Speaker 1: back in his natural habitat. Good afternoon. Who's up first?

Speaker 2: Yeah. Sure. Yeah, look, it was the indictment of the

Speaker 1: Twitter culture that somebody posts something that they believe is patriotic or supporting the country, and then people start equating motives to them that didn't exist. So what I said in the speech, Gary, was, look, those two things are not the same. In fact, being patriotic and loving America is a rejection of things like white nationalism or any kind

Speaker 2: of doctrine that divides America. Sure. No, no, I don't think that's that. You know, they're

Speaker 1: all the members. All the members that were that were tested that were in the chamber tested negative. The individual members, I think that you're mentioning were test were in fact tested prior to coming into the Capitol or being around people or being at their desks

Speaker 3: today. All I'll get back to everybody. General gets you the specifics, but I can. I think

Speaker 1: that John's question was about people who are wearing masks. As far as I know, John Jenna Jenna can get with you with a specific, but but anyone who was wearing mass, which I think was not wearing mass, which was your question, was tested. We had positivities. Yes. No, because I said they were all tested. They all tested negative. They were in the

Speaker 4: chamber. Look, I think that this is the reason that we created the pandemic and

Speaker 1: public emergencies committee. And it was it was a standing committee. It wasn't a select committee, as we've done in the past after things like hurricanes was really to go back and take a look at all the things that took place. How can we be prepared for future pandemics and future public emergencies? It's one of the things I mentioned in the speech today was how whether it's on hurricanes and things that we don't want to be reacting, we want to get ahead of a problem. This is something we've never had to deal with before. Not just the legislature. No governor's ever had to deal with this. So it's unique. And we need to take lessons learned from it and figure out how do we make Floridians more prepared for the future?

Speaker 4: If a Floridian tests positive for the virus and still needs to go to work, but doesn't have serious symptoms, you know, it seems like that's a place the legislature could step in and create a program or some kind of opportunity for that Floridian. What do you see as the role of government in making sure that the pandemic is still ongoing?

Speaker 1: Well, look, you mentioned work, which is something I spent a lot of time talking about. And the reality is, whether it was somebody who was on unemployment or whether it's somebody who now is working from home or working remotely, the idea of how we deal with work in Florida is wildly important. And I mentioned that we've spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the years on these fragmented workforce systems that only measure the inputs and not the outcomes for Floridians. That's something that we should change. It's even more important that we change it, that we live in this new environment. I also mentioned that there's opportunities coming out of the pandemic to look at how we do things in different ways. So for example, people who might now be engaging in remote work and more of a permanent basis. Is there an opportunity for us to promote places in rural areas for them to come and to live and to work? And in doing so, should we invest in things like rural broadband to make that more possible?

Speaker 5: You were talking as if the pandemic is the rear view mirror and so you want to address things going forward. But it's not the rear view mirror. Florida's economy isn't going to return until tourists start coming back. And the way they can come back is when they feel confident that Florida's a safe place to be. Yeah, I don't think I'm at all focusing on the rear view mirror. I think it's a very

Speaker 1: I mentioned in the speech that it's impacting our families, impacting our communities, our schools, our churches. My point is, if somebody is out of work, or the question that I was just asked was, you know, if somebody is having a different work environment, or they're concerned about their workplace, or they're out of work, what do we do? My point is, the best thing that we can do for people as the legislature and the role of the legislature is to eliminate those barriers that are making it difficult for them to work. Or if they're out of work, figure out the best way to make sure that they can get a job that they want. That's going to give them a sense of purpose, and make sure that they have the ability and the resources to know where that job is, how they can find it and how they can become qualified to get it.

Speaker 6: I do think part of the challenge here is is that we're also still learning a lot about

Speaker 1: this virus. And that changes on a fairly regular basis. So I don't know how businesses would feel about that. I think one of the things that we've done is to allow employers to engage with their employees in that conversation and consult CDC guidelines and do what they think is safe based on medical advice. Part of that is, I think, where COVID liability probably comes into play, to making sure that businesses who are doing the right thing, who are trying to follow the latest science and the latest CDC guidelines, are protected against a frivolous lawsuit later on.

