Senate in Session

All unauthorized persons will please leave the chamber. All senators and guests in the gallery, please silence all electronic devices. All senators, indicate your presence, please. A quorum is present, Mr. President. Good morning. The Senate will be in order. Senators and guests in the gallery, if you would, please rise for the opening prayer to be given by Pastor Louis M. Murphy, Sr. with Malzahn Progressive Missionary Baptist Church in St. Petersburg. Pastor Murphy is sponsored, of course, by Let us pray Heavenly Father Creator of the heavens and the earth Creator of all mankind What a privilege it is to come before your glorious throne First to give praises to your holy and righteous name To acknowledge your presence your authority your dominion over the entire universe truly thine is the power the glory and the majesty we thank you for the privilege of living in a land where voices may be heard laws may be debated and leaders may serve the people entrusted to their care today we lift before you the members of this senate Grant them wisdom beyond their own understanding, courage beyond their own strength, and integrity that will guide every decision they make. Help them remember that leadership is not about power, but about service. Give them humility to listen, the patience to deliberate carefully, and the discernment to pursue what is right and just for all people. Where there is division, grant them a spirit of cooperation. Where there is confusion, grant them clarity. Where there is pressure, grant them steadfast character. May the laws considered in this chamber promote justice, protect the vulnerable, strengthen communities, and uphold the dignity of every citizen. Father, we thank you for the service of your son, our brother, Senator Darryl Irvin Roussan, for eight years in the House, ten years in the Senate. Let him know his work has not been in vain. Give him clarity. Give him direction and protection in the next chapter of his life. And others serving as well, when their work is done, may it be said that they too have governed with fairness, compassion, and sincere commitment to the common good of all mankind. In your holy and righteous name, we pray. Amen. Please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. Be led by Senate Pages. And that is Ayla Lang of Elgin Air Force Base. All right. Sponsored by Senator Trumbull. Bryce Stewart of Tallahassee, sponsored by Senator Simon and Alexandra Whitaker, which is the daughter of Tallahassee, which is the daughter of our beloved Senate staffer, Ronnie Whitaker, and sponsored by Senator Simon. The United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under ***, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Our doctor of the day today is Dr. Chet Anthony of Aster, sponsored by Senator Wright. Dr. Anthony specializes in family medicine. All right, we've got a couple of introductions. Senator Trumbull, are you ready for an introduction? All right, you recognize. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Senators, yesterday we heard from Senator Yarbrough, who introduced his intern. His name was Nolan Ryan. Well, I'll take Nolan Ryan and raise you Joe DiMaggio. really quick Joe's been an absolute wonderful addition to our office Joe's a junior at Stetson he serves on campus as a brother of Delta Sigma Phi Joe was first as he first introduced himself to our office he you know quickly said hey my name is Joe DiMaggio yes I am a distant relative of jolt and joe and before anyone asks no I cannot play baseball um but uh joe uh you have done a tremendous job for our office thanks for being a wonderful gatekeeper and look forward to your incredible success at stetson and look forward to seeing the great things you're going to do in the future so thank you good job joe senator gates and I think also leader burman you're going to do this together? Thank you, Mr. President. August 9th is very significant in the history of Florida because it was on that date in 1983 that Governor Bob Graham announced the Save Our Everglades program to restore Everglades National Park and preserve and protect America's great river of grass. I'm especially privileged as a Republican from the Panhandle who deeply admires Bob Graham that the Graham family asked me to join in sponsoring this resolution and it's especially appropriate as well that Leader Berman, a Democrat from South Florida, joins me in sponsoring the resolution and with your permission I yield to the minority leader. Thank you Mr. President. Today we honor and recognize the life and legacy of the late U.S. Senator and Governor Bob Graham. Governor Graham was a thoughtful and dedicated public servant who truly embodied what it means to serve the people of Florida. Governor Graham began his political career across the building in the Florida House of Representatives before serving in this very chamber as a member of the Senate. During his time as a representative and senator, he worked diligently and tirelessly on issues that he believed mattered to him, such as education, health care, protecting the state's unique environment, and at the time, Florida's rapid growth. He then moved on to serve as our state's 38th governor, where he truly displayed his humility and deep respect for all Floridians. If you do not know, as governor, Graham had famous work days where he would step outside the governor's office to work alongside other Floridians in a variety of different jobs. These range from teaching in a classroom to mucking horse stalls, participating in over 400 work days. As a humble leader, Governor Graham wanted us to know what it felt like to live in the shoes of the diverse people he served and learn firsthand about the challenges they face. Eventually, he moved on to serve Florida on the national level, serving as U .S. state senator for eight years. He was widely known for his willingness to work with those on both sides of the aisle. He did not let partisanship get in the way in ensuring that the people of Florida were being rightfully served. Even after retiring, Senator Graham continued to pour into the lives of Floridians. He went on to work with the state's next generation of leaders through the Bob Graham Center for Public Service at the University of Florida to stay engaged in teaching civics and public service. Today, as we celebrate Governor Graham, we remember him for his public service and the offices he held, and also the example he set as an individual. He believed in the value of everyone. May we continue to serve our constituents and the people of Florida as he did, with humility, respect, and unwavering admiration for our state of Florida. Mr. President, the resolution that is before you, which we will ask be accepted and approved, has a final whereas clause, which I'll read. It says, whereas throughout his 38 years in public's office and nearly 20 years thereafter, as an author, a speaker, and an advocate, Bob Graham worked tirelessly to further environmental preservation, economic opportunity, public education, national security, and civil rights, and his outstanding record of service has established Bob Graham as one of the most accomplished public figures in the history of Florida. And therefore, Mr. President, I join Leader Berman in moving this resolution to designate August 9th, 2026, as Bob Graham Day in the state of Florida. And Leader Berman and I request that a signed copy of this resolution be provided to First Lady Adele Graham, Congresswoman Gwen Graham, and the Graham family. