Mississippi House Speaker Jason White spoke to the Stennis Press Forum on Monday, reflecting on the challenges and achievements of the 2025 legislative session and outlining an ambitious agenda for the year ahead.
Speaking to a crowd of journalists, policy professionals, and community leaders, White emphasized transparency, fiscal responsibility, and what he called “common sense conservative legislation” as guiding principles for the House moving forward.
White pointed out that the legislature is now fully funding education and chastised the press for not making a bigger deal about this. He also pointed to successes in reforming PERS, lowering taxes and revitalizing downtown Jackson. He noted that the state now has billions in surpluses and said the senate should have done more to use this money to support vital local projects.
White acknowledged that much of the public attention during the 2025 session focused on “the drama or the infighting,” but he insisted the House achieved nearly all of its stated goals. “The House was clear on our goals from the beginning, and we did, for better or worse, accomplish almost everything we set out to do this session,” he said.
He described the unusual circumstance of leaving the regular session without a finalized budget, which led to a special session, but maintained that the House’s approach was deliberate and transparent. “We had communicated clearly and consistently with the Senate and with anybody that would listen that the budget would not be done in the last few days of session with little oversight or transparency,” White said.
A major point of contention, White explained, was the issue of local projects. He criticized Senate leadership for blocking funding for city and county projects, calling it “politics and nothing else.” He argued that Mississippians expect their tax dollars to be spent on local infrastructure like bridges, roads, and water systems, and lamented that “we should have funded local projects and we didn’t as a result of politics and nothing else, no matter what anybody says. That’s what it was.” White pointed to the state’s strong financial position, with a $2 billion CapEx account and a rainy day fund exceeding $700 million, as evidence that the funding was available.
House Bill One: A Landmark Legislative Package
White touted House Bill One as a historic legislative achievement. The bill, he said, delivers a $1.9 billion tax cut by eliminating the personal income tax, reducing the grocery tax from seven to five percent, modernizing infrastructure funding, and implementing reforms to the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS). “Any of those four issues would have been worthy of a session singly amongst themselves. But all four of them in a bill, I thought, was a huge accomplishment,” he said. White credited the House’s off-season work and bipartisan engagement for making such a sweeping package possible.
He also highlighted the overhaul of the Mississippi student funding formula, which he said brought greater transparency and a significant investment in public education. “Fully funding happened for that new formula, and it was without a whole lot of fanfare or comment from much of anybody, including the press,” White noted, adding that the new approach had resulted in two consecutive years of full funding for public schools.
Education Reform: “Education Freedom” and Student-Centric Policy
Looking ahead, White identified education reform—what he called “education freedom”—as the House’s top priority for 2026. He pledged to focus on the needs of individual students, especially those in economically disadvantaged communities, rather than on underperforming districts. “We have an opportunity there to dismantle what we call systemic barriers that limit opportunities for our students. Every child, regardless of zip code… deserves a fair chance to succeed,” he said.
White pushed back against critics who argue that school choice initiatives would harm public education, pointing to recent increases in school funding and the adoption of a new student funding formula. “This movement now will be about investing even more in schools, teachers, facilities, and infrastructure needs. And most importantly, and with laser focus, the individual student,” he said. He announced the formation of a Select Committee on Education Freedom, chaired by Reps. Rob Roberson and Jansen Owen, to develop comprehensive reform proposals. “It’ll be comprehensive and it’ll be bold and it’ll be uncomfortable,” White said, predicting that the legislation would spark debate but was necessary for continued progress.
Other Priorities: PERS, Voting Rights, and Jackson Revitalization
White outlined additional legislative priorities, including:
-
PERS Solvency: White reaffirmed the House’s commitment to ensuring the long-term health of the state retirement system. He floated the possibility of dedicated revenue streams, such as mobile sports betting or lottery proceeds, to shore up the system’s finances. “A consistent revenue flow is what actuaries look at when rating our system,” he explained.
-
Voting Rights: White said the House would examine early voting, restoration of suffrage for people who have completed felony sentences, and revival of the ballot initiative process. He emphasized the importance of removing barriers for individuals seeking to reengage with their communities after serving their sentences, and expressed optimism that the House and Senate could finally reach consensus on restoring the ballot initiative right.
-
Jackson Revitalization: White praised the work of the capital and revitalization committee, which produced five new laws addressing issues such as panhandling, blighted property, and encampments. He voiced support for the city’s new leadership and pledged to focus on helping Jackson address its water and sewer infrastructure challenges. “We have a duty to help where we can as a state,” White said, clarifying that he favored partnership over state takeover of local systems.
A Call for Innovation and Collaboration
Throughout his speech, White returned to the themes of innovation, collaboration, and a willingness to challenge the status quo. He acknowledged the growing tension between the House and Senate but insisted that the House would “continue to challenge the norm, seek innovation, and… champion bold initiatives.” He described his role as “the tip of that spear,” responsible for holding the House’s position even in the face of opposition.
White concluded by reiterating his commitment to transparency and forward-thinking policy. “We’re not going to do things just because that’s the way they’ve always been done. We’ve already left status quo behind, and for the sake of Mississippi, we’re going to continue to challenge the norm, seek innovation, and we will embrace change,” he said, drawing applause from the audience. He then opened the floor to questions from the press, signaling a willingness to engage with critics and supporters alike as the state prepares for the 2026 legislative session.
This story was created with the help of Perplxity Artificial Intelligence.
Below is a full transcript of Speaker White's talk to the Stennis Press Forum in Jackson, Mississippi, June 30, 2025:
Speaker Jason White:
Thank you, Brianna. Thank you, Emily.
Can y'all hear me at all? Does this help at all or not? No? I'll talk as loud as I can. Is that picking up at all? Any better? That's better. Stand close. Alright, I'll be real close.
Maybe the last time I was in this room was, I think, my second or third year of law school, and a guy named Billy Joe Shaver was performing on this stage for any of you old Outlaw Country fans. He was outstanding. It was just a few years ago. Justice, you wouldn't know anything about that these days.
It's good to be with y'all here today. We've kind of been on the speaking circuit a little bit, maybe because we're still the new kids on the block, or maybe everybody else has just made the rounds and they tell everybody no, and we're naïve or gullible enough to agree to do it. But we've made those rounds and a bunch of rotary clubs and lion clubs and those types of things.
I was speaking to a large crowd. Lee Wesoff had assembled a large crowd in Starkville at their rotary club. Most of the rotary clubs we show up to, it's maybe 30 or 40 people on a good day in a medium-sized town in Mississippi. But we get to Starkville and it's a packed house, even probably more folks than are in this room here today. It was a large crowd.
In some of my introductory remarks, we talked about the process and the legislature and how we go through things and that sort of thing. At some point late in my comments, we did a few question and answers, but I'm being dominated in the background by the Rotary Four-Way Test poster. Y'all know what the Four-Way Test is for Rotary. Those of you Rotarians, I know you do.
- Is it the truth?
