Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

All right, so we're going to start as a Subcommitee be. But I do just want to make a special announcement. You know, we have our chief consultant here, Mary Kennedy. Her birthday is today, so let's all wish her happy birthday. Happy birthday. You guys feel like singing, but this is a swell way to spend your.

Mary feels very loved today right now. Right. So, again, I just want to say that we're going to start as a Subcommitee. We are going to start with Senator Blake Spear. Senator Blakespear is here. She will be presenting her first Bill. She has three bills up today, SB 1002. Senator, you will be speaking here, and then your witnesses will come to the diet, the lectern, and they will be timed at two minutes. So I just want to make sure that's very clear for lead witnesses. Senator, the floor is yours.

Good morning and thank you, chair and colleagues. I'm excited to be here to speak in support of my Bill, SB 1002, as I testified in front of this Committee last week, despite California having the best gun safety laws in the nation, we still have areas where we need to improve. Specifically, we need to address implementation gaps. These are places where existing laws aren't working quite as well as they should.

This Bill is a bipartisan measure which addresses one of the most pressing implementation gaps by ensuring that people having a severe mental health crisis are not armed. To be clear, we are not talking about people who are experiencing a minor depressive episode. We are talking about individuals who have been involuntarily hospitalized, deemed not guilty by reason of mental insanity, placed in a conservatorship, or judged to be a danger to others due to their mental illness.

According to the California Department of Justice, nearly 4800 Californians remained armed despite being prohibited from having guns due to mental health concerns. This problem may grow as counties implement SB 43 from last year that expanded the parameters under which individuals can be involuntarily committed due to mental health issues from 2012 to 2022. That's 10 years, California averaged over 120,000 mental holds of adults a year. We are extremely vulnerable to someone slipping through the cracks, the gaps in our system.

A person with a mental health crisis and access to a gun is at risk of killing themselves or shooting others. We want to reduce that risk as much as possible. SB 1002 strives to plug these gaps and make our community safer by implementing several changes. First, it provides compliance timelines and sets up a system with overlapping checkpoints to ensure success.

People who are involuntarily committed to a healthcare facility will be informed multiple times that they have 72 hours from discharge to get rid of their firearms and ammunition by several means, including sale to or temporarily storing with a licensed dealer or turning them over to law enforcement. Meanwhile, courts will be required to inform a newly prohibited person of how to comply and there will be a 14 day compliance deadline. Second, it provides local law enforcement with the information that they need to follow up.

This will improve voluntary compliance and enforcement when needed. But I also want to emphasize what this Bill does not do. This Bill does not create any new firearm prohibitions. Instead, it is focused on improving the outcomes of existing laws. With me today, I'm happy to have Fernando Meza on behalf of the San Diego Sheriff's Department thank you.

You have two minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair and honorable Public Safety Committee Members. My name is Fernando Meza and I'm a property investigator for the San Diego County Sheriff's Department. On behalf of the San Diego County Sheriff, Kelly Martinez, who is the bill's sponsor, we would like to thank Senator Blakespear for authoring SB 1002. This Bill addresses critical implementation gaps within existing firearm prohibitions for people experiencing mental health crises.

From 2017 to 2023, the sheriff's Property Investigations Unit, a team of four, reviewed, on average 87, 5150 involuntary detention cases per year. While this amount doesn't necessarily affect all individuals in these cases having firearms, it spotlights the workload on local agencies like ours that must sort through and identify prohibited individuals that have firearms registered into their name. Currently, when interacting with prohibited persons and educating them on the law and their rights, there are times when we are met with reluctance and or confusion.

Unfortunately, law enforcement has no mechanism to reference or physical point of document when contacting individuals. In addition, the patient notification of firearms prohibition and right to hearing form doesn't list law enforcement as a relinquishment option despite it being available, causing more confusion when we contact them. SB 1002 will close implementation gaps by allowing law enforcement the ability to request a signed patient notification form and establish a hard deadline for a prohibited person to surrender any outstanding firearms through the available relinquishment options.

The end goal is to prevent escalation of a threat, serious harm or death or Commission of a crime 70% of gun violence in San Diego is suicide. Disrupting access to firearms during these times of crisis reduces the risk and saves lives. When the prohibited person is better informed and law enforcement is better informed, there will be a better outcome. That is why the San Diego County Sheriff's Department is proud to sponsor this important legislation that will help streamline and clarify the relinquishment process, making everyone safer. We respectfully ask for the Committee's aye vote and welcome any questions.

Thank you for your testimony. Do you have any other primary witnesses?

No.

Okay. Do we have anybody that wishes to speak in opposition to the Bill? zero, I'm sorry. Well, I was going to get all the me. Okay, I'll do me too. I'll do it the way the chair does it. Do we have any me too's that would like to come up?

Good morning, chair Members. Usha Mutschler, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in support of 1002.

Thank you.

Good morning. Rebecca Marcus, representing the Brady campaign and our colleagues at Giffords in strong support.

Great. Okay. Now, is there anybody in opposition to this Bill who would like to come up and speak as a primary witness? Are there anybody that just wants to come up and say they oppose it without being a primary witness? If not, then we will bring it back to the dais for any questions. Comments? It's me. All right, well, I'll make a comment. This is a kind of legislation that helps accomplish safety because we're trying to enforce laws against, that are already there for prohibited persons.

A lot of the gun bills, as you know, I oppose a lot of them because they're not doing that. They're more aimed at our law abiding citizens as opposed to the prohibited persons. So I applaud you for bringing this I think is well thought out. It helps implement something that does bother a lot of us.

We do want people who are not supposed to have guns, not to have them, while the law abiding citizens who are exercising their rights are allowed to with as little interference as possible. So thank you very much for your Bill. I don't get to make it? No, I'm just kidding. I understand that. Yeah. zero, I know that. I am well aware that we do not have a quorum, so we'll hold this Bill until we have a quorum and we'll let you present your next Bill.

Okay. Thank you, Senator, for your reasoned comments on this bill. I appreciate it. The next bill is 1038. Is that the one you have next? Okay, 1019. Thank you. Thank you, Chair and colleagues. I'm excited to be here today to speak in support of my bill, SB 1019. Last December, the New York Times reported that many firearms collected in gun buyback programs across the country, including in California, are essentially recycled and resold online instead of being disposed of or destroyed.