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for the resolution. It will be adopted in the journal. Thank you. Any further introductions? Leader Boyd, you have something to share. You're recognized. I do. Thank you, Mr. President. Senators, if you'll join me for just a moment in this somber moment for me with a very heavy heart. I'd just like to take a moment to honor firefighter Roger Timmy Miley who passed away recently in our district although I didn't have the privilege of knowing Timmy personally excuse me he served with East Manatee Fire Rescue in Manatee County and was deeply loved and respected by his fellow firefighters Timmy's dedication to serving others and his compassion for the community reflect the best of public service as we remember Timmy let's also recognize the men and women who protect us daily. Their responsibilities can be heavy and the well-being of those who serve must never be overlooked. We are reminded that we may never truly know the burdens that someone may be carrying and we must continue to support and care for those who selfishly care for us. Our hearts and our prayers go out to Timmy's family and his friends. It's a tough time for them but thank you for helping us honor Timmy today. Thank you for calling our attention. *** be with them. Let's have a moment of silence. Thank you. Doctor of the day is Dr. Chet. Oh, I think I've already done that. We already have a doctor of the day announced. Please excuse me. I don't think he's changed. Yes. Hello. Okay. Oh, look at that. Hey, there you go. Let's give him a round of applause. Thanks for being here. There you go. All right. Any other introductions? Okay, good deal. Take up the special order calendar and read the first bill. I'm going to hold up on reading that bill. Let's see. Let's do the order of business. Yes. Are there reports of committees? Not on the desk, Mr. President. Are the motions related to committee reference? Not on the desk, Mr. President. Messages from the governor or other executive communications? Not on the desk, Mr. President. Messages from the House of Representatives. None on the desk, Mr. President. The matter is on reconsideration. None on the desk, Mr. President. Okay, good. Now, take up the special order calendar, and we can now read the first bill. Committee substitute for committee substitute for Senate Bill 7048, a bill to be entitled and act relating to the Internal Revenue Code. Senator Gates, you are recognized to explain the bill. Thank you very much, Mr. President. In the absence of Chair Avila, who is in deployment with the National Guard, and we wish him well and hope he'll come back safely. I offer this explanation of 7048. On July 4th, 2025, H.R. 1, commonly known as the Big Beautiful Bill, became law and made significant changes that would affect Florida's corporate income tax code. The more significant changes in the federal bill were an accelerated depreciation of assets, allowing immediate expensing for domestic research and experimental expenditures, increasing the deduction for business interest expenses, increasing the amount of business meals eligible for deduction. The Big Beautiful Bill also allows the effects of certain provisions to operate retroactively to earlier dates. Senate Bill 7048 adopts the Internal Revenue Code in effect on January 1st, 2026, but specifically excludes the adoption of certain changes made to provisions that became law as part of H .R. 1. For those provisions that impact Florida collections, the bill maintains current law by holding to the Internal Revenue Code that was in effect on January 1st, 2025. The Revenue Estimating Conference estimates that this bill has zero impact on state revenues. Senator's House Bill 7031 is here, and I intend, with the chair's permission, to substitute the House Bill for the Senate bill and to go forward with the amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. We'll get in the proper posture. Are there amendments? None on the desk, Mr. President. Are there questions? Seeing none, the House Bill is here. If you intend to substitute Senator Gates, please explain any differences. Thank you, Mr. President. As I mentioned before, this amendment replaces the substance of House Bill 7031 with the Senate's piggyback bill. These provisions are identical in both bills, and both chambers agree on that policy. And that is the amended, that's the amendment that I wish to use to put the Senate bill on. All right. Senator of the First District, Senator Gates moves that House Bill 7031 be substituted for CS for Senate Bill 7048. Is there objection? Seeing none, show that motion adopted. Read the House bill, please. House Bill 7031, a bill to be entitled and act relating to taxation. Are there amendments? On the desk, Mr. President. Please read the first amendment. Amendment barcode 611-560 by Senator Gates. Delete everything after the enacting clause and insert amendment. Senator Gates, you are recognized to explain the amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. That is the amendment I just explained. It replaces the substance of House Bill 7031 with the Senate's piggyback bill that I explained. Are there questions of the sponsor? Is there debate? Senator Gates, you're recognized to close. Having waived close, all those in favor of the adoption of the amendment signify by saying yay. All those opposed, show the amendment adopted. Please read the next amendment. None on the desk, Mr. President. Other questions of the bill? Senator Gates moves the bill be read a third time. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying yay. All those opposed, show the motion adopted. Please read the bill a third time. House Bill 7031, a bill to be entitled a natural link to taxation. This is your debate. Senator Gates to close. Secretary will unlock the board. Senators will proceed to vote. Have all senators voted? Secretary will lock the board and record the vote. 34 yeas, 0 nays, Mr. President. Show the bill passes. Please read the next bill. Committee substitute. for committee substitute for Senate Bill 1760, a bill to be entitled and act relating to health care coverage. Show that bill temporarily postponed. Please read the next bill. Committee substitute for committee substitute for Senate Bill 1756, a bill to be entitled and act relating to public assistance. 1758. There we go. CS for CS for Senate Bill 1758. Senator Gates, you are recognized to explain the bill. I apologize, Mr. Chairman. Senator Mayfield was attempting to improve my performance in the Senate by explaining something to me. What bill are we on, please? Medicaid. Say again, sir. Medicaid. Medicaid. Yeah, thank you. Mr. President, four million Floridians rely on Medicaid for their health care services. These are low-income children, low-income pregnant women, disabled people, frail elderly, and nursing home residents. Florida Medicaid is a state-federal program which costs the taxpayers $35 billion this year, or about $9,000 per recipient. Senate Bill 1758 will enact five reforms. First, this bill will strengthen ACA's hand to go after fraud, abuse, overpayment, and neglect, including wrongful payments for services to illegal aliens. Secondly, this bill requires that able-bodied adults must work if they want the taxpayers to pay for their Medicaid coverage. The newest report from ACA and the Department of Children and Families is that there are 111,000 able-bodied Medicaid recipients aged 19 to 64 who do not have small