- Is it fair to all concerned?
- Will it build goodwill and friendships?
- Is it beneficial to all concerned?
Well, anyway, as I was reflecting on how we go about our business in the legislature and specifically the House, I did at least contrast it for them: if we had just adopted their rotary rules, we would never get off of number one, "Is it the truth?" before we ever got to any of the other things that we do when we're vetting policy or procedure and that sort of thing.
But fast forward to this past spring's 2025 legislative session. It was a pivotal time for our state. All the momentum everybody's talking about, all the announcements, all the revealings of our latest rankings in education and GDP, or economic growth and capital investment, all the different things, the positive releases just kept coming.
And it would be easy for us to focus on what I call the drama or the infighting of the 2025 legislative session. But I don't want to do that. The House was clear on our goals from the beginning, and we did, for better or worse, accomplish almost everything we set out to do this session. Not by way of beating my chest and saying, "Oh, we got it." I'm just saying it was a weird ending from the previous year where we had a regular session and a budget, and we went home for the year, wherein we left regular session without a budget. It was kind of a weird feeling with that hanging out there.
I always had confidence we were going to pass a budget, but it was still weird in spite of the heavy lift and what I perceive as the huge victory of House Bill One. It felt weird to leave there in that environment, all of that process.
I know it wasn't pretty at times. I know it was ugly, and certainly many of you here who may ask me questions in a minute, I thought seemed to focus on the uglier parts of the session and the back and forth between the chambers. But I also believe that there's something to be said for doing what you say you're going to do and sticking to that. I'm not smart enough to wordsmith around the issues or I don't have enough time and attention to pay to that.
So, for better or worse, we work hard in the off-season and we lay our cards right out on the table, face up, about "here's what we're thinking about, here's the direction we're going," try to bring people to the table and find consensus and move forward, and almost telegraphing where we want to go.
So whether you want to talk about the issues that surrounded the budgetary process and the special session that resulted from that, or whether you want to talk about House Bill One and how it passed and the features of it, we were clear from the get-go on that.
Some were frustrated that the budgetary process went into a special session, but we had communicated clearly and consistently with the Senate and with anybody that would listen that the budget would not be done in the last few days of session with little oversight or transparency. In the 2026 legislative session, when we get there next January, the House will maintain the stance that the budget will be developed early and in an orderly and transparent manner.
Now, one of the main sticking points that kept bubbling up in that last-minute budget negotiations this year was the local projects issue. We were disappointed in Senate leadership for not supporting worthy projects for cities and counties. We were disappointed in that. Many of you jumped on that negative bandwagon labeling local projects, "It's Christmas tree," as if it's a bad thing, insisting even in some places that that's how the House gets their votes, that's how they operate, is they have to have that Christmas tree bill to make it done. Well, I don't know about any of that.
We believe that Mississippians find their tax dollars well spent when their bridges are built, their roads are fixed, their water and sewage issues are addressed at the local level, and yes, with state money in some instances—something before this year, the Senate has always not only been committed to but partaken fully in. And I'm already hearing now that the Senate's talking about, "We're going to do robust projects next year. We're even going to come up with a list this fall and pass it early in January."
I don't know how we get there from all the doom and gloom that was ensuing at the end of the session when we couldn't do local projects because of either federal uncertainty, it was termed, or worried about tax cuts and where we might land, or whatever the issue was.
We banked another half billion dollars as of today. We'll be sitting on $2 billion in CapEx account once the moneys flow through the split. The rainy day fund will again be full at over $700 million. We should have funded local projects and we didn't as a result of politics and nothing else, no matter what anybody says. That's what it was.
Even to the point they held up on GCRF and GoMESA funding for the Gulf Coast, which can only be spent there—most of which projects have already been determined and monies have been allotted. They can't go anywhere else. They're not subject to the federal whatever cuts may come, but yet they even held out on that as a way to somehow punish the House for our stances, either on budget or on House Bill One.
I don't know. I don't get those politics and how they move, but that's the world we found ourselves in as we finally ended regular session and then ultimately special session.
But to say that we went to a special session simply because local projects weren't funded would be incorrect. We had communicated clearly from the beginning that we wanted a more transparent and methodical process to the budget. And I think that's evidenced by the fact that JLBC, we went through our meetings all last fall, early winter, came into this session. The budgets that the House was passing—it's very close to the budgets that ended up in the special session. You can go and look them up and contrast the numbers. And there's also not much difference in what was projected through JLBC and our elbow team and what will be the final number today when the budget year is done.
Over the last few years, I would say it this way: the House has a strong track record of recognizing challenges and opportunities within our state and agreeing to confront them head-on. We'll diligently study the issue, engage key stakeholders in hopefully meaningful dialogue, and cultivate widespread support where we can. And in most cases, it's even been bipartisan to pass legislation that truly benefits all Mississippians.
This session, for instance, I say huge victories like House Bill One don't happen without that. That exemplifies that method. I'm not putting it forth as the best method, I'm just saying for us in the House it has worked: focusing on issues and getting the right people in the room and trying to find a way forward.
It delivered a historic—regardless of how you feel about it, it is a historic—$1.9 billion tax cut when all the dust settles. It eliminates the personal income tax. It cuts the grocery tax from seven to five. It puts our infrastructure models and funding on a modern path that hopefully gets us out of the maintenance and capacity issues that we've dealt with for the last 20, 25 years. And it creates the fifth tier that stops digging the hole at PERS. Any of those four issues would have been worthy of a session singly amongst themselves. But all four of them in a bill, I thought, was a huge accomplishment.
And though we had members that weren't crazy maybe about one of the four or two of the four, they were passionate about the others in a way that we were able to find a consensus, and yet we had to shave on some of those issues and the way they finally ended up. But I think the final product was a result of all of that study in the off-season and letting everybody have their say—even if they didn't get their way, having their say.
I think if you go back a year and look at the Mississippi student funding formula from the '24 session, fundamentally restructure public schools, how we fund them, that whole funding model allocating a more transparent and certainly a much more significant investment in public education, fully funding now since its inception for the two first years, which equal the number of times MAEP was fully funded. And I might add that fully funding happened this year, even with an austere budget, very conservative budget. Full funding happened for that new formula, and it was without a whole lot of fanfare or comment from much of anybody, including the press.
Now, Mr. Bobby, you wrote a piece later on about it almost kind of as an afterthought, as if, "Oh yeah, we did fully fund education." And so I did appreciate that as quiet a shout-out as I deemed it to be. I thought it was a little bit of rewriting history because it seemed to indicate that formula came from the Senate, which I thought was really contorting to get there. But hey, whatever it takes, it was a Senate bill or a Senate idea, I'm glad for it. It resulted in a better formula that is attainable and it is transparent.
But again, the method is what I'm talking about. The fact that we spent a whole bunch of time trying to get people in the room, smart people, the right people to help figure that out and find a way forward and move to something that was better for all of Mississippi.