For those of us focused on reducing gun violence and taking guns off the streets, this was a shocking revelation and a big failure to honor the promise behind gun buyback programs. We assumed that things were as they seemed, but they were not. Under existing federal guidelines, guns are legally, quote, destroyed when a single part, the serialized frame or receiver of a gun, is destroyed.

But all the other things that make a gun a gun, the barrel, grip, slide, firing pin, and magazine, could be resold online as gun kits and combined with a frame or a receiver to make a new gun. This is essentially how ghost guns are created. SB 1019 requires complete destruction of firearms acquired through gun buyback programs or confiscated by law enforcement, the scopes, silencers and suppressors included.

This ensures that we follow the original intent and promise of gun buyback programs to remove unwanted and unneeded guns from circulation. With me today is Steve Lindley on behalf of SB 1019 sponsor, Brady. Prior to joining Brady, Steve was the chief of the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms. Thank you for joining us today.

Thank you. Good morning.

You have two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Again, my name is Steve Lindley and I'm a 28-year law enforcement veteran and was the former chief of the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms. I'm here on behalf of the Brady Campaign. With certain exemptions, current law requires that recovered firearms be destroyed. Yet because of how current federal regulations define a firearm, it may be considered destroyed when only a single part of that firearm, a sterilized frame or receiver, is destroyed.

As a result, some businesses contracted by law enforcement agencies to destroy firearms only destroy the frame or receiver and sell the remaining firearms and part kits. Brady believes it is inconsistent for California law enforcement agencies to profit or offset their costs by the sale of firearm parts while the community in the state is investing millions of dollars and seeking solutions to reduce firearm-related violence in the community these law enforcement agencies serve.

California has already rejected the idea that firearms in law enforcement custody could be sold and reintroduced to the community. Yet some law enforcement agencies are allowing precisely this when they turn over firearms to vendors or contractors for destruction, and these vendors destroy only one part of the firearm and sell the remaining. The solid firearm parts that are salvaged rather than destroyed also undermines the increasing use of gun buybacks throughout the state.

Finally, this bill also requires that all law enforcement agencies have a written policy on the destruction of firearms, identifying firearms to be destroyed, keeping those records, and the destruction and disposal of those firearms. Law enforcement agencies that contract with or operate under a memorandum of understanding with another agency or the storage or destruction of these firearms must also have a policy identifying the other agencies and outlining the responsibilities of all involved.

This bill will assist in keeping firearms out of the hands of prohibited persons and hold law enforcement agencies accountable for the complete destruction of the firearms in their custody. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today, and I ask for your, aye vote.

And thank you for your brief comments. Do you have any other primary witnesses who wish to speak in?

No other primaries.

Great. So all those that wish to come up and add their support for the bill, your name, the organization you represent, and your support. Thank you.

Rebecca Marcus, representing Brady California and my colleagues at Giffords in support. Thank you.

Julie Chapman, a volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support.

Good morning. Laura Lane, representing Every Town for Gun Safety, in support.

Yara Judal, volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support.

Kim Manfredi, volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support.

Good morning. Jillian King, volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support.

Lindy Solo Bauer, local group lead Napa Valley Moms Demand Action in support.

Liz Russell, gun violence survivor, Moms Demand Action volunteer in support.

Good morning. Rowan Tubau, Students Demand Action volunteer in support.

Good morning. Christine Soto DeBerry, Executive Director of the Prosecutors Alliance, in support.

All right, thank you all. Next up, we have primary witnesses in opposition to the bill. Go ahead and step forward. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members, Sam Peredes representing Gun Owners of California and the California Rifle and Pistol Association. We're not actually here to oppose the bill. We just want to bring up a couple of points of information. First of all, law enforcement agencies and the state knew full well when they were selling these guns to contractors to destroy them. They were given an option. The lower cost was to destroy the receivers.

That portion of the gun, that is the gun, they knew full well that the parts were being sold, that that was the way to offset the cost of destroying the guns. Every contractor out there will tell you that every agency that they worked with knew these things full well. So this was not a surprise. That's just what happened. Now, we're not in opposition to that. I just want to point that out for everybody to understand the exact situation. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else that wants to be in opposition? That was a middle-of-the-roader. I got to call it like I see it. Anybody that wants to add on an opposition, if there are none, that comes back to the dais for comments from my colleague. Oh, it's me again. My assumption is that when somebody goes to turn in a firearm to be destroyed, that they feel like the whole thing is going to be destroyed.

People that want to access the legal parts through other means have the ability to do so. So, again, this is one of those bills that makes sense. It actually carries out what people's expectations are, and if they want their gun out of circulation, it takes it out of circulation. So that brings us your third Bill.

Well, thank you. I'm two for two with the one Member of the Committee who's here. We'll see how it goes with number three. So, thank you, Chair and colleagues, for the opportunity to discuss SB 1038. A consistent theme throughout my presentations today and last week is the idea that good can be better. That our gun safety laws have room for improvement, and that it is true when it comes to gun trafficking and preventing guns from being used in crimes.

Unfortunately, we have several indicators that this is a growing problem in California. Since there are so many guns in our country, it's not surprising that many firearms end up lost, stolen, and trafficked. According to the ATF, there were over 1 million missing guns reported between 2017 and 2022. As alarming as that sounds, these numbers significantly underrepresent the actual total of missing guns, because many people don't report lost or stolen guns.

Lost or stolen firearms are a danger to society because they are prone to being trafficked and used in crimes. In addition, the number of crime guns recovered in the state per capita has grown by close to 70% over the last decade according to a UC Davis study. Nearly 80,000 traceable guns used in criminality came from just 82 dealers in California.

But the strongest indicator that we have a gun trafficking problem, one that is partially fueled by retailers, is that the amount of guns recovered shortly after purchase is growing. The percent of handguns recovered in a violent crime within one year of purchase has tripled. So what can we do here? SB 1038 does four things that will help reduce the amount of guns trafficked within our state. One, it reduces the amount of time that an individual has to report missing firearms from five days to 48 hours.

