senator Berger. Members of the committee, you do have a summary in front of you. If you'd like follow along I'll start under the Bill Analysis portion and go through each section. So section 1 of the proposed committee substitute directs the state board to provide several valid and reliable alternative assessments. In the original language they only had to provide one and that had been some of the suggestions from the LEA's, that they could use some additional alternative assessments. The state board is also directed to approve any valid and reliable alternative assessment that the LEA's have submitted and the state board has actually begun to do that already. State board's also directed to annually review those alternative assessments that they have purchased for the LEA's and/or that the LEA's have submitted to them for approval. Section 2 gives a little more flexibility as to when the student reading portfolio could begin to be compiled, saying that it could be compiled beginning with a first half of the school year. Section 3 provides some additional flexibility for the implementation of the reading camps, providing that the reading camps will be offered over a period of at least 72 hours of total reading instruction over a period of no less than three weeks. If you'll turn over your bill summary, on the back, section 4 is requiring that the kindergarten entry assessment yield both qualitative and quantitative data and that data would then be entered into some longitudinal data system. Section 5 of the PCS clarifies several of the Good Cause Exemptions that children may qualify for so they won't be retained if they don't demonstrate proficiency on the end of grade reading test. It clarifies for
Students who demonstrate limited English proficient that the number of years of English instruction are actually school years. In the original law it just said years and that had been confusing for some LEAs. For students with disabilities, this language would provide additional flexibility and therefore give additional retention or exemption from retention for students with IEPs, saying that if the student's IEP said they take the extend one test and/or they've had two years of delay in their educational performance or if they've had two years of history of intensive reading intervention, they would be exempt from the mandatory retention. This section also provides some additional flexibility as to when the alternative assessments may be administered. Some of the LEAs actually had started administering an alternative assessment early on in the school year, and this would allow them to use that data as a possible exemption from retention. It also gives some flexibility for the student reading portfolio process, if this PCS is enacted, LEA could come up with its own student reading portfolio process, as long as it matches the definition but the state board of education would still for quality control approve that process. Section six on the bill clarifies that the final decision regarding whether or not a retained student participates in reading camp is up to the student's parent or guarding, and if a student doesn't participate in the summer, or reading camp, the LEA would have to provide at least one opportunity for those students not participating in the camp to demonstrate proficiency prior to being retained. This section also clarifies that a principal can promote a student whenever he or she demonstrates reading proficiency even after that mid-year promotion cut-off date. Section seven encourages teachers and principals to offer information sessions to parents or guardians for students who are having difficulty with reading development and who may be possibly retained. Section eight allows LEAs to admit even students who are demonstrating reading proficiency to reading camp, but the LEA may charge an enrollment fee of up to eight-hundred and twenty-five dollars for those students. Section nine, just it's a technical piece of the bill to make sure that the charter schools have the same good cause exemptions as traditional public schools. Section ten is directing the state board of education to go ahead and implement the developmental screening, which is the literacy and mathematics portions of the kindergarten entry assessment, and half of the LEAs this school year, or this coming school year, 14-15 and then in all of the LEAs by the 15-16 school year. Sections eleven and twelve, that's just a technical correction, somehow the advanced placement parts of the law got put in the read-to-achieve part of the law, so we're just moving them where they're supposed to go. And then sections thirteen through fifteen, basically says for this 13-14 school years, school year, that the LEAs will use a fifteen-point scale to determine A through F grades instead of a ten-point scale. And this act is effective when it would become law. So thank you, Senator, and I'll be glad to answer any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Miss Chairman, the purpose of the changes that we've moved forward with in connection with education, particularly the read-to-achieve law, has been to further emphasize the importance of reading to our kids, and for our kids, and to try to put in place policies that will help ensure that more of our kids are reading at grade level by the time they finish the third grade. There have been, quite frankly, some
Glitches along the way, some of those things have been addressed by the state board of education and have made the transition smoother but there are still other things that need to be implemented and will need to be implemented by statute. That’s the purpose of this bill and it helps us move further along on our goal of giving our children an opportunity to read, that opportunity gives them the best chance of success in their education and the better chance of success in life. We have listened to concerns that have been expressed by parents, by superintendents, by teachers in connection with the implementation originally and I think this bill helps address those concerns. I understand Mr. Chairman there may be a couple amendments that will be coming forward that I would encourage the committee to consider. Be more than happy to try to answer any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGE] At this time members, Senator Apodaca and then Senator Stein. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Chairman. This may be a question for staff more so than Senator Berger. How are we handling children with special needs in the third grade with taking these assessments in the reading program? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Chairman I believe there’s language in there that addresses that but I’ll let staff provide the more technical response. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Staff if you would. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Senator Apodaca the Federal Individual’s with Disabilities Education Act requires that all students with disabilities, except those with the most severe disabilities which is about 1% of those students, must take the same assessments and participate in the same curriculum as all the other students. So for the students who aren’t exempt there is an adapted version of the test called the North Carolina Extend 1 and as you can see in the bill, page 2, lines 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, those students whose ?? says that they use the NC Extend 1 alternate assessment would be exempt from the mandatory exemption. Also if they have at least a two school year delay in educational performance or if they’re in receipt of intensive reading interventions for at least two school years they would also be exempt from the mandatory retention. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Follow up Mr. Chairman. What would happen if we didn’t honor the dictation down from the feds on testing these children? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I’ll let staff answer that one. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Our state accepts the federal funding for students with disability through IDEA so because of accepting that funding we follow the mandates of all of the students participating in testing in curriculum so if we did not accept those funds the state could come up with its own policies. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Chairman quick statement. Thank you Mr. Chairman, members. I just think its ridiculous we have to put these children through the amount of testing they have to go through and I totally support read to achieve but to me it’s just not right to put these children through that, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Senator Apodaca, well said. Senator Stein I believe is next. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Chairman. In fact my comments follow precisely on the back of Senator Apodaca. I really appreciate the changes in the bill as it relates to giving school systems flexibility for three weeks instead of six weeks as long as they do the number of hours and I like that you allow kids who want to participate to have the option to pay for it and these changes for special needs so I really like what you’re doing with the bill to improve some of the challenges, but the biggest thing I heard from parents was the thirty-six assessments in the third grade. So I think there are a couple ways we can go about trying to fix it. One is a lot of what the bill says for the definition of reading portfolio is three assessments or three examples of twelve different assessments, that’s where the thirty-six comes from. So one is some of the twelve assessments are fairly similar and that’s what the amendment I’m going to send forward does is say a particular piece of example of work can show mastery of up to two assessments.
Up to standards, excuse me, and Mr. Chairman I’d like to offer an amendment which is going to be distributed as I understand. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Sergeant at arms I believe are distributing this amendment now Senator Stein and we’ll get them a chance to get it in our hands and we’ll consider this and ask Senator Berger if he would like to speak on your amendment and whether he likes it. [SPEAKER CHANGE] I’ll just finish explaining if I may. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Yes sir, go continue on. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you. What this does is it allows for single piece of evidence to show mastery of up to two standards so if two of the standards are the same essentially, instead of showing six you only have to show three so reduce from thirty-six down. I personally believe that three pieces of evidence is excessive, if somebody passes at an 80% level once and an 85% level twice, I don’t know why we’re making them take a third assessment to make them pass at an 80% level again. What is not in this amendment that is, that I would like to put forward for consideration maybe on the floor or down the road, is a conversation about whether we should say two examples rather than three examples as that would get us from thirty-six tests down to twenty-four right away. This amendment does the first solution which is to say that a single piece of evidence may show mastery of up to two standards and I defer to the bill sponsor. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Senator. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Chairman I’ve spoken with Senator Stein before and we’re still working on the second part of the issue we had but this amendment is fine as far as I’m concerned. [SPEAKER CHANGE] If I might inject do you have the other part of that amendment now or do you want to wait for the floor? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I’ll wait to have further consideration. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Alright let’s take this one now as it stands. Any other discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, all in favor of amendment number one say aye. Any opposed? Passes. Thank you senator. Senator Berger do you want to continue or do you want to take questions? I believe, going down the list I had Senator Robison and I believe Senator Tarte and then back to Senator Apodaca. [SPEAKER CHANGE] And Bryant over here Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair [SPEAKER CHANGE] I see you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Okay thank you. Thank you Mr. Chair. Along with Senator Apodaca and Senator Stein I’m too concerned about children who have disabilities and in the section, I’ve mentioned this to Senator Berger too because this talks about an IEP. Often times children with disabilities get what they call a ?? which is protecting children from discrimination based on their disabilities. So often times schools will do that as opposed to an IEP and so I’ve asked Senator Berger that I can share that with him, that we can include that language maybe between lines 21 and 22, somewhere in there and staff is going to look that up because we need to make sure that these children as well are exempted. So that’s what I’m going to share with Senator Berger and then maybe we can do it on the floor but we need to recognize that the children with physical disabilities do get that in school and that ought to exempt them as well. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Alright thank you. Senator Berger, a response? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Just a response Mr. Chairman, I did speak with Senator Robinson and indicated to her that I’d be more than happy to look at that issue and we can figure out whether a floor amendment can be produced on that. I like Senator Apodaca, Senator Stein, Senator Robinson, I think everybody in this room is concerned about the amount of testing and unfortunately we’ve got ourselves over the years into a situation where with the acceptance of the federal dollars we have the federal mandates as far as testing and I just don’t know that we’re in a position to give up the dollars so we’re kind of trapped at this point, but that’s something obviously all of us want to work on and I look forward to working with Senator Robinson on the language that she would like to have incorporated into the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] I think if we had our way Senator we’d probably do away with 99% of the tests but some of them are not optional. Senator Tarte. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Chair. I guess the first question is going to revolve on the same line of thought we’ve been discussion but really my question is around section one. I’ve probably been in over a dozen third grade classrooms over the last ninety days and without question
He’s working on his alternative assessment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The point to be made though with this is, does section one provide flexibility to circumvent, for lack of a better way to describe it, the progress monitoring. Can they come up with an alternative to that requirement? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Senator Berger? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Senator if I understand your question correctly it is my understanding that this does provide flexibility to provide alternatives, but there needs to be some consistency as far as those alternatives. That’s why the state board would be required to review those alternative assessments on an annual basis. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Follow up. Because one of the things we’re experiencing now is that tests going three out of five days in the classroom because of the progress monitoring requirement. Also, as you mentioned with the federal requirements the amount of testing as described by one of my superintendents and by multiple teachers, it’s requiring to go through unnatural acts to get all the testing done at year end and therefore I would like to propose an amendment to address that issue if I may. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Senator Tarte proposes amendment number two. If you wish to have it distributed, has it been? [SPEAKER CHANGE] The clerk has the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Alright if it’s been distributed that’s good, if not let’s do it and explain your amendment. You partially did. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Can you have the ?? pass it out please. [SPEAKER CHANGE] While they’re passing it out do you want to explain it, I think it’s pretty simple. [SPEAKER CHANGE] I think it’s very simple. All we want to do is extend the testing window five additional days. [SPEAKER CHANGE] How many additional days? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Excuse me? [SPEAKER CHANGE] How many additional days? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Five additional days for just one year until we look for a more permanent solution. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Alright that’s what the amendment says plain and simple. Extend the testing window of five additional days. [SPEAKER CHANGE] And Mr. Chairman if I could make a short comment on that. The amendment is one that I do support. My understanding is, and this is just an example, in Charlotte-Mecklenburg county at the end of the term they have seventy-five tests that they have to administer. Twenty-two of those seventy-five tests are tests that are being required under race to the top that were implemented as a result of accepting race to the top funds. So this is part of the problem we have, we have tests that are being mandated based on statutory modifications we make. There are tests that are being imposed on the local systems as a result of decisions that are made outside of this body and there are tests that are being imposed as a result of the acceptance of funds from the federal government. This is a situation that continues to get worse year after year despite the fact that ever since I’ve been here there have been complaints about the amount of testing our kids have to go through so I fully support Senator Tarte’s amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Senator Tarte one moment sir. Senator Berger I believe we spent that 435 million race to the top money. I’m hoping to see a bill one day that will do away with those twenty-two tests. I don’t think we’re going to have to pay the money back but now that’s just me speaking, I shouldn’t be. Anyway we have an amendment on the floor, amendment number two. All in favor, aye. Any opposed? Passes. It will be included in the bill. Others from the membership? Senator Allran. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Senator Berger if a student were to be assessed by alternative assessments let’s say totally or to the extent that he or she could be, do you have any idea how many tests that student would have to take? So in other words I guess I’m asking do you have any idea what the minimum number of tests would be? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Senator Allran the alternative assessment would be applicable if the student does not pass the ordinary end of grade test and so it depends on what alternative assessment the local system has adopted amongst the ones approved. I don’t know that I could give you a specific number but I would expect it would be an additional test or it may be a similar test where it’s given orally as opposed to in writing. There are number of things that are out there that have been approved by the state board.