Looking ahead, we'll remain resolute there in that method and in that pursuit of what I like to call common sense conservative legislation. And that is why you will see us spend the majority of our time this off-season on a few key issues.
One, we are calling education reform, education freedom, if you will, and that will be a top priority for the House. As we enter the 2026 legislative session, we are committed to transforming the educational landscape to ensure that every child in our state has access to an education that caters to the unique needs and aspirations of the individual and their families and their parents. Ultimately, it should be a powerful equalizer. Education should be that powerful equalizer for our kids. Yet our current system often falls short in delivering that full options for all students.
Economically disadvantaged communities specifically in Mississippi have been left with few, too few options for far too long. The House will produce robust legislation that focuses on our most needy students that have little to no options. We're going to shift the discussion away from focusing on underperforming districts or F-rated districts. There's been a lot of skepticism and a lot of complaints directed at me, and after a whole bunch of conversations, they're like, "You're focusing on the wrong thing. Why don't you look at the students and not at the schools?"
And certainly with our accountability model, we have very few students—very few schools now, according to our accountability model—that are failing or underperforming. Yet we do hear an outcry from certain regions and places in our state and from certain folks who want something different and better for their kids who have no options. So we're going to shift the discussion away from singling out school districts and look specifically at the child themselves, the individual and the factors—things like poverty, low income, foster care, children of military and first responders, homeless, those that are in the custody of the state. We're going to look at those first.
We have an opportunity there to dismantle what we call systemic barriers that limit opportunities for our students. Every child, regardless of zip code—and we're going to move away from that—deserves a fair chance to succeed. Parents know what's best, and we focus on that in the next generation of Mississippi as who will shape our future and our state and form the next Mississippi Miracle, whatever that is.
And we've heard the tired argument—and I say it's tired because I point to some things that after Republicans took control in 2012, we were able to accomplish that. The big bad Republicans that are now pushing school choice, the bad word, if you will, that that is a motive to enrich private schools in some way by taking money away from struggling public schools. Well, there are some things wrong with that argument or that don't square up.
Republicans, first of all, led the largest investment in public education with the passing of the Mississippi Student Funding Formula last year. We did it again this year with full funding. And this movement now will be about investing even more in schools, teachers, facilities, and infrastructure needs. And most importantly, and with laser focus, the individual student. It'll be done in a way that we've never done it before in Mississippi, and it'll have no disruption on the gains we've seen.
This is not about throwing shade at our current public schools in the system that, for better or worse, we've created. And I want to remind y'all this too: the folks that are now running around saying, "You can't do this. You can't go down these roads." If we had maintained the status quo because of the fear mongers that abide in that space of education, we wouldn't be talking about the Mississippi Miracle today.
I was going to be voted out of office. I was told squarely and plainly in campaign venues in my first reelection because of the third grade reading gate. That was awful. That was terrible. And now everybody points to it, even the folks that were so against it. It's kind of one of the things that kickstarted where we are today in the gains that we see.
So you'll have to excuse me a little bit if I'm reluctant to simply take the advice of those same people now on these issues and the things that are before us. We rocked the boat and we're no longer last in every metric, and we're going to continue to do that. We are the greatest improved in the nation—not in the Southeast, but in the nation. We'll keep rocking the boat until we get closer to the very top. It is worthy of the attempts and fighting for it.
And just because we're, and we are just small enough and nimble enough that we can bob and weave a little bit and punch above our weight, we should be able to do that in a Republican-led state. And while opposition is going to concern themselves with preserving what I call institutions and all that goes with that, we're going to preserve in the House, we're going to focus on preserving the rights of parents and the best interest of their children.
Our education system—I've said it before and lots of politicians say it—it should work for our parents and our children and our teachers, and not the other way around: working them, working for the institution. It should work that way for parents, children, and teachers.
Last week we announced our select committees, one of which will begin work late this summer, and that is the Select Committee on what we call Education Freedom. It'll be chaired by Rob Roberson and Jansen Owen. Both are passionate and engaged leaders on this issue. They've spent a lot of time on it. They have the trust of their colleagues in the House on both sides of the aisle.
While we are still in the research and development phase—and Lord knows what's going to happen with the bill that is literally being debated and voted on as we sit here and y'all listen to me talk in Congress in D.C.—all of those things will have bearings on, and that bill specifically will have bearing on how we proceed.
So I won't be able to speak to specific details about the bill other than what I'm telling you is we're going to focus on the student and not focus so much on the school district or the school. It's going to be comprehensive and it'll be bold and it'll be uncomfortable. It'll be uncomfortable for me. It'll be uncomfortable for people in my own caucus and people on the other side of the aisle. But it can absolutely alter the landscape in a way that, number one, if we're competing with our sister states, we now are surrounded by it.
I've seen folks that point to, "Well, their gains aren't as good as ours, so we need to hold to what we're doing." If we had always held to what we're doing, we wouldn't have moved where we are now. We are excited to begin work on it. We're not going to start with a frown and being scared. We're going to be happy about it. We're going to work towards something that we think can be incredibly positive and not try to shed some of the bad misnomers and ideas that have been associated with the bad word that is what some call school choice. We're calling it education freedom and reform.
And it's going to take a lot of other—we're going to talk about consolidation. Yeah, we're going to talk about choice. We're going to talk about things as simple as homeschool kids being—the, we passed that bill this year. We'll pass it again. But we see this as a comprehensive package all in one bill. Much the way we did House Bill One, it'll be an education reform package that will have lots of different features and moving parts to it.
Another one of those select committees that y'all saw we announced will look at and address specifically the Public Employees' Retirement System and its solvency moving forward. We've proposed in the House an annual dedicated stream the last couple of years to help with that deficit there. We're going to continue to evaluate opportunities.
I'll tell folks, I don't wake up every morning wanting to legalize mobile sports betting, much less legalize mobile sports betting and direct it specifically to our state retirees' retirement system. But we are fooling ourselves, number one, to say that it's not going on, it's not happening. It's currently legal on property. Most every one of our current operators in the state operate mobile sports in other states. They partner with folks or do it themselves in other states. Why are we so denying it here? I don't know. The votes are overwhelmingly there in the House. I think they're there in the Senate.
But again, it's not about, for me, we have to have mobile sports betting in Mississippi. It's the fact that there's an illegal market going on. We already allow it. Otherwise, I think we're just looking a gift horse in the mouth there. If we are looking for streams of revenue to shore up certain things, whether we're talking about PERS or infrastructure or other education funding and things like that, it's foolish for us to ignore that.
But if that's not it, the original form of House Bill One dedicated a portion of the lottery proceeds directly to addressing the deficit PERS until it reached a certain level of funding. We'll continue to look at those as well as other ways, whether those things come in the form of excess budgetary years, excess funds that are there and available, dedicating the stream of that, whatever that is.