This brings us in alignment with the 11 other states that have Shorter reporting times than we do here in California. Number two, it better equips the DOJ to track firearms as they come into our state, not just as they are sold. Three, it increases scrutiny on the dealers most associated with crime guns. And four, it requires dealers to annually certify their inventories, giving the DOJ and local government something to hold them to.

Now I'd like to reintroduce Steve Lindley from Brady, who is also testifying in support of this Bill.

Thank you, sir. You have two minutes.

Good morning again, Steve Lindley. I'm here for representing Brady. This Bill addresses gun trafficking by increasing scrutiny of the business practices of California licensed firearm dealers, their inventory, improving their record keeping, and required people to report lost or stolen firearms within 48 hours. Senate Bill 1038 proposes a few practical and common-sense solutions to this issue. Bill reduces an individual's time to report lost or stolen firearms from five days to 48 hours.

If a person's vehicle is missing, they would not wait days or weeks to report it as stolen, nor should they wait days to report a firearm lost or stolen. It requires licensed firearm dealers to certify their inventory to the California Department of Justice annually and allows local law enforcement agencies to hold the dealers accountable if they do not, improving accountability for lost and or stolen firearms and ensuring these lost dangerous weapons are properly reported to law enforcement agencies.

It mandates that California Department of Justice to inspect the top 25 dealers listed on the annual crime gun report within one calendar year of that report's release. If firearm dealers are identified as major contributors of crime guns, it is common sense that they receive additional attention from the Department of Justice to identify and help correct any business practices that are leading to that dealer being among the top distributors of crime guns in our communities.

It requires licensed firearm dealers to report acquisitions of firearms from manufacturers and wholesalers to the California Department of Justice beginning January 1, 2027. This allows the Department of Justice to accurately know what firearms are entering our state and their disposition, which will greatly encourage, I'm sorry, discourage, illegal firearm trafficking. These straightforward, simple, and common-sense measures will significantly enhance law enforcement's ability to track firearms and prevent them from falling in the hands of criminals.

Again, thank you for the time this morning, and I ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you. Do you have any other primary witnesses?

I do not.

Okay. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition to this Bill? Oh, okay. I'm sorry, we have to have the me-toos for the support. I'm sorry, I keep forgetting our me-toos. Come on up. If you would like to add-on your support for this Bill and state your name, your organization.

Rebecca Marcus, representing Brady California, and my colleagues at Gifford, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Christine Soto-DeBerry, Prosecutors Alliance of California, in support.

Right. Thank you. All right. At this time, do we have any persons that wish to speak as a primary witness in opposition? We do.

Mr. Chairman and Members. Sam Paredes representing Gun Owners of California, and we're here to express our strong opposition to SB 1038, which alters one of the provisions of 2016's, Proposition 63, by reducing the current time to report a stolen firearm within five days to just 48 hours. If the people wanted a tighter time frame, they would have voted so.

There's a provision that says that if the Legislature wants to improve or further the cause of the initiative, they can do it by making it tighter. They're not furthering the cause. They're constricting the cause. And we're prepared to challenge that in court. Without question, no one will argue that it's important to inform law enforcement when a firearm is missing or stolen.

The issue with this proposal, however, is that the reporting time frame is exceedingly restrictive and thus places individuals at risk of unknowingly breaking the law. The original five-day mandate drew concern from law enforcement and the courts. Because the enforcement provisions are primarily focused on the law-abiding and thus places an unrealistic burden on gun owners. The Bill would essentially force them to routinely take inventory of their belongings, which are required to be under lock and key.

It could be weeks before someone knows whether a secured firearm has been stolen. This Bill shifts the focus from the criminals and places it on responsible, lawful persons. Further, the requirement for a dealer to annually certify, this is mind-blowing, their inventory is unnecessarily onerous. Under current California law, dealers are already inspected regularly by both the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives, and every firearm in their inventory has to be accounted for. So that has already taken place.

It has been our consistent goal to work toward common sense laws, and this just is not a lot of common sense. All it's doing is burdening lawful dealers who are regularly checked, and if they have missing firearms, their licenses are revoked, so it's not necessary. All it's doing is causing more work.

And for the law-abiding citizens who happen to have a cabin up in the mountain somewhere, and they keep a firearm there, and they're broken into and it's stolen, how are they supposed to know within 48 hours that that firearm was stolen?

They want to report it, of course, but for them to be required to report when it happened, or when they should have known that it happened, the problem with that is, it's that the Department of Justice in the State of California decides when they should have known, and that presents a big problem. That's why we are in strong opposition. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Are there any other opposition witnesses who wish to speak as a primary witness? Okay, you have two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. Chair Members of the Committee. My name is Keeley Hopkins, and I'm the State Director for the National Rifle Association. Here today, in opposition on behalf of our members. Senate Bill 1038 wrongly focuses on and potentially punishes the victim of a crime should they fail to report that their firearms were stolen in the very narrow window of 48 hours, which is a substantial change from the existing five days allowed under current law.

In the aftermath of a burglary or theft, the victims have a whole host of concerns that they're dealing with. First and foremost, is their physical safety and the physical safety of their loved ones. They may even be staying somewhere else temporarily while they deal with home repairs or improve their home security. To then place an additional burden and threat of facing penalties for not reporting in the moment of hardship disregards what the crime victims are going through.

Victims are already incentivized to report thefts in order to facilitate the return of their firearms, but every situation is different. So having a very narrow and arbitrary window of 48 hours is only going to revictimize the victim of a crime. So for those reasons, we urge you to oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. At this time, we'll take anybody who wishes to add on. Just state your name and the organization you represent. There's no testimony on this.

Yeah. Agnostic Hernandez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal justice, we're kind of a tweener. There's this technical issue on reference to legal, to a person's representative, and we're concerned that that will capture the attorneys.

And then they'll be put in a position to have to force a person to comply with the law. So we'd like that to be changed.

Thank you.

Next person.

My name is Elizabeth Rosemaves. I'm a concerned citizen and a two-time violent crime survivor, and I'm very concerned about this bill, so I'm here in opposition.

