Speaker 1: Good afternoon. It's great to be with you. And I look forward to working with each of you this upcoming session. You know, we first want to congratulate our house members on their election. It's a lot a lot of door knocking and a lot of sign waving, but I'm proud of each and every one of them and look forward to working together to solve real problems for Floridians. And that's exactly what we're going to do. We talked a little bit about that today, with respect to the hurricanes and making sure we're addressing not only southwest Florida that was hit so hard by Ian, but also Nicole, and my area of the state that is really in pretty desperate situation along the beach after Nicole, as well as inflation, everybody, everybody, no matter what your background is concerned about the cost of living. And I mentioned today that we're going to get after that in a significant way as well as look at long term infrastructure. It is really important in a term limited world, where we have eight year term limits to make sure that we're doing things today that the benefits of which may be 20, 30 years in the future, but it's incumbent on us not to get drawn into that kind of term limited mindset to chase the next ribbon cutting. And that is exactly what we're going to do. We have very thoughtful members on both sides of the aisle, and I look forward to having them participate in those committees to address many of the major, major issues that Floridians count on us to make sure are there for them and are functioning well, well into the future. And with Florida growing as fast as it is, we have to do that in a thoughtful and methodical way. So I'm looking forward to your questions.

Speaker 2: Obviously, before we even get to the regular session, we have a special session coming up. And there's been a lot of talk about what policy we might see. I don't know if you can give us any specifics in some of the policy that we might see in that in that special session week. I know Democrats are open to maybe opening auto insurers up to initially providing homeowners insurance, also rate freezes. Where are you sitting with that?

Speaker 1: Well, I think there's a couple objectives. Let me talk about the goals. First of all is to create stability and capacity in the market. And we've had some insurers, as everyone knows, that have gone out of business. We've had some insurers that have had some insurers for quite some time that don't want to come in Florida. I even heard a story of one gentleman who owns an insurer that does business in 49 of the 50 states. I mean, he's located here but doesn't do business in Florida. That is not a good sign for the climate that we have in Florida. So first is making sure that we don't have people leaving, and that we grow capacity so that everyone has an opportunity to find a private insurer and not have to go into citizens, which is growing, as you know, rapidly. And that's a risk to the taxpayers because at the end of the day, each and every one of us in this room and everyone listening is going to underwrite the cost of that if there's a major storm for citizens policies. Secondly is doing what we can do. And I think we're going to look at the kitchen sink, frankly, of options and look forward to hearing from all the members in the House as well as the Senate. And once we do that, it's important for people listening to know that that will not result in an overnight drop in insurance rates. We have to see probably two, three years as those policies turn over and we see a drop in the tail of litigation and other things that have really contributed to the problem we're in right now. And so those two goals, stability and capacity in the market. And then eventually, once we do all that I expect we're going to do in this special session, I do believe we will see some downward pressure on rates, but don't expect it overnight.

Speaker 3: There's a lot of talk about the last property insurance bill. What's your take on some of

Speaker 1: that? I mentioned the kitchen sink. That's in the sink of things we're going to discuss. I don't think any decisions have been made, but it's certainly one that people point to as Florida being a bit of an outlier in how we operate there. But no decisions have been made, but that and all the other issues are in the kitchen sink to be discussed. I think probably in the next few weeks we'll see something emerge. And look, we just organized today. Members just got sworn in today. They deserve the respect of hearing from them. And so this is their opportunity now to give us their thoughts. And we'll have, I think, a very comprehensive package. I know we will. I think we have to, when I said kitchen sink, I think when you have a market that is challenged, I think it's fair to say, you have to consider things that I as a conservative would not wish to do, which is put up some of our reserves to backstop the private market. And I think it's important to say, and it's an important question to say that you do that only, the only justification for doing that is to do it alongside systemic reforms that are going to fix the problem. And again, grow that capacity from the private market and then let that support, whatever it might be, drop off. And so it would be temporary and it has to be contingent on getting major reforms so we actually fix the situation. I do not want to be in a situation where we make any kind of new long-term taxpayer commitment to underwrite insurance. That is not the goal. The goal is to have a healthy private market to then begin depopulating citizens so that we get back to where we were not so many years ago, which is a healthy, vibrant market where people can not have a cardiac arrest when they get their renewal bills, but people are suffering. And we talked about inflation today and we talked about attainable housing. A big component of making housing attainable for people is bringing down those rates, but it will not happen overnight.