A consistent revenue flow is what actuaries look at when rating our system. Not, "I voted for $110 million cash infusion last year," but that doesn't do a thing to bump our rating. We need a dedicated stream of revenue. We're going to look hard at that. Uber's going to lead that along with Randy Rushing, who is very much in tune with our cities and counties, being a former mayor, and how it affects them, what we do with PERS. So I'm looking forward to their work there as they try to figure out a path forward.
I think we've made a good first step with the creation of a fifth tier. And I think as we look at sustainability, that is kind of the next big step there. I know it's not a sexy topic to talk about in the back room at Students Press, but it is extremely important. And I've also, if I didn't already know, I found out it's extremely hot politically on the issue.
Last thing I'll speak of, and again, as they look at that, I would be remiss if I didn't say this finally: as that's being looked at, not only are we talking about retirees, but we're talking about the taxpayer, because that is one thing for the first time a couple years ago that bubbled up in the debate is this. It's not as simple as just adding onto the employer contribution anymore. We've gotten that so high that for once cities and counties rose up and said, "We cannot do this. We will either lay off employees or cut services or raise taxes," none of which were viable for them. And so as they reached out to the legislature, that's what began this conversation about figuring out some other way forward.
There is a fiscal responsibility to be considered that the legislature owes to the taxpayers of the state of Mississippi as we look at how we fund that going forward. And for the first time, they've got a seat at the table in that process.
Last thing I'll talk about, speaking of taxpayers, those also tend to happen to be voters. We're going to study what we're calling Mississippi voting rights. We'll be looking and evaluating three different components in the voting rights space: early voting to boost participation—what does that look like in Mississippi? What can we do there? Addressing barriers to suffrage for those who have served their time, they've committed their crime, they've served their time, they've paid their debt to society, paid all fines and fees. We are looking for a way to remove barriers for those folks to reengage with the community and be able to vote.
There's something to be said for hope for those individuals. I practice small town law practice in Coco. I've never had a guy show up at my office or girl wanting their voting rights restored who was still selling drugs on the corner. It's somebody who's gotten their life together and gotten back on track and they found out that their voting rights, not having them, is an impediment to whatever the next step is at their work or to the degree that they're after, whatever it is they're doing. I just hadn't had that. I've heard a lot of people kind of box this in as, "These are the ne'er-do-wells that want to come back and vote." I just have never seen that person. The people that I've seen wanting their voting rights restored and that are dying to go to the polls and vote are folks that have gotten their life back on track.
And we're going to look for a way—the House has considered and passed legislation that does that. We're going to continue to try to find a way to make that a reality. And I would say this: if any of you have ever met Chairman Price Wallace, who chairs the Constitution Committee, I'll put his conservative credentials up against anybody that wants to compare them. And he's one of the ones looking extremely hard at this and has been passionate about trying to find a way for these people.
And the last thing in the voting rights space that that committee's going to look at is the restoring of the ballot initiative. We've heard so much conversation and talk about it, and I, for a long time, thought that I had my barometer—my political barometer wasn't very good—because other folks that seemed to be in decision-making positions weren't crazy about restoring that right. I continue to hear that everywhere I go. When I go and speak, if somebody asks a question—eventually, if we open it to questions, eventually that question is coming.
I'm encouraged by the fact that, you know, there's been a lot of talk as we passed a bill or two over the last, I think, three years in that space. We didn't this year, but we had the two or three years prior. There was a lot of talk about, "Well, we can't get on the same page with the Senate." And then there was also a lot of talk about a certain chairman in the Senate was just against it, and so the bill would die every year. Well, that chairman won't be with us come January in the Senate. So that excuse in and of itself will be gone, and we'll see where we get moving forward on that issue.
We're going to make a real attempt to find some consensus with the other end of the building and restore that right once and for all. It's going to look different. It's going to be different for Mississippi, but citizens should have that right, and they demand it everywhere I go.
Lastly, I've already said last, but I forgot about our capital and revitalization committee. Those folks worked extremely hard last year, chaired by Shonda Yates and Clay Mansell, both metro area residents. They brought out five bills that became law starting tomorrow, I guess, and y'all know what they are: regulating solicitation or panhandling, giving Secretary of State the authority to clean and maintain state tax-forfeited lands, prohibiting squatting, creating tax incentives to encourage development of blighted properties, and regulating encampments or where people can sleep at night on public property.
All five of those things won't fix everything in Jackson or in any other city that's experiencing those problems. But they are tools for law enforcement and for municipalities as they try to make positive steps forward.
I'm excited about the new leadership in Jackson and what that would afford a relationship, not only with the legislature but with the state as a whole. And I've evolved in my thinking on that. I used to have constituents tell me in my district, "I don't want one red cent of my tax money spent on the city of Jackson." I don't hear that so much anymore, and I also see that and am evolving on that issue.
But a lot of folks, the only thing they ever see, the only picture they ever get of our state is Jackson. They fly in here for business or a competition or something, and then they're out and this is what they see. We have a duty to help where we can as a state. Now, that may not mean plowing hundreds of millions or billions of dollars into the city of Jackson of state funds, but where we can help, I want to. And that committee now, after those bills this past year that became law, they're going to focus specifically on Jackson water and sewer.
And this is not about a takeover of Jackson water. I want Mayor John Horne and his council to run all facets of the city, including their water system. I want to help them where we can, and I look forward to that relationship with him. And we are excited about the opportunities there as that committee works to improve the capital city.
Once again, I'll say it in closing: we will concentrate specifically on our priorities for next session and you'll know where we're going as we try to maintain focus. Emily talked about herding cats for me and egos and other things. All of that's hard enough in session. It's so much better when we kind of know where we're going policy-wise before we get there.
As we prepare for the 2026 session, I'll say it again: I know the tension between the two chambers has grown tiresome, but we don't throw punches with them because we like it or we're disgruntled or we don't get our way. We throw them because we think it's worth fighting for. And it's an issue, especially when it gets huge votes on our end of the building and most of the time bipartisan. It's worth fighting for, and it's what we call a House position. And I have a duty at the tip of that spear to hold that position, and that's what we'll continue to do.
Question for the media.
Q: Um, oh, no, go ahead.
Q: On the education front, can you say a little bit more about why you favor a comprehensive package? Are you concerned sort of putting it into one package might make it uncomfortable for certain members? Just say a little bit more about your reasoning there.
A: I just think it, I think it works and flows better when everybody is considering the whole, I don't think, I don't think you take any one thing and say like, like we specifically wanna look at away for our retired teachers to come back and teach. Somebody may be totally opposed to that, but they're willing to sit down and talk and listen because they are a champion for school choice or they're a champion for Tim Tebow Act, or they're a champion for portability between public school districts. So to get their attention on that issue, they, they, they light up about these others. And I think it's, I think it's why you see even in our international Congress now, considering that one huge bill because there's things in there in the, in the volatile political world that we live in, there are things in there that folks for whatever reason, because of a certain voter base or an issue or a political, um, ideology, they say they can't go there. But there are enough good things there that they're able to get there. So that's, that's why that was the approach with House Bill one and all encompassing, let's get it all out on the table and see where we get. And, and I think that's gonna be our approach with, with that bill is, is, I don't know if that answers your question, but we have found it's just as easy to get it all out there and get it in a bill as it is to piecemeal the bills and the back and forth and the horse trading and all that stuff that goes on. Um, we seem to be able to get our hands around it better all in one piece of legislation.