children at home, nor are they the primary caregivers for somebody who is elderly or disabled. Under this bill, they will have two choices, to become employed for compensation for at least 80 hours a month, and that's halftime work, or to be in a training program that leads directly to paid employment, or they would lose their taxpayer-funded Medicaid. Responsive to the concerns of Leader Berman, the bill now includes transitional Medicaid benefits. That was added in appropriations. Under this provision, which parallels current law governing TANF, if a person complying with the work requirement becomes employed and thereby earns too much to be Medicaid eligible, a circumstance which is to be hoped for and celebrated, then she or he continues to receive Medicaid benefits for 12 additional months. That is a glide path that was originally set in federal law by President Bill Clinton, and it is in state law under our TANF provisions. ACHA would seek federal approval for the work requirement, and federal approval would take, we believe, six months or more. Meanwhile, ACHA and DCF, together with the Department of Commerce and Career Source, is directed to develop a business plan by December 1, 2026 to implement the work requirement. That business plan would be submitted to the legislature. The work requirement would not be enforced until the legislature approves implementation of the plan. The third reform contained in Senate Bill 1758 is a substantial expansion of behavioral health services. There are 113,525 Medicaid recipients with serious mental illnesses. These mental illnesses cost money, and they are also, of course, terribly debilitating to the victims. The lifetime cost to the state of an individual with serious mental illness is $1,850,000, and that's per person coming from general revenues. This bill will direct ACA to seek a federal waiver to provide home and community -based services for these individuals. Those services would include community transition services, peer support, therapy, counseling, employment and housing assistance, wraparound services, independent living and skill building services, and ambulatory detox services. These are the services that mental health professionals have advocated for for years to provide better care, to reduce institutionalization, but also over time to reduce homelessness and a criminal justice system involvement with these individuals. By operating under a Medicaid waiver, instead of through DCF, the state benefits from enhanced federal matching funds, which cover more than half the cost. In other words, the impact of this portion of the bill would be that we would request a federal waiver to operate this program through ACA, and thereby it would become a state-federal program, and we would receive federal funds to assist us with these costs. Now, all of the costs associated with dealing with these extraordinarily expensive patients come straight from general revenues. A federal waiver must be granted, and the legislature must approve the cost and savings impact of the program before it can be implemented. The fourth reform modernizes the Medicaid Prescribed Drug Services Program. Prior authorization of medications takes time, costs money, aggravates doctors, and delays patient care. Under this bill, Medicaid will create preferred drug lists exempted from standard prior authorization rules. This provision will save money in two ways. First, ACHA would be required to employ the most cost-effective purchasing practices and for the first time actually negotiate rebates from drug manufacturers, rebates estimated to bring in at least $7.4 million the first year. And the second way this would save money is that patients requiring expensive, long-acting injectable drugs used for schizophrenia or bipolar disorder would no longer have to be hospitalized to qualify for a DRG payment, but instead could be treated in the physician's office. This is much, much less costly. In 2024, 5,700 Medicaid recipients for the diagnosis of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder accounted for 9,100 hospital admissions. ACA estimates that at least $15 million will be saved in the first year in hospital costs alone by allowing these injectables to be administered outside the hospital, outside the DRG system, in the doctor's officer of the clinic or even in the ER. The fifth reform in this bill requires DCF to implement a statewide fraud reduction and payment accuracy plan governing supplemental nutritional assistance or SNAP. Florida currently has a SNAP payment error rate of over 15 percent. In other words, over 15 percent of the EBT card transactions that are occurring now in Florida are wrong. They're in error. They're inappropriate. That's ineligible people using EBT cards, people purchasing ineligible products with EBT cards, and administrative errors, of which there are many. Under the one big beautiful bill, Florida is required to reduce our error rate from 15 % to 6%. If we don't do that, if we continue our current SNAP performance, It will cost Florida a $1 billion annual penalty. A billion dollars annually would have to come from general revenues. Senate Bill 1758 requires DCF to implement a corrective action plan to fix SNAP by July 2026. That will mean enhanced training, quality assurance, and data verification within the agency. The bill further codifies existing federal SNAP rules regarding citizenship status, requires the use of photo identification on EBT cards to reduce fraud, and updates SNAP work requirements to match federal law. This means that able-bodied adults 18 through 64 without young children will have to go to work or be trained to go to work to maintain their SNAP eligibility. DCF is required to submit its plan for SNAP and EBT payment reforms to the Governor and Legislature by July 15, 2026. Indeed, Mr. President, before any of the reforms called for in this bill are put in practice, detailed implementation plans have to be submitted first to the Governor and the Legislature. So in summary, 1758 sets in law these reforms. First, robust authority to investigate a root -out fraud and recover Medicaid overpayments. Secondly, a Medicaid work requirement. Third, expanded home and community -based care of mental illnesses. Fourth, modernization of Medicaid's pharmacy program to obtain drug rebates and reduce institutional costs. And fifth, to fix Florida's grossly out-of-line management of the SNAP program and EBT cards. That is the bill. Are there amendments? On the desk, Mr. President. read the first amendment. Amendment barcode 122906 by Senator Berman between lines 307 and 308 insert amendment. Senator Berman you are recognized to explain the amendment. Thank you Mr. President. This is actually a five sentence amendment but it's an extremely impactful important amendment. It says that the state of Florida will not put the work and community engagement requirements in place until we have expanded Medicaid eligibility and the expansion has been approved by the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare and Medicaid Services under the one big beautiful bill there are work requirements but they specifically exclude states that did not expand Medicaid because they understand that it will cause too many people to fall within a gap. So we are simply aligning our laws so that we could comply with the one big, beautiful bill requirements and expand Medicaid here in the state of Florida. And that is the amendment. Are there questions of the sponsor? Is