Speaker 2: Do you see federal stimulus as being vital to Florida now for putting together a budget and continuing unemployment benefits? Or are you okay with, if Congress cannot reach an accord, going ahead and cutting the budget?

Speaker 1: Look, I think we come into this, you know, myself and President Simpson looking at, you know, cutting the budget. And that's what we're not going to base our decisions based on what might happen in, you know, with the federal government. You all been here a really long time. So, you know, even when we have things like hurricanes, and we're, you know, quote, guaranteed funding reimbursement from places like FEMA, you know, we may never get that by the time, you know, the term ends in the two years. So, we never base our assumptions on our budget based on what might take place. We'll certainly be watching it, John, and anxiously seeing what the federal government will do. But I think the CARES money obviously helped us get through financially. As we come into this, this new session, we'll look at, you know, trimming the budget in places that we need to, to, you know, make up for any kind of shortfall. Well, look, I mentioned, I mentioned higher education and looking at higher education as center to, you know, to our budget conversations this session. No, that would be their private health information. So we wouldn't, we wouldn't communicate that. There was not an opportunity. Those people were coming to town, they were scheduled to take a test. They weren't, you know, in the building socializing with members or anything like that. To the extent that there were issues where, you know, if it was a staff member or something like that, you'll have to ask Jenna about the, about any particular tracing issues.

Speaker 3: Correct. That's correct. Correct. Yes, ma'am.

Speaker 7: Sure. Look, I, you know, I sat, you know, stood next to the governor at the press conference

Speaker 1: when he announced that bill. I think it's wildly important that people who are driving to work or taking their kids to school, you know, don't find themselves in a situation where they're surrounded, their car surrounded and people are jumping up and down on their vehicle or, or looting or rioting and businesses. So I think it's important that we send a signal that that's not the kind of behavior that we allow in Florida. Yeah, actually the car I was thinking about happened in St. Petersburg. The one I had in my mind when I was just describing it, there's a car driving down the road, it's surrounded, somebody gets up on the hood. I mean, you can imagine how terrifying that would be if you're just driving down the road and that happened to you. You know, that shouldn't happen to anybody. It shouldn't happen to anybody in other States. It shouldn't happen to anybody in Florida.

Speaker 3: David, we'll go back to the pandemic stuff. And one of the pieces you have talked about really is those liability protections. Yeah. And do you anticipate doing some sort of, if the House is eating up a package of those liability protections, what do you anticipate that looking like? What are some of the things you're considering in that silo of all? Sure. Yeah, we're looking at COVID liability. I think that, you know, certainly that's something

Speaker 1: that I think that we should do that would give businesses confidence to be able to operate. I think what you're asking is, hey, kind of what are the details? Yeah. And I think, look, this is what this today was about, right? Is, you know, the organization session to get members feedback on what that should look like. I think we all agree it's a problem that we need to figure out the best way to solve, making sure that people who were going about, you know, going about it kind of the right way, trying to do the right thing for their customers and employees don't get, you know, blindsided by a frivolous lawsuit while making sure that if somebody is doing the wrong thing, that they're still held accountable.

Speaker 8: So you wouldn't endorse blanket immunity for some of these essential businesses as some

Speaker 1: associations have called for? I don't even know how you would do that. Right. So, I mean, theoretically, there's probably the made up version, right, of somebody who's doing something really, really sinister and terrible. I don't think any of us would want to give anyone like that a blank check. I also don't know of anyone that's even an allegation that that's happened. But certainly, as we do this, we have to take all of those things into consideration.

Speaker 3: That would seem to need a kind of a better contract-facing program to figure out who got what, where. It would imply that, is there anything the legislature is going to do or do you want to do to improve the state's capabilities in that specific regard as far as contract-facing and figuring out, you know, pay-to-keep?