Q: And if you have to start making trade offs, is are there, is there sort of one school choice or education freedom component that you're most, that you're prioritizing most? Or what sort of priority
A: Number one? Well, we, I'm for universal school choice, but, but I understand that a portion of my own caucus and even the legislature as a whole is not, but what they are most all for is starting at a place that helps our most disadvantaged first and being willing to give those folks the benefit of the doubt when it comes to some options. We've got ESAs for special needs. We already have that. So, so to say that it doesn't work in some instances wrong, we already have it there. I would like to start by expanding it to some other student groups, mainly based on income and poverty and then move forward from there. Let's see how it works. The take rate in most states, even where they have full blown universal school choice is less than eight or 7%. This is not the, the wholesale move from one place to another that sometimes it gets pitched as, but for certain people it is the best and sometimes the only option if it's available. And, and I just think we are shortchanging our people by not allowing that.
Q: Yes sir. Mr. Whiteman. So continuing on school choice, you've got I think, uh, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Alabama. Not sure about Tennessee, all these surrounding states, you know, pushing forward. Um, question number one, you know, what is it unique about Mississippi where we have been slow to embrace this? And then number two, can maybe we learn from these other states as they roll this out, maybe things to do, things not to do,
A: Couple of things. And you, and you hit to the heart of some of it, and I say this and sometimes it makes people uncomfortable and I think I shouldn't have said that, but, but I think number one, it's so hard here because maybe more than some other states, we have a very complicated and ugly past when it came to public schools, how our private schools sprang up. Um, they didn't spring up like so many maybe up in the northeast did where some rich folks just had a whole pile of extra money and said, we're gonna found a private school that's gonna focus on these issues. They spr up because of integration. There's no denying that. But for so many of us, that was 50 years ago and I'm only 52, I didn't see that side of it. What I see now is I see private schools that have healthy minority populations in them. They have some scholarship, um, programs now. They're not where I want 'em to be. I'm not holding that out as, you know, that's gonna fix everything. But I'm, I I think that ugly past is a reason that some people, their guards are up from the very beginning when they sit down and we start talking about somebody might go to a private school that was going to a public school and that the state on some level may take part in that and help those families. So I think, I think people are more willing and open to talk about that, number one. And and they hadn't been in the past and I, I wholeheartedly agree with your, your assessment of we can look at these other states and what they've done and what is working and what hadn't worked. Um, but, but I mean, let's be honest, even the charter school system that we've set up here, it's almost like, and I was part of this, it's my first general legislature, I think in second we set up a system almost from the get go that almost had no chance for survival or certainly not for, for vibrancy in a way that we put so many handcuffs on it where they could be and what they could look like and what they could do and not do that. It was almost set up to fail. Let's, I would like to be more open in this approach and this reform is gonna include reform for charter schools as well. Um, we're also gonna talk about our institutions of higher learning and our community colleges. Any of those of our eight public universities and our 15 community colleges, if they wanna start a school on their campus, be it elementary, middle school, junior high, high school, we're gonna give them the tools to do that. Whether that looks like a charter school and they partner with a third party or a local school district or they do it themselves. The state is gonna hold their hand in that and try to make that work and get some in some strategic places and give people options there as well. But I, but I, I think we can look at what some other states have done. We can't go all out universal choice for a bunch of different reasons. There's a cost associated number one if, if you had that huge thing. Nobody's denying that and nobody is willing to do anything that hurts our public school funding. This is about parents, kids and options and we trying to keep the conversation specifically about that.
Q: Yes sir. Yes. Uh, spotlight's bright. I can't see who I got back there. Ms. Grant. Hey Grant, come on.
Q: Um, and it comes to the Jackson Water issue. Are you saying that, you know, when you say this, you want the city to have control over the water and sewer system that there would be owners in it, and how is the state willing to help support the Jackson Water system? 'cause it's largest, one of its largest moving issues that will have is, is death. And the fact that they've said they don't have all the money necessary to do everything they want to do. Um, so how exactly are Y'all looking at helping the situation?
A: Well, there, there are lots of things that we can do. Um, and I'm not saying that finances isn't part of that answer, but I'm saying it can't just be like some of the other things we hear about all the time. If we just throw money at it and we do it, it'll all work itself out. Um, we have, this is a news flash, maybe not to any of you in this crowd, but we have cities all over this state that run their water systems and live within their means and, and they don't have everything they want. They may not be Cadillac system, but they're running a healthy, efficient water system. They actually collect the water bills from their customers and they plow that back into their systems. That's what needs to be going on here. We can help them do that. I don't know what that looks like. We can help them in borrowing money, we can help them partnering with third parties. And again, we wanna help, I want this to be Jackson's baby and we want to help them in any ways that we can besides just simply opening the checkbook and saying, here's a billion dollars and I don't know that a billion would fix it. I don't know what that number is. I know this, the feds came in and we're gonna fix it. And they opened up the checkbook and they're still writing checks and we're nowhere close to fixing it.
Q: Yes sir. Mr. Bar, Go back to school for just a second and, uh, do you see, I know you still compiling, do you?
A: I do, but I think, I think folks get caught up on that because, you know, we regulate our public schools and so some, some kind of way there's this thought that we should jump that over into the private school space or what we do now with our charter schools in, in, in all of this regulation. People have made those choices for private schools now because they like what they see in the product that's there on some level. We have to trust parents that this is what they see and want for their kids and, and admin creep or the idea of it as what it is. What has had such a chilling effect on our private schools even being willing to partner at this point because they fear that sort of of creep. Now, I would say you could have some preliminary regulation or tests and say if those schools that are are accepting ESAs don't meet some certain benchmark, then maybe you go a step further with that regulation or that look behind the curtain. But on some large level, I want to trust the parents to make that decision for their child. We trust how they're gonna clothe them, feed 'em whether or not they're gonna take 'em to church, whether or not they're gonna sign 'em up for summer baseball or whatever the issue, whether or not they're gonna buckle their seatbelt or put 'em in a child seat and all of a sudden we check that authority when it comes to their education. And I just, more and more mississippians are having a tough time squaring that and, and they're not so caught up. And, and here's another thing at, at private schools, for the most part, parents have a huge interaction. Now it's probably because their checking account's getting debited every month, paying their private school tuition. So they, somebody's gonna hear they're, they're fussing in what they have to say that you might not see it at all the time at the public school level or with, or with local school boards to some extent. So maybe that's the skin in the game argument that we've gotta figure out going forward. I do see some regulation, I don't think it's a totally none, but I also don't think it leads into the requirements that we see. You're trusting that parent to make that decision and to me that's the ultimate, if you will, that's the ultimate backstop for that kid and the education they are or they are not getting that. That's my personal thoughts on Who else, anybody else?
