 Good morning. You are with the Vermont House Government Operations Committee. We are meeting together this morning to consider an amendment to S 348 which is on today's House calendar for action. We are going to go first to the primary sponsor of the amendment. And so Linda Myers go ahead and and explain to us what you're trying to get at here in your amendment. Thank you Madam Chair I appreciate that I appreciate the opportunity to present this amendment. First of all I want to tell everybody and I will be telling everybody else. I'm in favor of voting by mail. So we can start off with that. When it came to this particular bill, I had some some reservations. So basically what I'm asking is to stripe out subsection C in this entirety, and instead, I have a new subject subsection that reads that the Secretary of State, if the Secretary of State orders or permits mailings that those ballots shall be returned in the manner prescribed in 17 vsa 2543, which is the early voter absentee ballot's return of ballots, but may be returned only by the voter, the justices of the piece who delivered the ballot, and or authorized family member, excuse me, or caregiver acting on the voters behalf. Then the amendment goes on to say if if if this section C is takes place and someone in it. I guess I guess the word is against the rule of law brings up absentee ballots that they shouldn't that there is a fine. And the Attorney General can tell the say that that will conduct a civil investigation and then I've added what family members actually mean, and what a caregiver means, and that's the amendment. Great. Thank you. Thank you. So I think it would be helpful to go to Chris Winters at this point and Chris I'll give you the freedom to bounce back and forth between you and will and Jim if if Jim would like to testify as well so thank you. Great. Thank you very much madam chair and and we always appreciate the opportunity to testify I can be very brief and, as you said, will sending is also here and he'd be happy to answer questions kind of about the mechanics of the bill and how it works. I would say here on behalf of the Secretary of State's office. As we previously stated in this committee and in the Senate, we strongly prefer a clean bill and a concurrence with the Senate language so we would object or opposed to this amendment opposed this amendment for for a number of reasons. The first of which is that this amendment is attempting to address a problem that that barely exists. Yeah, the reason provider is used is because they're, they're licensed to double zooming because that sounds like Mario. Thank you and for joining us. I say the amendment is attempting to address a problem that barely exists and to the extent that it does exist it's already illegal. It's illegal to impersonate a voter. It's illegal to vote someone else's ballot to influence a voter or to discard somebody's ballot these things are already illegal under current and prosecutable. We recommend concurring with the Senate language to allow us to get to work with a clear path forward as soon as possible. We've spoken time and time again about how time is of the essence. We need a decision quickly and we need to get on a clear path to a safe election and an election that is safe and secure in November. We would urge you to leave the return of ballot language to the Secretary of State's office. We're going to address return of ballots in a directive after really careful consideration with the clerks and with other stakeholders. We need to be thoughtful to ensure that any measures that we take around this around the return of ballots takes into account both election integrity and the inadvertent unintended consequence of disenfranchising voters if it's too narrowly drawn. We believe this amendment is too narrowly drawn. I am glad to see Carol Dawes on the call and I hope she gets a chance to speak to you about the many ways in which voters currently under our current law under our current system, get their absentee ballots back to the town clerk and limiting it to the language that you have in this amendment is constricting it we think probably a little bit too far. So regardless of how someone votes their ballot whether it's by mail or in person, it's already under against the law to impersonate or unduly influence a voter changing how a voter gets their ballot return to the clerk and no way changes the fact that that's illegal. So to argue that this language is necessary is is not really true in our view, the vote, the focus and the concern of this bill and of our election system ought to remain on allowing eligible voters being able to vote safely. Should there be a health crisis in the fall. And by all indications, we're going to have this virus come rearing back at roaring back at some point. We ought to be thinking about including ways to excessively receive vote and return ballots and to have votes counted so we oppose this amendment we don't think it's necessary we will be addressing return of ballots in a secretary of state directive. Before I wrap up, I'll just add that if you watched any coverage of the primary election in Georgia yesterday, or if you watched coverage of some of the primaries a week ago, Tuesday, it's like we're watching a car wreck in slow motion. Vermont is quite obviously not Georgia, but we can certainly learn from those other states we can learn from Georgia and we'd be foolish not to take those lessons to heart. Voters had to wait in line for several hours in some counties yesterday with some voters actually abandoning their spots in line because they had to wait too long. Some of the big problems that we saw there were the result of a lot of a lack of poll workers poll workers who decided they were not going to