Thank you, ma'am. Anybody else? Okay. At this time, we'll bring it back to the dais for any questions. And you are right. You are anticipating that I might have some issues with this. One of them is the language of known or should have known. We have that language in a lot of other parts of our legal world, and it creates a very arbitrary from what one person's definition of that versus another. Another is going from five days to two days.

There are many instances where you may not realize that something is missing and somebody will say, you should have known. But whether it's five days is not that much longer than two days. But two days is pretty restrictive, and so it does give you a little bit of time to find it if you've misplaced a firearm before you go and report it. And the other part is when you report it, well, what happens then?

What do they do with the information that you're reporting that a gun was lost or stolen, other than if they arrest somebody and they find that gun and it's registered to you, et cetera, et cetera, they can get it back to you? It's not going to contribute to a reduction in crime because they're not going to go right out and find that gun and arrest the person who took it because they have absolutely no resources to do that or time to do that.

So really all it does is create another restriction on the law-abiding citizen who is incentivized, actually, in that case, to report it so that if they do find it, they'll return it to them. So from a gun safety perspective, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me because there's nothing, I don't feel like anything safer after this than before. So if you wanted to address a couple of those issues, I'm here to listen. Thank you.

Yes, thank you for your comments. I think the main point is that lost or stolen firearms are a danger to our society and are creating a black market that we could better intervene in.

And so having California be in line with the 11 other states that have a 48 hour reporting period, I think that does not seem overly burdensome to me and also seems like it's reasonable in light of the amount of jurisprudence that has analyzed the phrase known or should have known, that there's a reasonableness standard about that, considering all the circumstances. And so to me, that seems like a relatively modest change.

And also just looking at the reality that when someone's car is stolen, it's a similar type of requirement. We don't allow a lot of cars to be on the black market, which cars also being dangerous and something that are heavily regulated. And so to me, this seems like it's reasoned. And also, we just know we have a problem with the number of guns that are used in criminality. So these are ways to tighten things up so that we can reduce the number and the amount of guns used in criminality, which promotes public safety.

How does that enhance or reduce the criminality aspect of it when we already have laws in place that hold dealers accountable if they are missing any inventory?

Well, for example, there was one gun location, a dealer who accounted for 1,652 crime guns. So there is a reality that there are places where guns are being sold out the front door and then trafficked out the back door. And we are trying to make it so that that is not as common and there are more ways to follow up on that. So knowing where guns come from when they are involved in criminality helps us address that problem.

Okay. And what you're talking about is a large volume dealer. And there are other large volume dealers that don't have quite the volume that have nearly--it correlates to what the guns used in crimes later on down the road. It still does not answer the question of how does this increase safety, because those guns are sold anyway. They're out the door. And whether somebody then loses, gets it stolen, or decides to traffic it, the gun shop owner has no control of that whatsoever.

Is the question whether they are practicing in something that they're going to get caught in if you have an inventory every year versus every two years, because most of them, if they're selling 85,000 guns a year, most of them have no incentive from a financial perspective to allow any illegal stuff that will jeopardize their business. And so I think they're already very careful.

It's just that there is always going to be a certain percentage of whatever product that a criminal will take and say, okay, now I've got something. I'm going to sell it to somebody else who's going to sell it to somebody else and become part of the drug or the drug, the gun trafficking world. They have no control over that, and I'm not quite sure how this is going to help. Mr. Senator Skinner, did you have any comments? I'm sorry, I didn't.

I moved the bill.

Yeah, we can't. So, thank you for your presentation. We will hold the bill open for when we get a quorum, and I appreciate you presenting your bills this morning.

Well, thank you very much.

All right. Okay. Senator Eggman, we have SB 1025.

Yes, thank you. Good morning, everybody. I'll be accepting the Committee's amendments as referenced in the bill analysis. And this is a simple bill working on some issues we've been working around before around veterans diversion courts. So, currently, if a veteran goes through just a regular mental health diversion court, they can have either a misdemeanor and or a felony.

So this just makes it aligned that if you go to veterans court, that you can also have felonies heard in that, of course, a very dangerous felony being excluded as they are for the mental health courts. But this just brings the two into parity. And with me here today is Judge Manley and Tom Lamphere, a US veteran.

Great. The primary witness in support. Come on up, judge. You have two minutes.

Good morning. Thank you. Thank you. I'm Stephen Manley, a Superior Court Judge from Santa Clara County, and I'm here to request your support for this bill. In California, our veterans treatment courts have proven to be one of our most successful collaborative efforts by judges of our superior courts when we can offer treatment as an alternative to incarcerations for individuals who have served their country.

This bill, as the Senator pointed out, would extend to veterans participating in a veterans treatment court the same benefits that have already been extended by the Legislature to other individuals through the mental health diversion statute. The commitment of our judges to military diversion is demonstrated by the fact that we presently have 46 veteran treatment courts in California, and that number continues to grow each year.

Military diversion is one of our most successful diversion programs in the state that are operated through the courts and provide monitoring closely by judges as well as treatment. Those who have served in the military have very unique needs, and those needs are great. Approximately 30% of veterans returning home from service suffer from invisible wounds that often go unrecognized. They include post traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, as well as major depression, and sexual trauma.

Veteran treatment courts can intervene when veterans come in contact with the criminal justice system. Distinct from mental health diversion, our partner is a Federal Government through the Veterans Administration and their treatment programs that are uniquely qualified to provide the treatment that these individuals need. Unfortunately, the symptoms of PTSD that include flashbacks and reckless behavior and perceived antisocial attitudes are directly related to criminal offenses that include felonies. Without treatment, those behaviors will not change, and I urge you to please support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Do we have another witness to support the bill as a primary witness? Go ahead. You have two minutes, sir.

Good morning. My name is Thomas Lamphere. I'm a Marine Corps veteran and the peer specialist for the Veteran Transition Center of California, providing rehabilitation programs for veterans that are incarcerated, paroled, or homeless. Just want you to imagine if you were a military member returning from service to society and you're grappling with the aftermath of trauma, and then you turn to substance abuse, or you react violently to perceived threats in society because the haunting specter of ptsd triggers you.