Q: Yes, sir. And Texas passed School choice this year, and I know the senate, uh, lieutenant Governor about teacher pay raises up to something that they did, um, and gave public schools additional funding. Would you be, uh, in favor of testing that as well?
A: You're you're gonna see that as part of our package now. We are, we're gonna be targeted and, and pointed with our teacher pay raises maybe as to the point of where those teachers are going in teaching to incentivize. Especially in some places where we have some extreme teacher shortages in some of our public schools, you may see most of those raises directed directly to those places, specifically to those teachers, not necessarily, um, flowing through the district. It, it'll have to to pay 'em. But my point is to teachers who are willing to, to make that decision to go there, we we'll be willing to pay them more robustly also for our retired teachers that we would like to lure back into the workplace. We've gotta figure that out as well. And I think that also can speak to our shortage, especially in those areas. So yeah, you're gonna see there is a financial component to this. We're, we're gonna be willing to put our money where our mouth is, um, on the issue now, how far can we go with that? We'll, we'll see. Um, when I was back in the spring, y'all know this our, we have this softball team, it's kind of gotten outta hand in the house and it's grown its own thing. But anyway, we were in Alabama to, to play their softball team. They're the ones that had invited us to get all this going and for charity and it, it is for good cause. So I don't mean to belittle that, but they were in session when we were over there to play a softball game. So they invited us to some of their committee meetings and, and even they actually had some private caucus meetings they invited us to. But committee meetings, a little bit of their debate on the floor. They have billions of dollars. Like, and, and so they're playing a little different game when it comes to their choice when it comes to how they're paying their teachers. We don't have that luxury, but we do have a cushion in our budget now. We do have funds in reserve. There are things we can do. Um, the lieutenant governor and I have talked a lot about the interest income that state earns on all the deposits and things that we have and where that could be directed. Um, there's money available, there's gotta be a little bit of, of political will and prioritizing the way we spend. But yes, to answer your question, that was long-winded to say teacher pay will be a part of that equation, but it, but it it's gonna be pointed and directed, um, at specific areas, regions, and, um, outcomes, if you will. Yes, sir.
Q: Um, I just kind of, I just wanted to clarify on the voter initiatives that you'll be taking on, um, specifically on mouth initiative and suffrage. Uh, one would you willing to say which specific Republican in the Senate will no longer be there that, uh, has been an obstacle before, uh, the valid initiative and it's my understanding the senator who is your biggest obstacle on suffrage is still there. So how do you plan to change up the approach?
A: I don't know that, I don't, we don't, you know, I don't know that one senator should ever stop anything. I was just saying that's an excuse that's been used in the past. I would also tell you that the disagreements hadn't have been about the number of signatures that that's all just arose and a, a political speak to get out of a political trial. We can fix those issues. There are 40 people in this room that can tell you who won't be back, that has been claimed as an obstacle. I'll let you check with them on the way out as to who that is.
Q: 1, 1, 1 more real quick, Mr. Speaker.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Um, I know that Emily, I see you. I'll come in. I'm sorry. No, go ahead. I I know The federal bill is Bill pending, but is there any chance that Medicaid come back up and the Next session? Um,
A: we are watching that closely. 'cause I mean you, you've kept up with it probably better than me, but, but depending on what ends up coming out of the Senate today or tonight, what the House does with that, um, and of course what the house's original position was versus the Senate in, in DC I'm talking about federally. Um, our, our are very different when it comes to states singling, singling them out as expansion or non-expansion states of what is allowed, especially as it relates to the provider tax that the, the bed tax and how we draw down those federal funds. Um, in 2023, in the fall of 2023, when Medicaid and the governor, um, found the enhanced reimbursement, if you will, that had, that had been hanging around for a while for, for folks to avail themselves to, we, we finally took that initiative that alleviated some pressure for our hospitals. And I felt like that led to some mediocre conversation about whether or not expansion should be part of our state. And just like mobile sports betting, I don't wake up every morning thinking we have to expand Medicaid, but I do worry about our hospitals and providers and folks being there, especially in rural settings. And if we had not had that enhanced reimbursement and without expansion, we would already have felt the effects in such a way that depending on how this bill passes, it could roll back some of those features as it limits the tax that we can charge and draw down the federal money. And you, you know what I'm speaking of to the point of I'm worried how we're going to even afford the current Medicaid, um, population that we have and keep our hospitals open, um, even as we evaluate ways to cover uninsured. So, um, I know there's no appetite, um, on the other end of the building. I know the governor's been very clear where he is on expansion and regardless of what y'all might know or think, I actually enjoy a pretty decent relationship with the governor and, um, we disagreed on that issue, but on almost every other one we agree and I was proud to have his support on House Bill one and we're gonna continue to work hard. Um, I will applaud him for whatever reason he was willing to think outside the box and find that enhanced reimbursement before. But if that stuff gets rolled back, we're gonna have to consider a way forward so that when the dust settles, we look around and, and, and our people in Mississippi are at least within a reasonable distance to a hospital in an emergency room. And that wouldn't be the case. Um, if it passes as is and, and some things happened here in a non-expansion state, Leah knows way more than me about that now, but she's, she's jumping at the bed over here. Yes, sir.
Q: Um, back to education. Um, do you think that the state to step in and, and, um, make up the difference for school school districts that have, you know, had, uh, pandemic relief funds, um, presented? I know MD is going through the, the process to try and get some of that fact, but I mean, at what point does the state say, okay, this, there are many schools that were, you know, midway through construction and renovation projects when this happened?
A: Yes. Um, Lieutenant Governor and I had a lot of conversation about that. I'm not a fan of funding the next two or three years of a pandemic related program related to counseling or something to help students deal with the pandemic programs that got started and things like that. And even folks that got hired in school districts to do things like that. I'm not a fan of throwing state dollars at that, where we have school districts that started a brick and mortar project and in most cases, Mississippi contractors are there trying to do the work. We tried to figure out a way, um, to deal with those issues. And I, I think you'll see going forward that if we, if we don't find a little more common sense on that issue from the federal government, I think you'll see the state at least on those issues of brick and mortar where school districts are out, that, that we will attempt to help them finish those projects, but we won't continue these other projects as it related to pandemic relief teaching or counseling or programs or things like that. Brick and mortar. I think you'll find an appetite for us to help on that.
Question for the media.
Q: Um, oh, no, go ahead.
Q: On the education front, can you say a little bit more about why you favor a comprehensive package? Are you concerned sort of putting it into one package might make it uncomfortable for certain members? Just say a little bit more about your reasoning there.