there debate? Senator Smith in debate. Thank you, Mr. President. Senators, what Leader Berman is doing here is absolutely a crucial step towards making sure that everyone in Florida can thrive. Today, Florida is 47th in the nation. We're 47th in the nation for health care access and affordability, and we have the third highest number of uninsured residents in our state. That means that hundreds of thousands of hardworking people, they're forced to go without basic care. They skip heart medication. They delay cancer treatment. They wait for a medical emergency that sends them to the ER. It's not because they're not working. It's because they are the people that are serving our food. They care for our seniors. They work in tourism. And they earn too much to qualify for traditional Medicaid. They're stuck in the coverage gap. I want to applaud Leader Berman for filing this important amendment, because the pain that so many Florida residents have suffered as a result of us being one of only 10 states in the nation that have not expanded Medicaid, the pain has been felt even more since the expiration of federal subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. I applaud Leader Berman for bringing this amendment forward, and I will be supporting it today. Additional debate. Senator Bracey Davis in debate. Thank you so much, Mr. President. I echo the sentiments of Senator Smith. I agree that this would be nothing but helpful to Floridians. Why don't we want Floridians to be healthier? Expanding Medicaid in Florida would provide health coverage to approximately a million people, a million low-income residents, significantly reducing the state's high uninsured rate. I think Senator Smith hit on it. It would bring roughly $4 billion in federal funds annually, and it will improve health outcomes. Why don't we want Floridians to be healthier? Why are we leaving money on the table? This is totally counterintuitive to the thought that we want Floridians to be healthy, safe, and prosperous. If that's what we want, then let's expand this so that Floridians could be healthier. Thank you so much, Leader Berman, for this wonderful amendment. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote it up. Additional debate. Senator Gates in debate. Thank you, Mr. President. this is an old debate. It's about 10 or 12 years old. The legislature has time and again considered whether or not we want, as Senator Bracey Davis has said, to add a million more people to the Medicaid rolls paid for by the taxpayers. Medicaid expansion would cause a vast expansion of our Medicaid budget. Expanding would necessitate a significant increase in Medicaid funding. It would force cuts thereby to other state priorities and reduce access to care for traditional Medicaid enrollees. Adopting Medicaid expansion would make Florida increasingly dependent on the federal government and vulnerable when the federal government eventually lowers the enhanced rate for the expansion population, which we know they will do. This is an unfriendly amendment. It would cost an extraordinary amount of money by Senator Basie Davis's own calculation. A million Floridians at the current rate of $9,000 per Floridian who's on Medicaid. Imagine the additional costs. It's not contemplated in the budget. It's an untimely amendment, and it's an unfriendly amendment, and I urge you to vote it down. Leader Berman to close on the amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. I have watched this Medicaid expansion debate unfold in this state year after year, hopeful each session that we would finally do right by our most vulnerable. There were moments I genuinely believed it would happen. It never did, and real people have paid the price for that failure every single day. We were told the costs were too high and that expansion would tie our hands, but the cost of doing nothing has been even higher. We know that people who are sick, the working poor and the uninsured, use hospitals only as a last resort, which is the most costly medical care that you can have, and they don't get any preventative treatment. And in the end, we, the taxpayers, end up paying for that. You know, we talked about the numbers that would be, I've heard numbers between $400,000 and a million. Even if it's a million, you have to remember that we will get money from the federal government. We will get billions of dollars from the federal government, which will offset a lot of this money. and instead we now have an uninsured rate for adults 19 to 64 at 15 percent among the worst in the country to qualify for medicaid in florida today a parent must earn less than 28 percent of the federal poverty level less than eight thousand dollars for a year for a family of four four our Our minimum wage is $14 an hour, so any parent who works even part-time is disqualified from Medicaid and yet doesn't usually have access to the marketplace coverage because it requires an income of roughly $27,000 a year. This is a trap, and we built it. Who does this affect? The cashier at your grocery store, the home health aide taking care of your parent, the construction worker on your street. These are the people we are leaving behind. And the situation is about to get dramatically worse. Florida's uninsured rate is projected to climb dramatically as the Explorable Care Act subsidies expire and Medicaid cuts from the big, beautiful bill take hold. This is our moment to finally do the right thing for the people of the state of Florida. As you heard, the work requirement only applies to those states who have expanded Medicaid. And the reason for this is that they understand, the federal government understands that in non-expansion states, they cannot mandate it to include those requirements because participants will work themselves into the Medicaid gap. Without this amendment, the bill imposes work requirements that are legally reckless and unnecessarily punishing the very Floridians who are already working by pushing them out of the coverage they have. With this amendment, we do something that the body has not had the courage to do before. Without this amendment, we leave a huge gap of Floridians who are working, working hard the question is whether this legislature will start supporting them for it I urge my colleagues to support this amendment all those in favor of the adoption of the amendment signify by saying yay all those opposed no show the amendment is not adopted please read the next amendment late filed amendment barcode 821406 by senator osgood delete lines 1089 to 1079 and And insert amendment, 97, 1097, and insert amendment. Without objection, share the late filed amendment. Introduce Senator Osgood. You are recognized to explain the amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. This friendly amendment addresses a very practical concern regarding the proposal to place photographic identifications on SNAP EBT cards. While the goal of the program, integrity, is extremely important, we must also ensure that our policies do not unintentionally create barriers to food for vulnerable Floridians. This amendment simply clarifies that if Florida implements photo identifications on EBT cards, the department must adopt rules that remain consistent with federal SNAP law. which allows authorized household members or caregivers to use the card on behalf of a family member. For many households, especially those caring for elderly patients, individuals with disabilities, or family members with limited mobility, the