These are the realities faced by many of our veterans who unfortunately find themselves among the roughly 6,000 incarcerated veterans in California. Veterans currently serving determinate terms in CDCR are not mandated to participate in rehabilitative programs for parole. Contrastingly, indeterminate terms necessitate participation in order to be paroled, and the statistics are stark. Approximately 1% recidivism rate for indeterminate terms versus 50% for determinate terms. SB 1025 strips away the option of merely serving a sentence and being released, replacing it with mandatory, evidence-based rehabilitation.

Taxpayers are currently paying around $100,000 per year for a 50% chance that a veteran might not reoffend. Alternatively, they could be investing roughly $30,000 per year in rehabilitation programs prior to incarceration, which have proven to be almost 99% effective. The current return on investment, both for the public and the offender, is not particularly good at this time. This bill offers a path to bolster public safety with fiscal prudence while reducing the rates of incarceration. If we claim to support veterans, then let's all support veterans.

For too long, we've been slapping bandaids on wounds that demand stitches, thinking we are going to stop the bleeding. This bill provides those stitches. My name is not just Thomas Lamphere, but for nearly three decades of my life, I was known as J 26950, a military veteran with mental health issues in the California Department of Corrections. I've experienced firsthand what works and what doesn't. This bill will work, and I ask you to support it.

Are there any other--so you're not a main witness? So these are the me-toos? Sorry. Okay, so now it's all the me-toos in support of this bill. Thank you.

Leslie Caldwell Houston, for the California Public Defenders Association in support.

Glenn Valiant, private citizen. I'm a proud father of a formerly incarcerated U. S. Army veteran in support.

Alexander Valiant, formerly incarcerated veteran and graduate of the Veteran Transition Center. I'm in support.

Paul Yoder, on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists in support.

Madam Chair and Senators, Cliff Costa, on behalf of the California Judges Association, the proud sponsor of this bill. I want to thank Judge Manley and Senator Eggman for the bill. Thank you.

Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in support of the bill.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California and Initiate Justice in strong support.

Morgan Zamora for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support.

Duke Cooney on behalf of ACLU California Action in support. Thank you.

Tara Gamboa-Eastman with the Steinberg Institute in support.

Melissa Cosio on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice, in support.

Jonathan Laba, Pacific Juvenile Defender Center, in support.

No problem. Do we have a main witness in opposition? Go ahead.

Good morning. Ivy Fitzpatrick Managing Deputy District Attorney, Riverside County, for the California DA's Association. The DA's Association had submitted a letter in opposition unless amended. But the Senator was gracious enough to take the suggested amendments in Committee, and we're very grateful for that.

And I just want to say, as a veteran and a close friend and loved one of many combat veterans, and the current supervisor of the veterans court in Riverside County, I thank the Senator for her efforts in this area. Thank you.

All right. Is there anybody else in the room that's in opposition? Any tweeners? Okay. Seeing none. We don't have quorum. Yeah, I know. I know. And I can ask the Senator to close, but I will see if my colleague wants, has any questions or comments. Okay. I think it's a good bill. I will move it when we do have a quorum, but you may close.

Thank you very much. And thank you to the folks who came to testify today. It's a simple common sense. We know that veterans come back with all kinds of wounds, seen and unseen, and this just provides parity to be able to give people the kind of services that they desire and deserve. I ask for your aye vote when the time is appropriate.

For your aye vote when the time is appropriate. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. All right, so we will--is Mr. Becker here? Yes. We'll now go to SB 1161. Senator Becker, you have the mic.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Committee Members. I'm here to present SB 1161. This is a bill that makes subtle but much-needed changes to the Welfare Institutions Code or WIC, to ultimately streamline both access and sealing opportunities for eligible youth in the juvenile justice system. Several sections of WIC have not been updated to reflect timeliness or changes in modernization.

For example, youth who have never suffered adjudication must demonstrate to the juvenile court that they have not incurred any new law violations involving crimes of moral turpitude and prove they've been rehabilitated to the court's satisfaction, the same complex process held for youth who have been adjudicated. Due to this gap in current law, youth who are arrested but never charged must utilize the same complex process to have the records sealed as youth who have been formally adjudicated.

These youth would have to wait until they are 18 or five years after the referral to prove they have not suffered any crimes involving moral turpitude and demonstrate rehabilitation of the court even though they were never charged with a crime.

This also makes clarifying amendments to WIC in a number of areas, including access to juvenile records, record sealing charges, record sealing when charges will not be filed, availability of informal probation, access to institutional records, and preservation of foster care benefits for non-minor dependent youth in order to prove the clarity and efficacy of WIC. By doing so, it streamlines the opportunities available for eligible youth in the juvenile justice system.

And I want to thank sponsors for working with me on making these very small but very important changes. And with me, I've got two witnesses, Jonathan Laba from the Pacific Juvenile Defender Center and Colin Ford, Fresh Lifelines for Youth.

Thank you, and before you guys begin, I'd like to call for a quorum.

[Roll Call].

Thank you. We have officially established quorum. You have two minutes. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Jonathan Laba. I'm an attorney in the Contra Costa Public Defender's Office. I've been there for 27 years, and I'm testifying today on behalf of the Pacific Juvenile Defender Center, the sponsor of SB 1161. PJDC is a statewide association of youth defenders and advocates working to improve California's legal system for youth. The goal of SB 1161 is to clarify, modernize, and improve the Welfare and Institutions Code.

Senator Becker's bill makes improvements in a number of areas, including record sealing, access to juvenile records, and availability of informal probation. SB 1161 addresses many different issues, but I won't test your patience by describing all or even most of them today. Let me just give you one example of a common sense fix that reflects the spirit of the bill.

There are former foster youth between age 18 and 21 who receive what are called extended foster care benefits, which helps to pay for their housing and other needs. Sometimes a judge wants to dismiss that youth's underlying offense that they're on probation for because the youth did well on probation. However, under current law, it is unclear if dismissal of the original case might actually terminate unexpectedly the youth's foster care benefits.

SB 1161 clarifies that successful dismissal of the case is not going to result in a youth losing their benefits and becoming homeless. SB 1161 includes about a dozen common sense and rational fixes to the Welfare and Institutions Code. In workshopping these ideas, we met with and received helpful feedback from the Judicial Council and the California Judges Association before 1161 was introduced, and we will continue to do so throughout the legislative process.