A: I just think it, I think it works and flows better when everybody is considering the whole, I don't think, I don't think you take any one thing and say like, like we specifically wanna look at away for our retired teachers to come back and teach. Somebody may be totally opposed to that, but they're willing to sit down and talk and listen because they are a champion for school choice or they're a champion for Tim Tebow Act, or they're a champion for portability between public school districts. So to get their attention on that issue, they, they, they light up about these others. And I think it's, I think it's why you see even in our international Congress now, considering that one huge bill because there's things in there in the, in the volatile political world that we live in, there are things in there that folks for whatever reason, because of a certain voter base or an issue or a political, um, ideology, they say they can't go there. But there are enough good things there that they're able to get there. So that's, that's why that was the approach with House Bill one and all encompassing, let's get it all out on the table and see where we get. And, and I think that's gonna be our approach with, with that bill is, is, I don't know if that answers your question, but we have found it's just as easy to get it all out there and get it in a bill as it is to piecemeal the bills and the back and forth and the horse trading and all that stuff that goes on. Um, we seem to be able to get our hands around it better all in one piece of legislation.
Q: And if you have to start making trade offs, is are there, is there sort of one school choice or education freedom component that you're most, that you're prioritizing most? Or what sort of priority
A: Number one? Well, we, I'm for universal school choice, but, but I understand that a portion of my own caucus and even the legislature as a whole is not, but what they are most all for is starting at a place that helps our most disadvantaged first and being willing to give those folks the benefit of the doubt when it comes to some options. We've got ESAs for special needs. We already have that. So, so to say that it doesn't work in some instances wrong, we already have it there. I would like to start by expanding it to some other student groups, mainly based on income and poverty and then move forward from there. Let's see how it works. The take rate in most states, even where they have full blown universal school choice is less than eight or 7%. This is not the, the wholesale move from one place to another that sometimes it gets pitched as, but for certain people it is the best and sometimes the only option if it's available. And, and I just think we are shortchanging our people by not allowing that.
Q: Yes sir. Mr. Whiteman. So continuing on school choice, you've got I think, uh, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Alabama. Not sure about Tennessee, all these surrounding states, you know, pushing forward. Um, question number one, you know, what is it unique about Mississippi where we have been slow to embrace this? And then number two, can maybe we learn from these other states as they roll this out, maybe things to do, things not to do,
A: Couple of things. And you, and you hit to the heart of some of it, and I say this and sometimes it makes people uncomfortable and I think I shouldn't have said that, but, but I think number one, it's so hard here because maybe more than some other states, we have a very complicated and ugly past when it came to public schools, how our private schools sprang up. Um, they didn't spring up like so many maybe up in the northeast did where some rich folks just had a whole pile of extra money and said, we're gonna found a private school that's gonna focus on these issues. They spr up because of integration. There's no denying that. But for so many of us, that was 50 years ago and I'm only 52, I didn't see that side of it. What I see now is I see private schools that have healthy minority populations in them. They have some scholarship, um, programs now. They're not where I want 'em to be. I'm not holding that out as, you know, that's gonna fix everything. But I'm, I I think that ugly past is a reason that some people, their guards are up from the very beginning when they sit down and we start talking about somebody might go to a private school that was going to a public school and that the state on some level may take part in that and help those families. So I think, I think people are more willing and open to talk about that, number one. And and they hadn't been in the past and I, I wholeheartedly agree with your, your assessment of we can look at these other states and what they've done and what is working and what hadn't worked. Um, but, but I mean, let's be honest, even the charter school system that we've set up here, it's almost like, and I was part of this, it's my first general legislature, I think in second we set up a system almost from the get go that almost had no chance for survival or certainly not for, for vibrancy in a way that we put so many handcuffs on it where they could be and what they could look like and what they could do and not do that. It was almost set up to fail. Let's, I would like to be more open in this approach and this reform is gonna include reform for charter schools as well. Um, we're also gonna talk about our institutions of higher learning and our community colleges. Any of those of our eight public universities and our 15 community colleges, if they wanna start a school on their campus, be it elementary, middle school, junior high, high school, we're gonna give them the tools to do that. Whether that looks like a charter school and they partner with a third party or a local school district or they do it themselves. The state is gonna hold their hand in that and try to make that work and get some in some strategic places and give people options there as well. But I, but I, I think we can look at what some other states have done. We can't go all out universal choice for a bunch of different reasons. There's a cost associated number one if, if you had that huge thing. Nobody's denying that and nobody is willing to do anything that hurts our public school funding. This is about parents, kids and options and we trying to keep the conversation specifically about that.
Q: Yes sir. Yes. Uh, spotlight's bright. I can't see who I got back there. Ms. Grant. Hey Grant, come on.
Q: Um, and it comes to the Jackson Water issue. Are you saying that, you know, when you say this, you want the city to have control over the water and sewer system that there would be owners in it, and how is the state willing to help support the Jackson Water system? 'cause it's largest, one of its largest moving issues that will have is, is death. And the fact that they've said they don't have all the money necessary to do everything they want to do. Um, so how exactly are Y'all looking at helping the situation?
A: Well, there, there are lots of things that we can do. Um, and I'm not saying that finances isn't part of that answer, but I'm saying it can't just be like some of the other things we hear about all the time. If we just throw money at it and we do it, it'll all work itself out. Um, we have, this is a news flash, maybe not to any of you in this crowd, but we have cities all over this state that run their water systems and live within their means and, and they don't have everything they want. They may not be Cadillac system, but they're running a healthy, efficient water system. They actually collect the water bills from their customers and they plow that back into their systems. That's what needs to be going on here. We can help them do that. I don't know what that looks like. We can help them in borrowing money, we can help them partnering with third parties. And again, we wanna help, I want this to be Jackson's baby and we want to help them in any ways that we can besides just simply opening the checkbook and saying, here's a billion dollars and I don't know that a billion would fix it. I don't know what that number is. I know this, the feds came in and we're gonna fix it. And they opened up the checkbook and they're still writing checks and we're nowhere close to fixing it.
Q: Yes sir. Mr. Bar, Go back to school for just a second and, uh, do you see, I know you still compiling, do you?
A: I do, but I think, I think folks get caught up on that because, you know, we regulate our public schools and so some, some kind of way there's this thought that we should jump that over into the private school space or what we do now with our charter schools in, in, in all of this regulation. People have made those choices for private schools now because they like what they see in the product that's there on some level. We have to trust parents that this is what they see and want for their kids and, and admin creep or the idea of it as what it is. What has had such a chilling effect on our private schools even being willing to partner at this point because they fear that sort of of creep. Now, I would say you could have some preliminary regulation or tests and say if those schools that are are accepting ESAs don't meet some certain benchmark, then maybe you go a step further with that regulation or that look behind the curtain. But on some large level, I want to trust the parents to make that decision for their child. We trust how they're gonna clothe them, feed 'em whether or not they're gonna take 'em to church, whether or not they're gonna sign 'em up for summer baseball or whatever the issue, whether or not they're gonna buckle their seatbelt or put 'em in a child seat and all of a sudden we check that authority when it comes to their education. And I just, more and more mississippians are having a tough time squaring that and, and they're not so caught up. And, and here's another thing at, at private schools, for the most part, parents have a huge interaction. Now it's probably because their checking account's getting debited every month, paying their private school tuition. So they, somebody's gonna hear they're, they're fussing in what they have to say that you might not see it at all the time at the public school level or with, or with local school boards to some extent. So maybe that's the skin in the game argument that we've gotta figure out going forward. I do see some regulation, I don't think it's a totally none, but I also don't think it leads into the requirements that we see. You're trusting that parent to make that decision and to me that's the ultimate, if you will, that's the ultimate backstop for that kid and the education they are or they are not getting that. That's my personal thoughts on Who else, anybody else?