...board of education. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Senator Hartsell, and then I have a motion, but prior to the motion I do have a parent with us today, Susan Tempalton and I will let her have three minutes to share some thoughts with us. Senator Hartsell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Actually this question is for Senator Robinson. When she spoke a moment ago she identified an alternative program or a certificate of some sort other than IEP and when she said that it was somewhat garbled and transmissioned can she identify that again? What what was it that she-- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Robinson wanted for us to take a look at a floor amendment on the 504 [SPEAKER CHANGES] You want me to answer Mr.--? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think I want you to answer that, I know you don't want discrimination against kids based on their handicap, I know that's what the bottom line is. Say it better than I did. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's the 504 Senator Staff can explain it is in legislation in Florida and other places that sometimes a child will get the 504 as opposed to an IEP. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The 504 was garbled. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's what that was and we'll consider that down the road. At this time, seeing no other questions from the members-- [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have, Mr. Chairman, I have a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sorry Senator Bryant. Senator Bryant. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, this is a question for Senator Berger or Staff. Does the assessment, the kindergarten assessment that is referred to on page 2 or any of the other assessments we have for students coming into school identified reading disabilities such as dyslexia and other kinds of reading disabilities are all students screened for that in some way? Is my question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll refer to Staff but I think that is part of what their looking for. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Senator. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Dr. Pierce [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Kindergarten entry assessment will look at literacy development. Additional diagnostic testing would be needed to be completed. Also in Kindergarten students would need to be given a chance to go through response to interventions to then determine if there really is a reading disability. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, follow up Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is there a protocol, are there requirements for that kind of screening and diagnosis and is there any cost to families for that or is that provided as a part of the public school funding? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No cost. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Senator, again through the individuals with disabilities education act when parents, guardians, or any of the educational staff have concerns about a students development, including reading development, they would go through the appropriate response to intervention, complete the process through the divisions of exceptional children to make those referrals and to complete those diagnostic assessments. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Dr. Pierce. ?? Senator Barringer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is really a follow up to Senator Bryants question. Am I understanding there would be an assessment, and then based on that assessment there would be a determination whether to assess further? Its the burden of determining the potential for disability is really on the school system to actually assess first. The reason I say that is that I happen to have a very brilliant now 14 year old who fooled us all that she could read. She has severe dyslexia. It didn't come to light until about the third grade and and had she been assessed earlier I think we might have caught it, but instead things had to collapse before it did so there would be an assessment and then at that point it would go further? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's the way I understand it also. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No other questions from the members, I would like to invite Susan Templeton, a Wake County parent of a third grader to go back to the speaker stand. Make sure the mic is on. Give us your name, of course again and tell us what you're here for. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Good morning, thank you for having me. My name is Susan Templeton. I have a daughter in third grade and a son in Kindergarten at Lacy Elementary School in Raleigh. I'm an active volunteer and member of our PTA organization and I'm very concerned about the number of hours spent on standardized testing instead of inspired learning in the third grade. From the beginning of their youngest years in preschool, my children have been inspired to love to learn. Our children love to learn through hands on activities, reading to each other, reading to self, and just reading for the fun of it. Our daughter's becoming a high performing reader and has an...