The spirit behind this bill is collaboration, refinement, and modernization consistent with the rehabilitative purpose of the juvenile court. SB 1161 has broad support and no known opposition. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Two minutes.

Good morning. My name is Colin Ford, and I'm the Director of Policy at Fresh Lifelines for Youth. FLY is a nonprofit serving at-promise youth impacted by the juvenile legal system. Our goal is to interrupt the pipeline-to-prison and support youth on their path to healthy, free, and productive lives. SB 1161 aligns with our mission and FLY is pleased to support it.

SB 1161 makes a number of changes to California's record sealing laws, which are designed to help youth move on with their lives after their contact with the juvenile legal system. At FLY, we believe that youth should have strong opportunities to seal their records so that what happens in the juvenile system does not affect their chances in the future to get a good education or a good job.

But under current law, youth who are arrested but never charged with a crime or even referred to a diversion program by probation must utilize the same long and complicated process to get their records sealed as youth who have been formally adjudicated. That means youth who have to wait until they are 18 or five years after the referral. They have to demonstrate rehabilitation to a juvenile judge. They need to prove they have not been involved in any crime involving moral turpitude.

They must follow this long and complicated process even though they were never charged with a crime nor involved in the court system to begin with. SB 1161 enacts a simplified process that's already in the WIC code for youth who complete diversion and applies that simplified process to youth who experience an even lesser degree of intervention by law enforcement or probation.

We believe this is just one example of how SB 1161 is a common sense bill that furthers the Legislature's goal of rehabilitating youth and reducing the racial and ethnic disparities that are all too present in our current juvenile legal system. Thank you for your consideration and support.

Thank you. Next up are #MeToos in either support or opposition. Please state your name, your org, and whether you support or oppose.

Lesli Caldwell-Houston for the California Public Defenders Association, in support.

Morgan Zamora for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in support.

Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, in support.

Natasha Minsker, Initiate Justice, in support.

Melissa Cosio, Californians for Safety and Justice, in support.

Kellie Walters for Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in strong support.

Henry Ortiz, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and All of Us or None, Sacramento, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll turn it over to--do we have any opposition lead witnesses? Seeing none, we're going to turn it over to the Committee. Do we have any questions, comments, concerns?

I move the bill.

Thank you. And Senator, I know you would like to close, but I also just want to say congratulations for taking on one of our staffers. Jared, congratulations for moving on. So he's done a lot of work. So I just want to give kudos. So thank you. Would you like to close?

Well, thank you for that. I'm very excited once we get through the Senate HR process, which hopefully any day here. Looking forward to it. Thank you, Committee. Thank you to the sponsors. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Definitely. All right, can we call a roll call vote?

SB 1161: the motion is do pass to Judiciary. [Roll Call].

That bill's on call. I'd like to also have a motion on the consent calendar. Do we have a motion? Bradford moves.

[Roll Call].

Thank you. That bill is on call. Senator Skinner, if you would like to present SB 1001.

[Roll Call]

And then, Senator Skinner, if you want to present, go ahead.

So can we get a motion for SB 1019? The Senator Skinner has moved it.

[Roll Call]

All right, thank you, guys. Senator, we can now have SB 1001.

Thank you. Pleased to present this Bill. So, both our US constitution, the 8th amendment, and our current state law makes it a violation for us to execute the state, to execute a person with an intellectual disability. Now, our current statute requires that that intellectual disability be present, that it must be clear that the person has the intellectual disability in their developmental stage. So, in other words, before adulthood, and further, that it must be diagnosed before that time.

Now, what we face is that there are circumstances where people with these severe intellectual disabilities, which means that they do not have the intellectual capacity, whether we use IQ tests as the indicator or what the various indicators. And there's the type of circumstances a person can face with this as a person with down syndrome, for example, a person who, at birth, certain birth defects or certain infections at infancy, that can affect brain development, such that a person is intellectually disabled.

However, depending on the family's circumstances, perhaps the school the child went to, any number of circumstances where they may not have that medical diagnosis before the age that's listed in statute.

So all this Bill does, it still retains that requirement that this has to be an intellectual disability that was present and occurred in childhood, but it enables a lawyer representing that individual to get the necessary testing to see if it is possible to determine and prove that the person had that intellectual disability from childhood, and to be able to present that then in the circumstance towards their facing the execution, the death penalty.

Now, while we have a moratorium, right now, our Governor is not proceeding with executions. The state could at any point. And so this is to protect the state and to follow the 8th amendment. This does not cover people with mental illnesses. So I want to raise that right up front, because the DA's letter in opposition raises questions around mental illness. This does not cover mental illness. This is intellectual disabilities only. And so wanted to just clarify that.

And now I would like for my main witness, Nisha Shah from the Habeas Corpus Resource Center, to present.

Thank you. You have two.

I'm Nisha Shah, and I'm the legal Director at the Habeas Corpus Resource Center. Senator Skinner's staff asked me to address the technical changes SB 1001 proposes to California's law exempting from execution people with intellectual disability, or ID, for short. 22 years ago, the US Supreme Court held that the execution of a person with ID is cruel and unusual punishment. California codified this ruling in penal code Section 1376, which this Legislature updated in 2020 to bring in line with current clinical standards.

SB 1001 will further bring California into compliance with governing law. First, the Bill clarifies that a person with ID is ineligible for the death penalty. Second, the Bill codifies case law defining the procedures to be used when a prosecutor seeks testing of a person raising an ID claim. The law governing testing in these cases is unique, and courts and prosecutors are not always aware of it. Indeed, the CDAA's opposition letter ignores the governing case on the issue.

The Bill also will expedite hearings by defining the circumstances under which a prosecution expert can perform additional testing. It is critical we protect individuals with ID from unwarranted and inappropriate testing. Third, the Bill will expedite proceedings when the parties agree that a person has ID by giving courts a time frame in which to act. And finally, the Bill furthers the Legislature's goal of removing bias from the criminal legal system.