Speaker 3: I would just say that stronger hurricanes, climate change is fueling stronger hurricanes, which is affecting a lot of the things we're talking about. Coastal issues, insurance markets, damages. I mean, when you went after the ESG today, is the house going to do anything about

Speaker 1: climate change? Well I don't think those two are at all inconsistent. I think we're going to do a lot in the area, I mentioned resiliency today. I think, and you mentioned hurricanes, I think we need to continue to press forward and think of ways we can incentivize mitigation efforts. And I toured the area down in Fort Myers that was so badly hit by the hurricane. And it was stunned and the contrast was stark to see a home that was built obviously recently, it didn't look like it was in a storm, much less a Category 4 hurricane, right next to a pile of rubble of construction that was pre-Andrew, pre-building code. So I think the lesson from that is the steps we have taken, Florida is getting better and better at hurricanes. And I promise you, I have great confidence and optimism that our ability as people to innovate and to strengthen our resiliency will outstrip anything that climate change sends our way. And so,

Speaker 2: yeah, I'm committed to do that. So what do you mean by we're getting better at hurricanes?

Speaker 1: What I mean is that the technology gets better, our plans we put in place, I mentioned the building code is one sterling example. After Andrew, we set up a new building code so that homes can withstand significant storms. And again, you see, when you go through these areas, it's the housing stock that was built in the 70s, the 80s, in low-lying areas, all of these things that suffered. And those that were built on higher ground more recently, better construction materials survived. And so that's just great resiliency 101. And I mentioned that I'm establishing today a select committee on hurricane resiliency and recovery. And the idea there will be to look at what we're dealing with right now in the recovery effort, but also to identify steps we can take, to your earlier question, to make sure that we are fortified for the coming storms.

Speaker 2: Is the goal there for recommendations or do you expect legislation to come out of that this session, the special committee you just talked about? Both. Okay. So you expect, I guess, I mean, you expect a bill this session to come from

Speaker 1: the special committee selection committee? I hope there'll be several things that we can take a look at. Absolutely. And it'll be a great forum to have lively discussion about everything that's already been asked about, about how do we prepare ourselves. But I want to put a note of optimism on this conversation. I really do believe we've proven it, that we are more resilient today than we were in the 1970s or 80s. And so whatever life and the weather and the climate may send our way, I'm confident in the innovation of the people of Florida and our ability to technologically outstrip and outpace anything that those storms may bring our way. I think we always have to be concerned about and we have what we want to provide for temporary assistance. But I think the challenge is what we've seen in all the massive COVID giveaways, both by Republicans and Democrats from Washington, DC, has been a pretty troubling drop in interest in work among a lot of people. Anybody you talk to, when I go around and say, what are the top three issues that Floridians face? Everybody says, I can't find anybody to work. It doesn't matter what the area is. And I think we have to be really careful when they did that and they stack those benefits on top of each other during COVID. And look, people can be rational and say, if I'm going to make more money getting benefits than working, then maybe I'll take a long vacation. So I think we have to be careful in setting up a system that takes care of people that lose their job. And I think what we saw in COVID is unacceptable, the fact that we couldn't process people. And that's an ongoing effort. But I think we need to be careful. We can always look at it, right? Because we are in these inflationary times. But I think we need to be careful to make sure we don't create the clearly unintended consequences that took place as a result of COVID relief. Yeah. Gary, hello. I wasn't, I didn't turn my back to you. I was

Speaker 4: looking for you. Regarding the 23 section, do you have any interest in changing election law to make sure that if somebody runs for federal office, they have an ongoing term, that they aren't forced to resign in case they lose the election?

Speaker 1: I think that's a great idea. You think that's a great idea? Yeah, I think we'll look at that. We'll look at election law generally. You know, let me note that what by 830 election night, we had the ballots counted, Democrat supervisors, Republican supervisors, it was not a partisan issue. After the embarrassment of 2000, we've done a lot of things to make it easier to vote, harder to cheat. And I'm really, really proud of all of our supervisors and everybody in the process for counting the

Speaker 4: ballots and getting it done. But to be clear, you're open to the idea of making it so that if say a governor is on the ballot, that they would not have to resign if they lost.

Speaker 1: That's right. Yeah, that he could come back is what you're saying. Yeah.

Speaker 4: In other words, well, currently the law is you would have to, if they qualify for the ballot,

Speaker 1: you would have to put in a letter of resignation. Right. Yeah. And let me just say, I mean, look, you will find me to always try to hone toward being principled and consistent. This is one area that, you know, going back in history, you don't have to go very far about a two second Google search we've been totally inconsistent on. And so if you think that's, you know, based on anything in your hypothetical, you would be right. And I'll be very open and transparent about that.