person who shops for groceries is not always the cardholder. With these protections, a grandmother who cannot leave her home, a disabled veteran relying on assistance, or a survivor of domestic violence trying to rebuild stability could face unnecessary obstacles simply to buy food. That is not the intent of SNAP and it should not be our outcome in this legislation. My friendly amendment also ensures that seniors over 60, individuals who are blind or disabled or survivors of domestic violence are not required to have their photo placed on the card. These exemptions recognize real-life circumstances and protect the dignity and safety of people who may already be navigating extreme hardships. This amendment does not weaken accountability. It simply ensures that in our efforts to strengthen program integrity, we do not inadvertently make it harder for vulnerable families to put food on their table. At the core, this amendment reflects a basic principle. Public policy should prevent fraud, protect integrity, but also provide access. Leridians who qualify for food assistance should be able to receive that assistance without unnecessary barriers, stigma, or hardship. I respectfully ask for your favorable support on this amendment. Other questions of the sponsor? Is there debate? Senator Gates in debate. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Senator Osgood for her amendment, and I appreciate her intent behind it. But here's our problem. Right now, we are at extreme variance. We are violating federal law with respect to the way that we operate our SNAP program and our EBT cards. If we continue to operate in this fashion, if we don't drop our error rate down to 6%, We're going to get a $1 billion per year penalty that we will have to take out of general revenues. And when we take that penalty out, it's going to mean that there are a whole lot of other things that that billion dollars should be spent for, won't be spent, because we'll be paying a federal penalty. And therefore, Senator Osgood, I apologize, and I may say respectfully, that your amendment violates federal law. It violates the big, beautiful bill, and therefore would place Florida in a more vulnerable position with respect to the penalties that we're trying to avoid. And so for that reason alone, I would encourage my colleagues to vote no. But more than that, federal SNAP regulations already require that any authorized household member or representative be allowed to use the SNAP EBT card. It's already there. So the concern you have about the disabled veteran or the grandmother at home, already taken care of under current law. Anyone with a PIN who's acting on behalf of the household may already legally use the card. Federal SNAP regulations already ensure that eligible households cannot be denied benefits because of photo requirements. For SNAP recipients who seek to receive benefits past the federal three-month limit, H.R. 1 now requires work requirements. Our bill simply aligns with the federal law, and I believe that, unfortunately, your amendment, if it were adopted, would place us in an even more vulnerable position with respect to our compliance with the error rate issue that we have to resolve or face a billion -dollar penalty. We don't need the amendment in order to take care of the people you talked about so eloquently and movingly, and if we adopted your amendment in the fashion that it's offered, it would be a violation of federal law and put us further behind the eight ball. For that reason, it's an unfriendly amendment and I ask my colleagues to vote it down. Senator Osgood to close on the amendment. Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you, Senator Gates, for those responses. I would be willing to take my chance in court about this amendment violating federal law. As I hear what you're saying about the cost. I hear about the federal policies. But when we implement laws and bills, they have to be implemented by citizens. People working in Publix, Walmarts, and other grocery stores, they will look at the photo ID. And if you're not the person on the ID, then you're going to have to go back and forth for some kind of extreme way to prove that you have the right to use the EBT card. A lot of times we make these policies and these laws, but we don't understand how they implement people on the ground. If a grandmother sends a grandchild, 17 or 18 year old into a Walmart to buy grocery because that's the person that goes to buy grocery for the family and that child is not on the photo ID when they get to the counter then they're going to be faced in a position with an adult across the counter that's telling them they don't qualify so they're dealing with the person at the counter and then they're thinking about the family that's home not eating and I understand the old big beautiful bill I call it the old big brutal bill I understand the implementations of it I understand our error rates and I am for improving a system but I'm not for people that need food having more barriers to get that food so I believe that with these protections for seniors individuals with disabilities and victims of domestic violence. If I'm a victim of domestic violence and I'm already hiding out, I'm trying to operate in a way and rebuild my life, I'm already afraid and scared because the person that's been beating me up for days, months, years, I'm finally free from them. So I'm probably living at a great place like Women in Distress or some other disclosed location where I don't want to be put on blast but now I have to go into a place and give my ID or send my roommate that's trying to help me and that could possibly be getting grocery for both of us on her way home or on his way home from work and now we have this challenge so without these protections seniors individuals with disabilities and victims of domestic violence I believe could face unnecessary barriers simply to purchase food. This amendment, I believe very strongly, strikes an appropriate balance between program integrity, preventing fraud, but providing necessary access to nutrition for vulnerable families. So I respectfully ask for your favorable support on this amendment. All those in favor of adoption of the amendment, signify by saying yay. Yay. All those opposed, say no. No. Joe, the amendment is not adopted. Please read the next amendment. None on the desk, Mr. President. Are there questions of the sponsor? Senator Arrington, questions? Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning, President Gates. This is my first time hearing this bill, and thank you, Senator Osgood, for your amendment and discussion. Kind of brought up some questions for me in regards to adding the photo to the SNAP ID. And, President Gates, do you know or do we have an estimated amount of the fraud that has incurred because of identity theft with SNAP? Senator Gates. Thank you, Mr. President. We don't know specifically identity theft versus buying products that are ineligible versus having ineligible persons use the EBT card. We only know that taken together, it is three times, about three times, the amount of fraud and administrative and other sorts of error and mismanagement that can be allowed under federal law. But we have not tweezered out the amount that relates to the specific part of the question that you've asked. Senator Arrington. Thank you, Mr. President. And, President Gates, do we have or do we know what the estimated cost will be and added staff duties to add a photo to the SNAP card? Senator Gates. Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator Arrington. Your question really helps us get to, I think, a salient part of this legislation. And that is that instead of, in effect, building the airplane in flight, which Georgia did with respect to its work requirement, Instead, what we're saying is we're going to take about a year to do a business plan with the Department of Commerce, with Career Source Florida, with Department of Children and Families, with ACA, working with our federal partners, to come back with a comprehensive implementation plan that would address that and other questions so that we know whether or not we have a good return on investment. As Leader Berman and I have discussed in a colloquy in an earlier committee, if we discover that it costs more money to have people work than to have people not work, then that will be revealed in the implementation plan and in the costs of that plan. And so all I can tell you is that all of the features of implementation have to be priced out and have to come back to the legislature and be approved before they can be implemented. Senator Arrington. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, President Gates. I think that kind of already answers my next question is, it sounds like with your timeline, do we anticipate, though, any delays, I guess, in folks' benefits with the timeline and your implementation? Senator Gates. Thank you very much, Mr. President. no, Senator Arrington, current law would apply and obtain until and unless the changes and reforms in this legislation were adopted subject to an implementation plan approved by the governor of the legislature. Senator Arrington. Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you, President Gates, for that answer. I had a question kind of after I heard Senator Osgood's amendment about SNAP being, you know, for an entire household, and I think H.R. 1 didn't change that at all. How would the photo ID work if it's a household of three? Will everybody's photo be on the card, or how would that work? Senator Gates. Thank you very much, Mr. President. My understanding is that not only would there be a photo on the card for the individual who is the Medicaid eligible, But in the case, as described by Senator Osgood, where there are other people in the House who may be family members who are obtaining food, that there will be PIN numbers that will also be a part of the card, much the same way that we have information that it's identifying information on our driver's licenses and on our credit cards. So there would be the opportunity to have PIN numbers for other individuals, not for an unlimited number of individuals, but perhaps for two or three individuals who were in the household or who were delegated by the household to obtain groceries. Senator Arrington. Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you for that answer. So if I'm understanding, though, correctly, if it's, let's say, three adults in the household and they're all allowed, one person's photo would be on the card and the others would have the PIN numbers. How would that work if the person, great, if they have the PIN number, but if it's not them on the photo, would they be able to be, you know, denied? Senator Gates. Thank you, Mr. President. The answer is no, they would not be denied. Additional questions, Senator Roussoun and questions. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Senator Gates, I think there exists an exemption in this bill for those who are in residential substance use treatment programs. Can you expound upon that a little bit? Senator Gates. Thank you very much, Mr. President. You're exactly right, Senator Roussan. One of the exceptions to the work requirement is individuals who are in a residential treatment program at that time. You can't very well expect somebody who is in a residential treatment program to at the same time abide by a work requirement if they want to be Medicaid qualified. And so therefore, in the crafting of this bill, those individuals are exempted from the work requirement. Senator Roussaint. Thank you, Mr. President. Are there time frames that come along with this exemption? Senator Gates. Thank you, Mr. President. No, Senator Roson, there's no specific time frame. In other words, there's nothing in the bill that would say that being exempted from the work requirement if you're in a residential treatment facility would only be a 90-day exemption or a six-month exemption. There is no specific deadline or specific exclusion date. very much mr. president and the objective here is to get someone help so that they can then continue the qualification for Medicaid assistance is that right Senator Gates thank you mr. president the answer to the question is yes well an individual is in a residential treatment program they may very well be using their Medicaid benefits in that way but the whole purpose of this legislation is to ensure that in order for people who are able-bodied, who are not taking care of small children or an elderly person or a disabled person at home, in order for those people to have their friends and neighbors pay for their health care, they need to go to work. Senator Roussan. Thank you very much, Mr. President. In the same thing that we just discussed for someone in residential treatment, the exemption extends to those who might be an inmate in the department of corrections is that correct thank you mr president yes senator russon senator russon very much mr president and it does not matter whether they're convicted well they'd have to be convicted if they're in prison I would draw the question yes sir additional questions of the sponsor senator bracy davis thank you so much mr president I want to go back to the required documentation of shelter and utility expenses as it relates to SNAP. So what documents are acceptable to prove shelter and utility expenses? Senator Gates. Thank you, Mr. President. There is no change in this bill in any requirement for approving utility or residential expenses. The same requirements that exist in current law would obtain if this bill becomes law. Senator Bracey-David. Thank you so much, Mr. President. So if someone does not have appropriate documentation, how long will it take them to receive benefits? Senator Gates. Thank you, Mr. President. I don't know the answer to that question because this bill does not contemplate that circumstance. This bill does not attempt to change that law or to change eligibility under the circumstances of the question that you've asked. Instead, existing law would obtain. Senator Bracey-David. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Just one more question. If someone fails to submit or submits insufficient documentation in the redetermination process, could that delay deny their benefits? Senator Gates. Thank you, Mr. President. Yes, Senator. Additional question, Leader Berman in questions. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. President. And we did see this bill quite a bit, Senator Gates. So I know I asked you this before, and I wonder if you had an opportunity to get any more information. Do we know in this group of 111,000 people, do we have any more clarity of are they the parents of 14 to 18-year-olds? Are they people aging out of foster care? Are they people in the 60 to 65-year-old age gap? Senator Gates. Thank you, Mr. President. Leader, they are all of those. there are people who fall into each of the descriptors that you listed who could be affected by this work requirement. But a disproportionately large single group of Medicaid recipients of all of those that you could characterize is a family of three, a mother and two children, one five or under and one 15 or over. That's not the majority of people who would be affected. It's not the majority of Medicaid recipients, but it is one of the largest single groups, if not the largest single group of Medicaid recipients who are not in nursing homes. In this case, a mother's income could be $3,222 per month or $38 ,664 annually and still retain Medicaid benefits. Leader Berman. Thank you, Mr. President. I think I asked you this, and I still am a little confused. Why are we putting this requirement in statute before we actually have the business plan, whether showing it's feasible or not to do it? Senator Gates. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Leader Berman, I guess it's because we're trying to learn from the past. And we know that we've done some things in this legislature where we set the airplane off in its journey, and then we've decided, you know, what kind of aviation and electronics we need. And we've discovered that sometimes we are building an airplane in flight, and sometimes that creates problems. And we've observed what has happened in the state of Georgia, where there was not an implementation plan that was well thought out and vetted first. Instead, there was sort of a dive-in approach and then hope it all worked out, and it hasn't. And so that's why learning from our own past and watching other states, we determined that the best thing to do was to make sure that we had a plan that could be implemented, make sure that there was a decent return on investment and not other unintended or unknown consequences before the changes actually were effective. Leader Berman. Thank you, Mr. President. And I am appreciative of the glide path that you put in, but I do wonder how do you envision it will affect the people after the one year has expired? What do you believe will happen then? Senator Dates. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I believe Leader Berman, and correct me if I misunderstand, what you're talking about is if there are individuals who earn more money than would allow them to be Medicaid eligible. In the example I gave of the disproportionately large group of a family of three, the mother's income could be $38,664 annually and still retain Medicaid benefits. And if I understand your question, what you're suggesting is that if there were an individual who had to go on the glide path, in other words, they got a job, they followed the requirements of this law, they were affected by the mandate to go to work, they got a job, but then they earned $39,000 a year, and they went on the glide path, what we call the Bill Clinton glide path that he put in place when he did Welfare to Work. What you're asking is, I think, what happens after a year? Well, what happens after a year is that in the example, if it's a mother and two children, the children's Medicaid eligibility would not be affected if the mother became Medicaid ineligible. So the children's Medicaid eligibility would continue to be effective so long as they met other eligibility requirements in current law. And then secondly, if for some reason, under some circumstance, if that group of individuals then became a smaller group of individuals where even the children were no longer Medicaid eligible and the year had passed, that's why we have Florida KidCare. Then they would be referred to Florida KidCare and they would not be simply cast out in the street. There's a program called Florida KidCare that would be used to try to help them. And the individual, who might be the mother in this case, who might have earned too much, gone through the year glide path, and there was no remedy during that year. In other words, they weren't in an employed situation where they got benefits, they didn't have any other way to obtain their health care, and so this is now a small, small group of people. But those people, however large or small in number they are, they would be able to, they would qualify for the federal program, which is commonly called Obamacare, the federal exchange. And so they would, again, not be cast out. They would be in a cost share under the federal program. Additional questions of the sponsor? Senator Oskar, go ahead and questions. Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Gates, could you talk to me a little bit? In H.R. 1, That bill specifically mandates work requirements in states that have expanded Medicaid, and these requirements only apply to the expanded population. Why are we doing something different in our bill since we have an expanded Medicaid? Senator Gates. Thank you, Mr. President. Because we believe work is good, because we believe that a welfare culture that is repetitive generation after generation is bad. That's the public policy that's embedded in this legislation, that we believe that we ought to help people be able to get a job, keep a job, and help pay for the costs of their own care and help contribute to their own community and their own family. That's why. Senator Osgood. Thank you, Mr. President. So as a former welfare mom SNAP recipient, I'm a prime example that work is good. But there were times that I was in the middle where I had a job that was not sufficient to provide the other benefits. When this reform was considered, was there any discussion about allowing educational opportunities to meet work requirements? Senator Gates. Thank you, Mr. President. Yes, and it's in the bill. You can satisfy the work requirement if you are in a training program that is actually leading to a job, not a training program that's sort of, you know, leading to, you know, intellectual pursuits, but a training program that's actually leading to a job satisfies the work requirement. So the answer to your question is yes. Senator Osgood. Thank you, Mr. President. Could you give me some examples of training programs that you would consider leading to jobs and then training programs that you would consider leading to something intellectual? I think it's important that those that are listening understand the difference between the two and what's required in the bill and what's not. Senator Gates. Thank you very much. There are over 160 national industry certifications that are recognized now in the state of Florida, training programs that are that are provided through high schools, through trade schools, through community colleges and state colleges and even some state universities and private entities that allow an individual to earn a national industry certification in program and in skills that range everywhere from construction technology and a whole series of certifications within that category all the way to cyber security. It is an extensive array of opportunities and those are all available. They are available under current law. This legislature has led the nation in creating career and professional education opportunities for people who are in the middle of their lives, at the beginning of their lives. Even people, you know, who are retired are able to avail themselves of those opportunities. And if you have a national industry certification, you're just about guaranteed a job. That's the way that it works in the state of Florida. If you want examples of educational pursuits that do not lead necessarily to jobs, look at my two degrees, theology and political