More than half of those with ID or developmental disabilities in this country have not been formally identified as such due to their socioeconomic status, national origin, or a lack of access to resources. The failures of our system to identify these people early on should not exempt them from constitutional protections. In sum, SB 1001's technical amendments will help ensure the state identifies and prevents the execution of people with ID as the Constitution requires. Thank you.

Not as a main, but we do the Metoos.

Specifically in the state your name, your Org and whether you support or Oppose.

Natasha Minsker Smart Justice California and Initiate Justice in strong support.

Eric Harris with Disability Rights California Strong support.

Leslie Caldwell Houston California Public Defenders Association in support.

Duke Cooney on behalf of ACLU California Action in strong support. Thank you.

Jim Lindburg on behalf of co sponsors Bend the ARC and Friends Committee on Legislation of California. With deep appreciation to the author and the Committee for its work. We urge an aye vote.

Molly Sheehan with the California Catholic Conference, a co sponsor on the measure, in support.

Thank you Morgan Zamora for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in Support.

Melissa Cosio on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice in support

Kenneth Hartman on behalf of Transformative Programming Works strong support

Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the CACJ. In support.

Kellie Walters on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in strong support.

And ... all of us in Sacramento Legal Services for Prisoners with Children strong support.

Thank you. Do we have any lead opposition witnesses? Two minutes. Thank you.

Ivy Fitzpatrick, California DA's Association. CDAA recognizes the case law that was discussed in the analysis and pointed out by the habeas counsel that just testified in support. But CDAA respectfully opposes the measure because it goes further than that by creating a De facto presumption in favor of intellectual disability tests performed by defense experts and excludes the people from testing the defendant unless the people can first show without ever testing the defendant that the defense testing was unreliable.

Requiring a party to show that the other party's testing is unreliable is a novel standard in criminal justice. It's not applied to other criminal settings. Typically, once a defendant has put their mental state at issue and into dispute, the people have a legal right to then test that evidence. That's what the criminal justice system is all about and to independently assess and test the defendant.

At its heart, the criminal justice system is a search for the truth, and CDA opposes this unbalanced approach to the search for the truth. Thank you.

All right, do we have any? Me too's in opposition. Seeing none, I'm going to turn over the conversation to the Committee. Committee Members. Senator Seyarto?

Well, I am all for protecting the rights of our intellectually disabled communities. I struggle with the part where if the people cannot test to ensure the validity of the test that they took privately, that the defense attorney took, there has to be some kind of balance and reassurance for the people, and especially for victims of some crimes, because I can think of one in particular as particularly heinous.

And this was tried, but then the people were able to come back with a testing of the mental status of the person, and it was determined that there was no disability. And so without that balance, it's difficult for me to go down this path. We have assurances here in California, essentially, that people that are getting the death penalty don't see the death penalty. So it's more of a life in prison type of issue.

But that's my opposition to this, is ensuring that scales of justice come to the right conclusion. And we can't do that if the burden of determining somebody's capabilities is only on one side without the ability for the other to challenge it. I don't see that that's there.

Chair, with your permission, can I allow the Habeas representative speak to that?

And I'm sorry I missed the first part of this presentation. It might have been covered, yes.

So that subdivision would not preclude the prosecution experts from testing. It would just put some guardrails around when their experts can test. And there are a couple of issues here. One is that even after the amendments this Legislature passed in 2020, we've seen at least two cases where prosecution experts have attempted to artificially inflate scores based on the defendant's race or socioeconomic status. And so there need to be some guardrails around. Prosecution expert testing.

The requirement that the prosecution show that the testing is unreliable is not a high burden. And the state routinely retains experts in intellectual disability in these cases and routinely has them review the defendant or petitioner's testing before their own evaluation. So this Bill essentially just adds a requirement of transparency. If the state's expert thinks additional testing is necessary, they need to explain why. The other point I just want to raise, in terms of the comment that the requirement is novel.

The Supreme Court has routinely held that death is different and that cases of intellectual disability are different. This is a question of culpability. It's a question of whether someone should be subject to the death penalty. And as you say, the maximum penalty if someone is found to be a person with an intellectual disability is life without the possibility of parole.

Senator, would you like to close?

Yes. I think I was appreciative of our expert from the habeas corpus to explain that. And I think that, again, it's one of those circumstances where we have a different set of standards when we are dealing with death penalty cases. And as I pointed out in my opening and has been spoken to already, what this Bill does is basically help ensure that if at the point California resumes executions, and we do have 650 people on death row, and we have not prevented any cases from.

In other words, cases can still move forward in counties with a death penalty prosecution, that if we were to resume executions, we would have an additional safeguard to help prevent someone with an intellectual disability from being executed. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. I'll move on to the next Bill. And if you would then wait for a motion and for some Members to return. You just have your last Bill.

All right, next up, we have.

SB 1353 will add to the existing youth Bill of Rights that youth detained in juvenile facilities are not to be deprived of mental health resources. A July 2020 policy statement published in Pediatrics estimates that between 50% and 80% of justice involved youth have a mental health disorder. Most of these youth have been experiencing some variety of trauma from a young age, according to a 2017 review from the US Office of Juvenile justice and Delinquency Prevention.

"Having a mental health problem while involved in the system can increase youth's likelihood of recidivating or engaging in other problem behavior." SB 1353 empowers incarcerated youth and promotes antirecitivism by emphasizing the importance of access to mental health resources in the youth Bill of Rights. I would like to introduce my first witness, Christine Soto DeBerry, with the Prosecutors alliance of California.

Thank you. You have two minutes since the chair is here. Two minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Senators, for having us here. Cristine Soto DeBerry, Executive Director of the Prosecutors alliance of California. We're here to urge your support for SB 1353, a modest but important improvement in the protections provided to youth children that are held in our custodial facilities here in the State of California. There are currently existing protections in California law to ensure that there is a safe and healthy environment for children when we are holding them away from their homes.

Additionally, already in existence in the state is a Youth Bill of Rights that assures that children are not deprived of fundamental needs such as food, sleep, access to family, access to clergy. This Bill would add access to mental health services for those same children. As was mentioned by the Senator, there is an alarmingly high rate of mental health issues within the young people that are held in our custodial facilities.