Speaker 4: So what would you say to the pro-life protesters that were saying Republicans need to step up and that they want life protected from the moment of concession?

Speaker 1: Well, I mean, first of all, I would say that the voters heard a lot about abortion during the election. And here in Florida, at least we elected super majorities in both the House and Senate. So we have pro-life majorities in both chambers with that conversation in front of the voters. Having said that, I can guarantee you that members on both sides have very different opinions about what it means to be pro-life. And so I think that'll be a conversation we'll have, you know, going forward after we hear from everybody.

Speaker 5: Just piggybacking on that question, your counterpart in the Senate is talking, maybe tightening the state's ban on abortions to 12 weeks. I know Representative Bartleby has talked about filing a bill that would be coming to Texas six weeks. Have you guys been able to

Speaker 1: ascertain how far you're willing to go on that? We haven't. We haven't gotten there.

Speaker 5: Part of what they were asking for on abortion on the fourth floor was added to the special

Speaker 1: session. Do you anticipate anything beyond property insurance being added to the scope of

Speaker 2: all abortion or anything else? Not at this time. What about special sessions? The governor has said maybe more than going beyond property insurance. Have you talked at all about that

Speaker 1: when Michael was speaking? Well, look, I think if I can just speak generally without specifics, I think from a legislator's perspective and to make sure that our members have an opportunity to really vet out issues, which is what our role is through committees and so forth, is that we should reserve special sessions for things that have a very time-sensitive nature, property insurance being one of them, if we're having people leave the state, and you can identify others. I think when that type of criteria is in place where there's a time-sensitive nature to it, then I'm open to special sessions and to what the governor has in mind and what President Pasadena has in mind, who all three of us have a very, I think,

Speaker 4: good relationship, and so we'll talk about it. I think you always have to look at what we've done

Speaker 1: and what's transpired, let that settle out and look, and whether the law is being followed, frankly, too. So that's another concern that we're going to look at. Are people actually following the law or are they skirting the law? There was a candidate back in my home area that went on the radio and said she would not follow the law and was running for school board. Fortunately, she lost. But we are going to look at that issue. Parents have the primary role in the raising of their children. And what I would say to you is this, is that, and I didn't talk specifically about reading today, but let me just say that this is a moral issue, is morally unacceptable that we have across the country, many kids who can't read on grade level. We need to put all this other stuff aside until we teach, as I said today, reading, math, general knowledge, and making sure kids are set up for success. That is a nonpartisan issue. Let's focus on the core basics and make sure we get that right. Florida has risen up the ranks in both K-12 or number one in higher education several years running. Let's keep it that way, but we can always improve, and that's one area that I want to improve, meaning you can't spend time on other stuff that's extraneous to teaching core basics.

Speaker 6: Mr. Smith, can I get you to comment? You were talking about COVID giveaways. The state has been getting enhanced Medicaid match money because of the public health emergency with COVID. It now looks like that public health emergency is going to be extended to get the state through the end of, the state and all the states, through the end of our fiscal year, at least. Do you feel like Florida should continue to get that enhanced money? I mean, we have more than 5 million people. With the enhanced money means you can't throw people off the roll. Where's your position? Should we continue to accept that money, or should we begin to take a look at maybe disenrolling some of these people?

Speaker 1: Well, we're waiting on the federal government, as you know, and so we don't get to really choose necessarily, and there's strings attached there if we were to do that. So I think the president has said that, I think it's some public statement, that the COVID emergency is over in the sense that we're moving on. What he's not said is that technically, and to your point, that the enhanced Medicaid match is over. And so I think it would be good, and I would recommend that if we're going to move on, let's move on, and let's begin that process of keeping those people who need the help, who are eligible today for Medicaid, and get those people off the rolls who may have lost their job for a week or two in 2020 and are back making six figures or whatever it is, which we obviously will have people in that category because of the rules put in place by the federal government, to leave everybody on. Nobody can be, as you stated, no one can be taken off the rolls until the emergency is declared over. Let's declare it over, and let's start to to move people off that don't belong there, that are no longer eligible. They may be already getting private health insurance from their employers. And I think it's time, if we're moving on, let's move on. I think everybody agrees on that now, but we haven't gotten that from the federal

Speaker 6: government. Just to clarify, you would want then the governor and the legislature to do something almost like what they did with the unemployment comp, just to go ahead and move on without having

Speaker 1: to wait for the federal government? No, I mean, we're waiting on the federal government. I think it's their move. And so I would just say, if they're saying it's over, then make it over, and don't leave things in place that say it's not over. That's it. Thank you guys very much.