Q: Yes, sir. And Texas passed School choice this year, and I know the senate, uh, lieutenant Governor about teacher pay raises up to something that they did, um, and gave public schools additional funding. Would you be, uh, in favor of testing that as well?
A: You're you're gonna see that as part of our package now. We are, we're gonna be targeted and, and pointed with our teacher pay raises maybe as to the point of where those teachers are going in teaching to incentivize. Especially in some places where we have some extreme teacher shortages in some of our public schools, you may see most of those raises directed directly to those places, specifically to those teachers, not necessarily, um, flowing through the district. It, it'll have to to pay 'em. But my point is to teachers who are willing to, to make that decision to go there, we we'll be willing to pay them more robustly also for our retired teachers that we would like to lure back into the workplace. We've gotta figure that out as well. And I think that also can speak to our shortage, especially in those areas. So yeah, you're gonna see there is a financial component to this. We're, we're gonna be willing to put our money where our mouth is, um, on the issue now, how far can we go with that? We'll, we'll see. Um, when I was back in the spring, y'all know this our, we have this softball team, it's kind of gotten outta hand in the house and it's grown its own thing. But anyway, we were in Alabama to, to play their softball team. They're the ones that had invited us to get all this going and for charity and it, it is for good cause. So I don't mean to belittle that, but they were in session when we were over there to play a softball game. So they invited us to some of their committee meetings and, and even they actually had some private caucus meetings they invited us to. But committee meetings, a little bit of their debate on the floor. They have billions of dollars. Like, and, and so they're playing a little different game when it comes to their choice when it comes to how they're paying their teachers. We don't have that luxury, but we do have a cushion in our budget now. We do have funds in reserve. There are things we can do. Um, the lieutenant governor and I have talked a lot about the interest income that state earns on all the deposits and things that we have and where that could be directed. Um, there's money available, there's gotta be a little bit of, of political will and prioritizing the way we spend. But yes, to answer your question, that was long-winded to say teacher pay will be a part of that equation, but it, but it it's gonna be pointed and directed, um, at specific areas, regions, and, um, outcomes, if you will. Yes, sir.
Q: Um, I just kind of, I just wanted to clarify on the voter initiatives that you'll be taking on, um, specifically on mouth initiative and suffrage. Uh, one would you willing to say which specific Republican in the Senate will no longer be there that, uh, has been an obstacle before, uh, the valid initiative and it's my understanding the senator who is your biggest obstacle on suffrage is still there. So how do you plan to change up the approach?
A: I don't know that, I don't, we don't, you know, I don't know that one senator should ever stop anything. I was just saying that's an excuse that's been used in the past. I would also tell you that the disagreements hadn't have been about the number of signatures that that's all just arose and a, a political speak to get out of a political trial. We can fix those issues. There are 40 people in this room that can tell you who won't be back, that has been claimed as an obstacle. I'll let you check with them on the way out as to who that is.
Q: 1, 1, 1 more real quick, Mr. Speaker.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Um, I know that Emily, I see you. I'll come in. I'm sorry. No, go ahead. I I know The federal bill is Bill pending, but is there any chance that Medicaid come back up and the Next session? Um,
A: we are watching that closely. 'cause I mean you, you've kept up with it probably better than me, but, but depending on what ends up coming out of the Senate today or tonight, what the House does with that, um, and of course what the house's original position was versus the Senate in, in DC I'm talking about federally. Um, our, our are very different when it comes to states singling, singling them out as expansion or non-expansion states of what is allowed, especially as it relates to the provider tax that the, the bed tax and how we draw down those federal funds. Um, in 2023, in the fall of 2023, when Medicaid and the governor, um, found the enhanced reimbursement, if you will, that had, that had been hanging around for a while for, for folks to avail themselves to, we, we finally took that initiative that alleviated some pressure for our hospitals. And I felt like that led to some mediocre conversation about whether or not expansion should be part of our state. And just like mobile sports betting, I don't wake up every morning thinking we have to expand Medicaid, but I do worry about our hospitals and providers and folks being there, especially in rural settings. And if we had not had that enhanced reimbursement and without expansion, we would already have felt the effects in such a way that depending on how this bill passes, it could roll back some of those features as it limits the tax that we can charge and draw down the federal money. And you, you know what I'm speaking of to the point of I'm worried how we're going to even afford the current Medicaid, um, population that we have and keep our hospitals open, um, even as we evaluate ways to cover uninsured. So, um, I know there's no appetite, um, on the other end of the building. I know the governor's been very clear where he is on expansion and regardless of what y'all might know or think, I actually enjoy a pretty decent relationship with the governor and, um, we disagreed on that issue, but on almost every other one we agree and I was proud to have his support on House Bill one and we're gonna continue to work hard. Um, I will applaud him for whatever reason he was willing to think outside the box and find that enhanced reimbursement before. But if that stuff gets rolled back, we're gonna have to consider a way forward so that when the dust settles, we look around and, and, and our people in Mississippi are at least within a reasonable distance to a hospital in an emergency room. And that wouldn't be the case. Um, if it passes as is and, and some things happened here in a non-expansion state, Leah knows way more than me about that now, but she's, she's jumping at the bed over here. Yes, sir.
Q: Um, back to education. Um, do you think that the state to step in and, and, um, make up the difference for school school districts that have, you know, had, uh, pandemic relief funds, um, presented? I know MD is going through the, the process to try and get some of that fact, but I mean, at what point does the state say, okay, this, there are many schools that were, you know, midway through construction and renovation projects when this happened?
A: Yes. Um, Lieutenant Governor and I had a lot of conversation about that. I'm not a fan of funding the next two or three years of a pandemic related program related to counseling or something to help students deal with the pandemic programs that got started and things like that. And even folks that got hired in school districts to do things like that. I'm not a fan of throwing state dollars at that, where we have school districts that started a brick and mortar project and in most cases, Mississippi contractors are there trying to do the work. We tried to figure out a way, um, to deal with those issues. And I, I think you'll see going forward that if we, if we don't find a little more common sense on that issue from the federal government, I think you'll see the state at least on those issues of brick and mortar where school districts are out, that, that we will attempt to help them finish those projects, but we won't continue these other projects as it related to pandemic relief teaching or counseling or programs or things like that. Brick and mortar. I think you'll find an appetite for us to help on that.