show up in a pandemic lack of trained poll workers, which is why we want to clear directive soon and a path so that we can educate and train. And we also saw, you know, this is just anecdotal, but it appears that there was a last minute surge of voters in areas like Atlanta in response to current events who didn't request or receive their absentee ballots in time. We're forced to come out in person and forced to stand in really long lines. We don't want to see that happen in Vermont in November there are obvious differences between some of these other states and Vermont but we think the best solution here is to ensure that every registered active voter gets a ballot in November, just in case so we can be prepared to avoid anything that comes our way, any of the unexpected that we could see in November. I appreciate the time. Thank you. Happy to answer any questions and again will setting is also on the line to answer your questions about the mechanics of this election season. Thank you Chris Robbler player has a question. Thank you madam chair and I don't know if it's a question for Chris or will but good morning gentlemen. Can you give me explain to me how anything about this amendment would would slow down the process as it currently is envisioned as far as mailing out the ballots in November. From my take on it there's nothing about this that would belay the getting the ballots and the envelopes and process in general then secondly Chris, you've referred to that you're going to be seeing a directive around the ballots after would you share with us what that's going to look like. Yeah it's it's to be determined representative Claire it's a good question. There are a lot of other states that put some kinds of guardrails we have some language already in current law. Like I said we want to talk to town clerks we want to talk to lots of other stakeholders who represent voters. About how narrowly we want to prescribe that to make sure that we get it right so that we protect both election integrity and protect people's right to vote to make sure that they can get their ballots back. So this will be a prepaid postage mailing. So we don't see this as being a big issue that most voters will be able to very easily put ballots in the mail. But as I think you'll hear from other testimony today, there are instances where people can't even get to their mailbox right so they need to have alternative methods to get their ballot back. So as long as that ballot is in the secrecy envelope it's signed it's sealed how it gets back to the town clerk is of less concern to us than some of the other issues that we're facing for the fall. Now that said we're going to address this in a directive but that language has yet to be determined and we do have a lot of other states to look at but we want a solution that's right for Vermont. So we're going to do slowing down the process at all. If we have further amendment on this bill, it's going to take longer in the legislature is going to have to go back to the Senate, we needed a decision on this. Over a month ago, we really were hoping to have a decision and hoping to be able to start our initiative and move forward with a clear path. Further amendment is in our view, really just going to going to slow things down further and we'd love to avoid that. And this is only about just taking the governor out of it as far as agreement. There's nothing else about this is there that prevents you from going ahead and doing what you need to do to get paired. We are doing a lot already representative of players and somebody I think you're aware of as far as ordering paper ordering ballots getting things printed getting things ready. As we've said all along it's really unfair to our elections team to the vendors that we're working with to ask us to enter into contracts purchase things spend money. There are a lot of things that we're doing that we're doing on shaky ground because we're not sure if the rug is going to be pulled out from under us in in November, or actually in August or even before then. So what we're looking for is some certainty and any further amendment here is, we think going to kind of interfere with that. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Madam chair. This is a question for Will Seneck. Can you give us an idea of how many cases of voter fraud have been discovered and prosecuted to my knowledge very few representative Colston and my entire time by eight years in the office nine years in the office and six or seven now as director. None that have been prosecuted. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Gardner. Thank you, Madam chair. My question is, how would the town clerk confirm that the person returning the ballot is indeed a family member, or a caregiver how do you envision that process working, especially with the COVID crisis. I would envision it's better for either for will or perhaps Carol Dawes, or perhaps representative Myers. Rep Gardner I would envision that being a self identification, you know, a statement from that person that that is the fact. You certainly would not want to burden the clerks with having to do any kind of investigation into whether that's true or not. That's my identification. Thank you. Much like I would liken it to there's the process now where an authorized person can request an absentee ballot on behalf of a voter. And in that case they they just submit the form saying as much and signing to that fact themselves that they have been authorized. Okay, thank you. Linda. And much what I think the only thing is is that in an instance that I'm looking at is an instance of, say, a senior development, not a nursing home, but something like a senior development, who someone might go in and offer to help people