Somewhere between 60% and 80% of children are suffering from some mental health needs and are in the care of the State of California and in need of that treatment. Sadly, this may be the first or only opportunity for these young people to receive much needed mental health treatment that can facilitate not only their well being, but their rehabilitation. This is a smart safety investment for us here in the State of California. It is appropriate and dignified treatment for our children, and we urge your strong support.

Thank you. Do we have any other primary witnesses in support? If not, we'll just have the toos come up. Your state, your name, and your organization you represent. Thank you.

Eric Harris, Disability Rights California support.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California and initiate justice and support.

Lesli Caldwell Houston, California Public Defenders Association, in support.

Jim Lindberg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, in support.

Melissa Garcia, Californians for Safety and justice, in support.

Morgan Zamora for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in support.

Craig Pulsipher, on behalf of Equality California, in support.

Tara Gamboa Eastman with the Steinberg Institute. In support.

And thank, zero, we got one more, one more.

Henry Ortiz, with All of Us or None in Sacramento and legal services for prisoners with children and strong support. Thank you.

Kelly Walters with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and strong support.

All right. Thank you very much for all your cooperation and getting through that one part of it. Now we have lead witnesses in opposition. Is there anybody that wishes to be a lead witness in opposition? Is there anybody that just wants to. Yes, come on up.

For clarity, Daniel Sanchez, Chief Probation Officers of California, not in opposition today, kind of in the in between, but I was hoping to make a few brief remarks. As I said, we do not have a position at this time, and we certainly agree with the Senator's goals of this Bill around ensuring access to mental health services.

We did just want to note for the Committee that in ensuring and guaranteeing this access, that we make sure to do so in a way that accounts for some of the considerations around being able to have individualized approaches for those youth specific needs and making sure not to prescribe the specific treatment or services. And so we've engaged in very productive conversations with the Senator's office. We look forward to having more of those, to talk through some of those considerations on the specific language. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, anybody? Last chance. Me, too's in opposition. Given there are none, I'm going to bring it back to the dais. Do we have any questions or comments?

I move the Bill.

There is a motion to move the Bill by Skinner. I have just one comment, and it kind of helps clarify that I'm not going to go up on your Bill today, but I'm not voting against your Bill today because it's a laudable goal. What I would like to see, and in the future, these agencies are already over impacted by mandates that we have sent down.

And when there's mandates that can be turned into lawsuits, when we don't give them the tools they need to do the job, that's the bigger problem is as you visit these facilities and you talk with the people that are involved, a lot of the facilities are under the gun for doing a lot of things, but we're not giving them, we don't set them up for success by ensuring that the infrastructure is in place so that they can do this successfully.

And so what that winds up being is lawsuits that take money away from our ability to provide the infrastructure to do that. And so without that, it's hard for me to support a Bill until I have assurances that we're going to Fund the infrastructure that's needed to do this. Care courts are the same kind of thing. We foisted that upon the court system but didn't give them any tools.

And now it's all backed up because they can't get people through because they don't have the facilities or enough judges to do it. So I'll be laying off your Bill today. With that, we can go ahead and take the roll. I'm sorry you want to close my bank.

Thank you. And, Senator, I appreciate your comments. I also agree with you. So if you have any language considerations for us to evaluate, we're more than happy to take a look at those. We also are very happy to work with our, I'm going to say, a witness in opposition. I'm sorry, but the in betweener specifically because we do want to do what's right for these kids. Other than that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Secretary, call roll.

SB 1353, motion is due, pass to the floor. [roll call]

All right, that as two votes in favor, and we're going to leave it open, or on call.

Thank you. I just want to make sure we can actually lift the call for Senator Sayardo. We'll start with item number one and move it all the way forward.

SB 1002, motion is do pass to Appropriations. Current vote is three to zero. [Roll call]. SB 1019, motion is do pass to Appropriations. Current vote is three to zero. [Roll call]. SB 1038, motion is do pass due to Judiciary. [Roll call]. SB 1025, motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll call].

SB 1161, the motion is do pass to Judiciary. [Roll call]. SB 1353. Oh, we already did that one. And consent. [Roll call]. Motion, SB 933. [Roll call].

Thank you. For the most part, all the bills are still on call. We will be calling a recess and reconvene at 11:30 to lift calls and get a motion on Senator Skinner's Bill, as well as final votes on all the bills. Thank you.

Thank you.

Senator Wiener is here. We're going to lift the call for items one through eight. We will start with item number seven, as it's on consent, SB 933.

[Roll call].

That Bill is out. Now we will start with item number one, SB 1002.

Current vote is five to zero, motion, four to zero. Sorry. Do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call].

That Bill is out. Item number two, SB 1019.

Motion is do pass to Approps. Four to zero. [Roll call].

That Bill is out. Item number three, SB 1038.

Motion is due, pass to Judiciary. Current vote is three to one. [Roll call].

That Bill is out, four to one.

Wait, on what?

We haven't gotten to that one yet. Yeah.

We're going to move on to item number four, SB 1025 by Senator Eggman.

Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Current vote is three to zero. [Roll call].

That Bill is four to zero. That Bill is out. Number five, SB 1161 by Becker.

Motion is do pass to Judiciary Committee. Current vote is four to zero. [Roll call].

That Bill is out, five to zero. Item number six, SB 1001. Skinner.

Needs a motion.

So moved. I move the bill.

Wiener moves. Motion is do pass to the Floor. [Roll call].

Is Bradford coming? Bradford's coming. We'll keep that open.

Okay, that is still on call. We are going to move to number eight, SB 1353 Wahab.

Motion is do pass to the Floor. Current vote is two to zero. [Roll call].

That Bill is on call. Thank you. No, definitely. Of course. Of course.

Okay, so which one was it?

It's Skinner's Bill and your Bill.

SB 1001 Skinner.

Motion is do pass to the Floor. Current vote is three to zero. [Roll call].

Okay, four to zero. That Bill is out. Number eight, SB 1353 Wahab.

Motion is do pass to the Floor. Current vote is three to zero. [Roll call].

Bradford loves this, actually.

Bradford, Aye.

All right, that Bill is out, four to zero. Adjourned. We are adjourned. Thank you.