science. Senator Osgood. Thank you. And thank you for that response. And we're going to stay right there because I have one of those theology degrees too. And other than political science, I have a public administration. So will you and I meet the work requirements in this bill? Senator Gates. Thank you, Mr. President. And to fully disclose, I also have a public administration agree. So we're right there. We're right there. The answer to the question is, yes, we'd meet the work requirements because we're working. Senator Osgood. Thank you, Mr. President. But the person that's living every day in this situation that's really trying to rebuild their life, in all sincerity, if they were enrolling in school for theology, public administration, political science, would they meet, would that count as work requirements under this bill? Senator Gates. Thank you, Mr. President. It could, you know, if there were jobs available, and if an individual was going to a seminary, for example, in order to be ordained, and as a consequence of being ordained, be able to be employed as a pastor in a church, that certainly leads on to a job. You know, I hesitate to say that people with political science degrees like mine necessarily lead on to anything good, but it's possible that they could be employed in some way in political science. There are jobs. Yes. Senator Osgood. Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you, Senator Gates. And I'm looking at the practicality of this. So if that individual was going and their eligibility was being determined, how would the person or what is your thought about the person determining the eligibility going through if there's a job in the church available, if this and that? How do you see that playing out? Senator Gates. Thank you, Mr. President. If I understand your question, what is called for in this bill is a collaboration among Workforce Florida and the Department of Commerce and the Department of Children and Families and the Agency for Healthcare Administration on that very topic to make sure that there are easy to understand and easy to work. ways that individuals can be hooked up with training programs that will lead on to jobs. I'm not satisfied. I think in answer to a question that a member of your caucus asked me in a previous committee, I'm not satisfied that all the ingredients are in place today where CareerSource could swing into action and solve that problem and make sure that people are connected to training programs that lead on to jobs to satisfy this legislation. That's why we're going to have an implementation plan before we require that this work requirement be effectuated. Senator Osgood. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for that explanation. I agree that that implementation plan is important because Florida spent a million dollars defending a lawsuit regarding DC's mishandling of Medicaid implementation Does the bill make it mandatory for those 60 and over to participate in employment training programs? Senator Gates. Thank you, Mr. President. If they are able -bodied and don't take care of small children or elderly or disabled people at home, and they're within the ages of 18 to 64, they would be covered by the work requirement. Senator Osgood. Thank you, Mr. President. And I've learned since I've been here the importance of understanding terms. So in line with the question that I just asked you, when you say if they are able -bodies, could you define that a little bit for me? Senator Gates. Thank you, Mr. President. It doesn't matter what I think able-bodied means. Able-bodied is a term of art in law, and able -bodied is a determination that's made based on the characteristics of the individual. Senator Osgood. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you for your response, Senator Gates. Able-bodied and what that means does matter because those terms mean different things to different people. So let me ask it this way. If I am 60 and older and during the run of a week, I have blood pressure and diabetes problems, that perhaps I'm not able to work all the time, but I can work periodically. Would this bill consider me able-bodied? Senator Gates. I would defer to Dr. Masullo on the question of whether or not the two conditions that you describe would make someone necessarily unable-bodied. But I would say that based on the question that you've asked, would the individual be able to work part-time and not have to work full-time, this bill, if it becomes law, requires 80 hours per month, which is half-time. Senator Osgood. Thank you, Mr. President. So in listening at what our goal is, trying to improve our error rate trying to improve our implementation of Medicaid, as we go through this process, are you at all concerned about individuals who could endure work, able-bodied, let me use the language of the law, able-bodied individuals that are trying to do the right thing, could endure unintended consequences and lose their eligibility because of the way that we're approaching Senator Gates. Mr. President, yes. Senator Osgood. Additional questions of the sponsor? Seeing none, are there any further comments by the sponsor? Pursuant to Rule 4.19, the bill is placed on the calendar of bills on third reading. Please read the next bill. Senate Bill 1708, a bill to be entitled and act relating to veterinary licensure. Show the bill temporarily postponed. Please read the next bill. Committee substitute for Senate Bill 1694, a bill to be entitled an act relating to technology education. Senator 23rd, Senator Burgess, you are recognized to explain the bill. Thank you very much, Mr. President. It's an honor to present this bill on behalf of Captain Avila. Senators, if you don't know, Captain Avila serves in our National Guard, and he is on military orders this week. So especially during this time of reflection and what might be happening around the world and the globe, we appreciate his service, and I'm glad to present this bill in his absence. The bill requires that general education core courses that integrate the use of technology must include instruction to improve students' digital literacy and other digital tools as appropriate to the course. It specifies that if a high school computer science course includes instruction on artificial intelligence, that instruction should include foundational understanding, a critical evaluation of AI data, benefits and limitations of AI, and the ethical use of AI. Are there amendments? Not on the desk, Mr. President. The questions of the sponsor. Senator, the House bill is here. If you wish to substitute, please explain any differences. Thank you very much, Mr. President. The House bill includes the provision for general education core courses, but the House bill does not include the suggested list of topics for computer science courses that use AI. It also requires that the Department of Education create new computer science educator certificates for grades K-5 and grades 6-12. Senator, the 23rd. Senator Burgess, move CS for CS for House Bill 1503, be substituted for CS for Senate Bill 1694. Is there objection? Seeing none, show that motion adopted. Please read the House Bill. Committee substitute for committee substitute for House Bill 1503, a bill to be entitled, an act relating to computer science education and certification. Are there amendments? None on the desk, Mr. President. Please read the first amendment. Amendment barcode 593280 by Senator Avila. Delete lines 46 to 83 and insert amendment. Senator Burg