sign their and I have a really concerned about that I think if it's, as I said, if it's a family member. It's a caregiver, and there's a whole list of family and who constitutes family members down to grandparents in law, etc. But I just have a concern about groups of people who live together. Again, not those in nursing homes, but we have here in Essex we have several senior development facilities. They are apartments, they are condos. And I have a concern that someone may go around and say, Oh, hey, you know, here I am. We're not necessarily saying what what they do or who they are but I'd be more than willing to help you mark your ballot and take it down to the town offices. So that's the concern that I have. All right. Jim Harrison. This is for deputy secretary winners but I know you were asked about the delay and what I thought what we heard last week was the secretary's office was already proceeding as if we're going to do mail in ballots. We're making arrangements. Obviously, you can't print the ballots yet. But we're doing, you were doing everything else. Is that true? That's true representative Harrison. And one thing that I neglected to mention on my previous answer was that one thing we haven't been able to do is to give clear direction to the clerks and the poll workers about what we're doing because we're not sure what we're doing yet. We're not positive. We're making every preparation for the worst case scenario. But we have not pulled the trigger on any of that and the education and outreach piece and the training pieces is a really important aspect that we've had to hold off on. I understand. So your position then is just concur with the Senate, whether they made a technical mistake in the bill or not just concur because you want the bill as opposed to waiting till Friday when they can concur or tomorrow when they can concur with the House proposal amendment. I guess I'm I guess we decided we're comfortable with the bill as amended by the Senate wasn't our preference, but the fact that across the way that it did work, we're comfortable with that language. This further amendment we think muddies though the water on return of ballots in a way that may make it difficult for us to clarify in a directive. Maybe we did an interactive after further consideration. You know, I can appreciate that except that the languages from what I can see is pretty similar to what a lot of other states currently do and in fact, some states like neighboring Massachusetts, limited even further only immediate family. Some states say specifically a candidate cannot collect or a candidate's family cannot collect ballots. This doesn't narrow it to that. You know, I guess, you know, I don't, I think, I don't know that it's an issue of fraud. I think we're, we're going forth, apparently, and a totally new way of sending out ballots, and that we should put some bumper guards up on the return. We're going to wait to see if there's a problem. And then after the fact say, Oh, yeah, I guess we should have done something differently. We're trying to help provide some guidance there. And I just don't, I'm missing something because I right now under current law, and I think you would probably agree, anybody can collect and return ballots candidates interest groups, whatever. That's correct under current law representative Harrison the language, it maybe will sending would want to speak to that a little bit more clearly than I can. But I guess in response to that I would point out that we've had vote by mail we've had absentee ballots for many years, many, many elections hundreds if not mil hundreds of thousands if not even, you know, millions of votes by mail. And this issue has not been an issue. So we really don't see the need for this amendment. Yeah, no I understand what you're saying it's different though, when you mail a ballot to people who don't request them. A lot of the requested early ballots. And I know I've done it, I fill it out right at the town clerk's office. When I go into request it. It's a great opportunity for someone else to collect that or harvest that ballot. And many of the mail ballots for early absentee are turned around because the people are going to be away on election day and they want to get it done, and they requested it so they know they're voting. So it's different that's all. Thank you. John Gannon. Thank you. I just had a question for Representative Myers. What, what problem are you trying to solve by this amendment. I mean you started to talk about it but I just want to really understand what problem you're trying to solve here. I just have a problem with the idea that there's a possibility that someone could go to, as I said, a group home group home where seniors live who who have a tendency not to want to go to the polls. Actually, a lot of seniors do want to go to the polls, but who feel that they can't go it to the polls, especially in the case of. And the weather can be kind of chancey, and I am concerned that there may be a, an individual or a group of individuals who would take it upon themselves to go to these homes homes these developments and say, Hey, I'm coming here I'm going to go vote I'd be more than willing to And then I just don't know that those ballots to me those ballots would specifically make it, which is why I'm talking about family members into into a large amount of family members. So your concern is if that somebody picked up a number of ballots at an assisted living facility that they would not provide them to the, to the town clerk. Well, that's a possibility that's that's fraud but you know I understand and and and my amendment, you know, gives a legal definition and asks for the Attorney General's office or the Secretary of State's office to. If this is