Speaker 1: Look, I think that, you know, one of the things that this House, I think, has done really well anytime we've had a crisis, now most of them have been hurricanes, right, is to go back and say, all right, what are the things that worked? What are the things that didn't work? Where can we improve? As I said in my speech, I think all professions, all things can improve. And that's one of the reasons we created the standing committee for, you know, pandemics and public emergencies, was specifically to look into things like that. What's the latest technologies? I also believe that one of the things that's going to come out of a pandemic like this is a lot of innovation, because the market has now rushed to respond to various different things. You know, people have different kinds of masks, for example. Some of them are made where I live in Pinellas County. These are different kinds of innovations that happen. I think we're going to see, you know, various forms of technology innovations that we need to look at.

Speaker 9: Going back to the budget situation real quick, would you rule out any sort of revenue increases or increases to address the budget situation? Senator Simpson mentioned the career online tax sales bill, but not exactly, which he does not consider a...

Speaker 1: Yeah, I'd rule out tax increases, which, you know, but what you're suggesting is, you know, something like the sales tax collection on something, you know, sales tax already exists. You know, there's a sales tax in the state of Florida. So, you know, but anything that, you know, Senate President Simpson, you know, wants to have a conversation with, I'm absolutely open to talk to him about.

Speaker 8: Including tuition increases, because he put those on the table. I'm curious, given what you just said about a sales tax, like it already exists, therefore it's not new. Would you think that a tuition fee increase, because tuition exists, that the increased tuition would not then require a special two-thirds benefit?

Speaker 1: Look, I'm open to talking to him about a lot of different topics. What I had said today in the speech, though, about higher education and degrees is that we shouldn't be subsidizing, I think, as taxpayers, every degree to the same degree. I think we need to figure out what it is that is important for our state, what pushes us forward economically speaking, and there should be an incentive for universities to want students to be in those degrees, and not all those degrees should be funded at the exact same level.

Speaker 10: What kind of rules are you considering for committee weeks and session in regards to containing the spread of the virus within the building, in terms of contact tracing, how long members would be out, or whoever would be out, staffed out, if you had the

Speaker 1: virus, that kind of thing? Well, as you saw through the memos that we released for organization session, we had a number of protocols for people to come up here. We also elected, while we were up here, Brian Avila as our speaker pro tem. He's also doubling, you may have read, he's kind of our COVID czar for all things COVID in the chamber, you know, getting with our staff as far as protocol. So at the appropriate time, that gives members plenty of time to plan. We will have a similar rollout like we did for organization session, where we'll roll out to the members and their staff, these are the COVID protocols for the beginning of committee weeks.

Speaker 4: Given that President Biden received, or President-elect Biden received over 4 million votes in Florida, what does it mean that top leaders of your party, including Governor DeSantis, have yet to acknowledge his victory? Will you do so?

Speaker 1: Look, there's legal battles that are still happening, and there's a time certain, just like, you know, we're no stranger to this. In the year 2000, there was legal battles well into mid-December. It's not something that has been unique to the electoral process. So that's going to play out over the next couple of weeks. And there is a time certain for it to end. I think, and I've said this from the beginning, I think as everyone else has, I believe every legal vote should be counted. I think every illegal vote shouldn't be counted. What I would say for us, as Floridians, is that it's pretty, you know, it's pretty good, I think, for the state of Florida to look across the country and to say, look how better our laws and the implementation of those elections are considered the rest of the country. And if you look at those states and you look at how they deal with early voting and counting absentee ballots and how long they wait, I think what you'll find is that they're about 20 years behind us on updating their statutes as it comes to election law.

Speaker 10: Given the budget situation, in terms of trying to find a little more wiggle room perhaps, is there more of an opportunity this year than other years to change perhaps the 85% rule, allow some in the criminal justice system, allow people to get out of parole?

Speaker 1: Well, considering you asked those two questions together, right, so I don't look at, you know, public safety as a cost-saving measure. You know, if something is, you know, protecting our families or keeping them safe, I don't think that's something that we can afford to let go of. If you're asking kind of a separate question about, hey, will you look at, you know, bigger reforms to the Department of Corrections because they make sense from a policy position and don't put our families at risk, you know, I meant what I said, you know, there's an open door to talk about those kinds of things. But, you know, government does exist to protect people and it's one of our foremost priorities.