extreme love for math and science already aspiring to go to NC State. A transition to third grade is always a challenge, with increased homework and rigor of material and in August our bright, high-performing reading and math daughter was ready to take on the many new things third grade would show her. Then at the beginning of the last half of third grade, that spirit has been greatly diminished thanks to something I never thought I would see in an eight year old: test anxiety. She has always loved school but this year she has changed. The love is less and the anxiety is more. She gets into a test situation and appears to be rattled by the size of the test, then nervous about finishing on time and anxious about if the bubble page is accurately filled in. She describes her stomach turning, feeling like she might throw up, and starts to tear up. Her shoulders tighten up, it's hard to catch her breath, and finally she realizes she cannot start crying because that would mess up the bubble page and negate the test. She finishes the test to be done not to truly test her skills. She comes home after school emotionally and mentally wiped out. She has dropped a few after school activities to get more rest and talk about the test that day and get a hug and a shoulder massage from her mom. These are things I experienced as a nineteen year old college student not an eight year old student. Her teacher has told me that this bright student then shuts down for most of the rest of the day after a test, missing out on valuable learning time from her teachers and fellow students. I've talked to several other families who are seeing similar effects in, excuse me, their own children. For the 2013-14 school year this third-grader will take 32 hours of standardized tests. This is too much testing. Not because of the anxiety it creates but more because it replaces valuable teaching and learning time. Students like my daughter love school. They love their teachers and they want to do well on daily work, which includes tests. Tests are part of life but why is it necessary to squash a natural curiosity to learn by putting these students through so many hours of testing in the third grade. A lengthy bubble test once or sometimes twice or three times a week is not inspiring. So far this year the third graders have taken a standardized test on such a frequent basis that it is more common for us to see "test day" on a schedule than a day without a test. At the Lacey PTA meeting in January our principal announced that all third grade students would take a new portfolio of reading tests called Read to Achieve. Three tests per week for twelve weeks with the expectation to pass the first test before moving on to the second or the third. With no feedback mechanisms for parents or students in place anxiety hit a peak for these students and their teachers. Imagine having to take another standardized test and have no way of knowing how you did on it until you're forced to take the test again and again and again while your friends moved on to something else. Our principal explained to the PTA that Wake County's school board had advised that all third grade students will take the full portfolio of tests to determine future outcomes of EOG's, the end of grade test. So we add those tests to an already bloated schedule of tests and we are now up to 50 hours of test taking. These are valuable hours of learning time that we will never get back in the third grade this year. What will these third graders miss? Potentially a lot. Many lessons on comprehension, many lessons on analytical thinking, lessons on technology, and 1-on-1 time with these dedicated third grade teachers. As parents and citizens we want every child to be able to read, write, and do math at their grade level or above. We want students who need extra assistance to get it. I also want students like my daughter, who have proven skills, aptitude, and abilities across so many of these tests and school activities, to stay engaged and be inspired to learn. Let's create a better way to share and analyze and actually use the existing data to determine a student's needs instead of creating another test scenario. Not long ago the Wake County school board reevaluated the necessity of so many standardized tests in the third grade. With so many data sets available there must be a better way to predict success on the EOG's than to administer another 18 hours of tests to students who just want to learn. Thankfully the board agreed to utilize some of these data sets as exemptions for students to not have to take the extra 18 hours of Read to Achieve tests, lowering the anxiety for those students. However, with large classrooms of students, teachers still must take time to administer the Read to Achieve test instead of inspiring learning. In my opinion, and that of several parents I've talked to at Lacey who have third graders, the current number and amount of time committed to these standardized tests is taking too much time and energy away from true learning. The excessive amount spent by teachers and staff to administer, evaluate, and review the tests, which now is really not much more than a grade mark due to time constraints, is an already stressed situation. It's not making better students, it's not, it's making more stress in the school system
… and at home. We want our children to be the brightest and best they can be. Let’s make changes in this system and this bill, and bring the classrooms back to where these students learn how to succeed because they are motivated and inspired to learn. I appreciate the additional considerations and amendments put forward to this bill today, especially the changes that could lead to reduced hours of standardized testing. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Susan… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I hate to ask you to stop at this point. Believe you me, we’ve all heard you, and I know for a fact that what you’re saying goes on. I want you to be available to the staff, if you will, and if we would contact you with some of the ideas. I know you’ve got some suggestions that you had with you, and we’ll try to get a copy of that. What I would love to see is to have a process where we can have some informal testing throughout the year. Senator Stein, you had that suggestion on the portfolios. It would be a simple matter of assessing as you go – there’s no big time at the end of the year where there’s panic. My little third grade grandchildren come and say “Papa, I’m going to fail the third grade.” I said “Honey, you were reading in kindergarten. You’re not going to fail the third grade.” But there’s this test panic going on, and I know that we could come up with some other methods without the panic window of testing for all those hours at the end of the year. I think we can do that. I’m going to have the staff work with me on trying to come up with some way of informally doing some of these tests throughout the year where they don’t even know they’re being tested. You simply check off that you’ve met this progress or not and then that test time of panic is going to be gone, and we can do that. It’s a long way from here to there, but you’ve got us all thinking and you did a great job. Thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister Chairman? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Was that you, Senator Apodaca? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes Sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes Sir. We have a motion, I hope. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister Chairman, I do. I’d like to move that we give the proposed committee substitute as amended a favorable report, we roll it into a new PCS with a favorable report, and an unfavorable report to the original bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You said it just like Senator Berger would have said it. Very well done. All in favor, “Aye”. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Senator Berger, great work. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mister Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] With no further business, this meeting is adjourned.