found out to find these people who may do this. And are you aware of instances of that happening in Vermont in past elections. I'm not aware, I am aware that has happened somewhere across the United States, specifically in Vermont I'm a justice of the peace in the town of Essex. I deal with elections all the time, but I just, this is something totally different this is something that someone's going to get in their own home that they never asked for. And maybe we'll say well gee, I don't necessarily know that I really want to do this, but oh, I understand someone's willing to pick this up for me. And I'll give it to them and I just have a concern about that it's it boils down to that one finite issue for me. Okay, so there's no instances of this happening in Vermont. What other instances are there across this country. I don't know specifically. I've done some reading but I haven't I can't bear down and say exactly what states have done this, but it's just I have this concern. Okay, thank you. Bob Hooper. John just did an excellent job of asking the line of questioning that I was going to to my, I'm glad to see you back Linda from the neighborhood of seat 99 and 100. I, I don't see this as much of a change at all. I was on the phone, as I was signing on to this zoom call with a friend from Pennsylvania who just went through their primary and said it was something that I would not repeat on YouTube. And quite frankly, Linda your example of having a family member do this. Your law is the last person in the world that I would want me to want to help fill out my ballot. So there's there's flaws there too. But my, my general question was the same as john's. Aside from an election being overturned because of ballot manipulation in Georgia or South Carolina. I don't think this has ever been much of a problem either so when I read your amendment. And my note to question you was, you have a concern what's the basis of your concern because I'd really like to hear it. And, and you concern is valid but I don't think there's any evidence of Vermonters ever going down this path. And, you know, notwithstanding the points that were made by a couple of our committee members. I don't think I have to answer for over a month that this is an important thing to get moving. And I agree. Let's move it on. Thank you madam chair. I don't think I have, I don't think I have to answer he's pretty much given given me his thoughts on it and I've responded to john previously. Yeah. And thank you for doing so. I have a couple other committee members and then I want to give and Donahue as a co-sponsor of the bill a moment to speak so Bob Hooper is going to put his hands down and Rob LeClaire. Thank you madam chair. You know I think we're kind of confusing the issue here I don't think that there's much disagreement that there hasn't been any document cases of voter fraud. I think you have to look too far and wide to look, there's been a lot of election fraud, a lot of election manipulation, and it's not any one party, it were, they're all guilty of it. But I believe that this is the main concern here and what this amendment would address. It's not the voter fraud, it's election fraud. And that's what we're certainly trying to make sure doesn't happen out there. And my other question just totally evaporated. Thank you madam chair. All right, put your hand back up when you think of your question again and Donahue. Okay, trying to unmute I've never used the iPad before but I've got my other thing going for my committee. Yeah. First time trying this. So I want to say I, I really support getting this out to people I support moving on it. I have some reservations but not enough to not support it. I'm worried about fraud. I'm worried much more about unintended pressure on folks and it specifically has to do with the very big difference that everybody will have a ballot, regardless of whether they would have intended to vote. And here's a scenario that I so easily picture because it is similar to what happens now. It's an added step so you got a pastor of a congregation who has always exhorted his or her parishioners to vote to follow the civic duty. And by the way, please vote for the most moral candidates or whatever the phrasing is. And parishioners here that make their own decision. You know, that pastor now knows they've all got a ballot at their home and in the best of intentions. What's to encourage they use it and, and goes out to them to their houses and say, Have you voted yet because I can pick it up for you right now and bring it just so that we make sure you don't forget. And that person is going to feel pressured about needing to go ahead and vote because my pastor wants me to and is right at my door. And, oh, that's right and wanted me to vote in a certain way. That's what I'm afraid of if you've got if people are allowed to go around to groups of people that they want to specifically make sure they don't forget and encourage to vote. And to vote a certain way. So, so that's what's in my mind on this one example of any number of folks who really well intentioned want to promote a good thing, and the way they would like to see votes come in. Maybe, maybe a simple limit you can't one person. I know a lot of states say you can't, you can't bring in more than 10 ballots for other people or something like that. But this is the core in terms of what problem you're trying to get at. I think, I think we know the existence of groups of people who are encouraged to vote a certain way so we know that exists. It can't be overbearing currently because you're not going to people at their home, but with all the ballots going out to people who didn't ask for them. It does, I think create a much expanded opportunity for that encouragement