Speaker 6: Can you tell me how you would describe how Donald Trump has changed the party since he started and what he learned this election cycle about what your party needs to do to keep his voters engaged?

Speaker 1: Well, look, I think that, you know, Floridians, you know, delivered a landslide for the president by our standards, right? 3% in Florida is a landslide. It might not be for other states, but it is for us on statewide elections. And I think a lot of that has to do with, you know, the president was willing to call out as a Republican, you know, things about government and how government operated and push back. Look at us. Last session, you all were here covering, you know, drug importation was one of the bills we did in the House. I don't think any of us could think of an American president who would have done what Donald Trump did, pushing back as hard as he did against pharma and probably even a bigger achievement, pushing back against kind of the deep state of CMS to say, hey, we're going to do this and we're going to make this happen. So I think that that's a lesson for Republicans to say, look, we should push back as hard as we need to. We need to be as bold as we need to. If it's in the bench, best interest of Floridians and the best interest of middle class families. The pills are the same. Same pills. This is one of those issues where, you know, several years ago, if you would have asked me, I would have said, oh, my goodness, we need to do, you know, workers' comp. And I think we one year we passed it. The next year we pass it on week one of session. And then to your point, you know, rates kept going down and down and down. And I think that now now the kind of the prevailing wisdom is, you know, maybe, you know, don't don't fix something, fix something that's not broken at the moment when it comes to workers' comp and the rates. So, you know, I'm most certainly willing to look at it. But I think certainly the rate trends are a good indicator. It's something we can take a look at in the pandemic's committee and see if, you know, there's anything there that we need to do to modernize any of our laws.

Speaker 11: Yeah.

Speaker 1: I think all of them, right? I mean, express way. I mean, literally everything. If I and at some point maybe we'll do this, right. If I got to roll out, you know, and kind of paper form the amount of boards, councils, taxing authorities, special districts. Last time I checked, we had like twelve hundred special districts in the state. If we rolled those out, literally nobody would fit in this room. I mean, nobody would be here. I mean, it is vast, totally uncharted and absolutely unaccountable. My point was, Steve, was that some of it were kind of relics of the era when Democrats were in control and some of them were created by Republicans. But the Republicans, one, were more about the private sector, you know, thinking that, hey, we would get market and innovation and all these things by doing it this way. And the reality was, you know, they acted that way when it came to, you know, pay and perks and junkets and things like that, but not when it came to, you know, innovation and so forth. So I think when it comes to those things, considering that they have such a vast authority to tax and regulate spending behavior, that those are things that we should look at and make sure that those that are not producing outcomes are eliminated and those that are have transparency and accountability.

Speaker 3: I think if you are, if you are one of those entities, if you're one of those

Speaker 1: boards or taxing authorities or entities who's kind of been able to operate in the darkness and not have to worry about your outcomes, then, yeah, I would be worried. I would be worried that we're going to demand that those outcomes are measured. You should be worried that we're going to want transparency. And if you're not producing outcomes and you're not being transparent and there really is no positive use for you, then, yeah, you should be especially worried because

Speaker 3: we'll look to eliminate. No, it's actually more of a, it's a massive

Speaker 1: structural example. I think what, you know, when I mentioned the Tiffany Carr situation with the Council Against Domestic Violence is, you know, there's, there's an example of something that we all agree if we all said, hey, would you think that we should combat domestic violence? All of us would say, absolutely, of course. And yet here's an entity that was enriching someone's private, you know, private pocketbook instead of looking out for people who they were supposed to. And I think what it opened, certainly opened my eyes to is that this can't be the only one. And we've known from my time in the legislature that when we, you know, lift open the couch cushions, we never know what we're quite going to find. Well, we're going to lift open the couch cushions and we're going to see what we're going to find. All right. Thank you all very much.