to go beyond the line of what we'd want to see it go and the, and that's my concern and what I was attempting to address with this amendment. Thank you. Chris or will any response to that relative to law and current practice or relative to the directive that you expect to send out. Thank you for Madam chair. Thank you. I'm struggling a little bit with what the, the, the problem is in, you know, here in some ways this is describing people encouraging other people to vote, which is a good thing. Because it's when it, when it crosses that line and telling them how to vote, the, the undue influence piece of this is illegal or taking their ballots and filling them out is illegal. I, you know, I think this is addressed under current law I understand the, the concern, but don't see it as that much different than the existing system that we have where, for example, a bunch of sailors on the on a ship in the middle of the ocean are voting by mail and their commanding officer is telling them they ought to exercise their right to vote and perhaps even a pining about how they should vote that happens all the time as well with a pastor encouraging their congregation. But it's the, it's the individual sacrosanct private right to vote that we're trying to encourage and protect here and voting by mail is one way to do that in the middle of a pandemic. I guess I don't see this language as addressing the problem that's that's being described or perhaps addressing it in too restrictive of a way that has unintended consequences on people being able to get their ballots back in. Thank you. Thank you. So committee we've got a couple more people we need to hear from and, and I do want to make sure that we get through all of the different perspectives on this. I'm going to go to Ella spots would next the the amendment that is being proposed here does contain a violation and fine provision that and I'm just curious to hear the perspective of the secretary or the AG's office with respect to voter fraud. And I'm just curious to hear your thoughts on this and prosecution. Certainly. So, thank you madam chair. I'll keep it relatively brief. I'm really just echoing a lot of what the secretary of state has said. We really only just got to see this amendment this morning. I know the secretary of state's office has been working on this bill a lot longer. But how it will operate in terms of the fine specifically. I would echo that we have a number of provisions already that penalize the sorts of things that we've been talking about this morning, including under influence to dictate control or alter the vote of the voter. As well as, you know, tampering with ballots, or otherwise, interfering with ballots being counted, which seems to me to be at the heart of the amendment I could be wrong about that. And I would echo again that we do have a robust history of absentee voting in Vermont. And from the enforcement perspective. I know we'll sending touched on this a little bit but we really haven't seen a need for further penalties here beyond what we already have, which again I think is pretty duplicative of what's being proposed. Obviously, ultimately, it's sort of a policy decision, which is the jurisdiction of the committee and will enforce whatever we've got but I think the, the laws that we already have on the books, which penalize undo influence over voting and interference with ballots being counted have been certainly sufficient in the past and from our point of view are still sufficient. I'm happy to take questions. Thank you, Ella JP. Thank you madam chair, my question I have is concerning the laws on the books. And specifically, are they criminal or a civil numbers criminal offense or civil offense deal and criminal maybe dealing with jail time and civil would be strictly fines. Can you just tell me what they, what they are currently. Okay, those are civil fines. Similar, I think to the proposed amendment which is also civil fines. Okay, so there is no criminal offense of voter frauds. There are some criminal provisions which I think get to slightly different offenses, including making a giving perjury to the board in terms of whether or not someone is authorized to be on the checklist for instance, that contains criminal penalty, anything that really anything under the penalties of perjury would contain criminal be subject to criminal penalties. But specifically perjury before the board making the checklist is subject to imprisonment of not more than 15 years. I think that's the main criminal one for voter related fraud type of provisions. Again, we have not had to enforce these really at all. So, for the most part they're civil fines, and we do have some criminal provisions if we need them. Okay, and I believe you commented that the, the current civil fines are consistent with those fines listed in the proposed amendment is that correct. They're not the same. So, most, most of the election related sort of fraudulent activity type provisions are subject to fines of up to $200. So the, certainly the provision in the amendment of not more than $1,000 fine is is slightly cheaper than what we have. For the most part they are all up to $200 with the exception of that criminal perjury provision that I discussed. So it's pretty, pretty cheap to commit a committee civil offense of what we're considering voter fraud with harvest balloting or excuse me ballot harvesting and things about nature but so the fines in the proposed amendment are a little stiffer might give a little bit more deterrent. Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate it. All right, I don't see any other committee hands up at the moment so I'm going to go next to Carol Dawes. So Carol as a as a town clerk and on on the ground, local elections administrator. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the issues around return of ballots. Thank you, Madam Chair. I, I, here in Barry, as an example, I have people who come to the polls and bring with them a dozen ballots that they have collected from neighbors, it's a neighborhood thing. It's a way she helps her neighbors she goes around and collects ballots for them. We expect to see her come in with those ballots her neighbors expect that it's part of their relationship as neighbors. One of my big concerns is, is how that would affect those voters going forward how would they be how would we educate them that no they can no longer do that they can no longer give their ballot to this neighbor that they have to find a different way either through the mail or or whatever on and so that's one of the things that concerns me under the current law, anybody can return a ballot for them, and anybody can assist a voter who in filling out their ballot. We have people come to the polls, again with a friend or neighbor and ask that that friend or neighbor go into the ballot booth with them and help them fill out their ballot. That's their right. And I'm concerned that we're looking at it that we need to look at it from the side of the voter, and that putting these kinds of restrictions on might have unintended voters suppression outcomes associated with it. And I think that that we need to make sure that that the voters still have those rights to have the assistance that they want and to use whatever methods, as it actually says in statute to buy whatever method, get the ballot back to the clerk's office. Thank you so much. I appreciate your, your, your laying it out as a balance point to make sure that we're not inadvertently disadvantaging voters who may need help when when you see a voter ask for someone to help them fill out their ballot. Is that because of a language barrier because of an inability to read or poor eyesight, what, what are some of the situations in which you might see a voter come and ask to have someone join them in the back in the voting booth. Certainly there are times when we can, we can make an assumption based on seeing the person it may be apparent that they, that they need assistance physical assistance or assistance in reading a ballot. We certainly don't ask what the reasoning is it's it's the voters right. There are instances where where we don't know exactly what the relationship is on, but it's the voter that is making the choice. You know, we would be a little circumspect if somebody came in and said, I'm dragging this person into the voting booth and helping them vote but we don't see that we see it's the voters choice and we would certainly want to maintain that. Any other questions from committee members for Carol. All right, I don't see anybody diving for their little blue hand. Ella. I'm sorry I just wanted to correct one thing that I said in my testimony in terms of the fines that are already on the books. Didn't want to leave that misrepresentation hanging. There is a class of offenses that are punishable by fines of up to $1,000. For voters who knowingly vote twice in the same election on the same day, or someone who actually goes into the place and attempts to change the way that somebody's voting. So that is punishable by up to $1,000. That's the more serious level of fine that we have. Thank you for that clarification. Hal Colston. Thank you, Madam Chair, I just want to make a comment. I recall from a previous debate on another bill from one of the esteemed members of our committee, who made the comment that we're looking for a solution for a problem that we don't have. So, I really share that sentiment with regards to this amendment. Thank you. Other questions. Any other perspectives that you would like to hear from from these witnesses. All right. So I would welcome a committee member to make a motion with regard to this. This proposed amendment. And Mike murwiki. With a quick draw on the little blue hand. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move that we find this amendment unfavorable. Thank you. So, Marsha is probably filling out the, the committee roll call sheet as we speak on amendment to age 348. And when you're ready, Marsha, you can go ahead and call the roll. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am ready to start representative cannon. Yes. Representative murwiki. Yes. Clarification. Yes, clarifying that Mike's motion was that we find this unfavorable. So yes means no. Was that what you were asking? Yes. Thank you. Gotcha. I get confused. Representative Leclerc. Yes means no. No means yes. Rob, are you muted still? I didn't hear you answer. No, ma'am. So your focus now. Thank you. Representative Harrison. No. Gardner. Yes. Representative plastic. No. Representative Hooper. Yes. Representative Brown out. Yes. Representative Colston. Yes. Representative Copeland. Yes. So the vote is seven. Yes. Three. No. And one absent. Right. Thank you all for being with us this morning. I believe we are on the floor at two. So, um, hopefully you'll have a chance to get some fresh air and maybe not be on constant zoom calls between now and two o'clock. Okay. Thank you. Madam chair. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. I appreciate it. Thank you for being with us this morning, Linda. And I don't know if, um, and Donahue may have already gone back to healthcare committee, but, um, thank her as well. And, uh, thank you to the other folks who were able to join us this morning. Um, particularly Ella for jumping right in on this. Um, so, um, I just wanted to say thank you for being with us this morning. So thank you for your quick turnaround on that. And I'll see many of you on the floor zoom this afternoon. Thank you.