Journal of the Florida House of Representatives

Journal

of the

Florida
House of Representatives

Special Session "H"
June 1 through July 1, 1992

of the
Seventy-fifth House
since Statehood in 1845

[Including a record of transmittal of Acts subsequent to sine die adjournment]

MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
[Democrats in Roman (74); Republicans in Italic (46);
as of General Election]

District
1. Part of Escambia
Thomas J. "Tom" Tobiassen, Cantonment
2. Part of Escambia
Buzz Ritchie, Pensacola
3. Parts of Escambia, Santa Rosa
Tom Banjanin, Pensacola
4. Parts of Okaloosa, Santa Rosa [an uninhabited
portion of Escambia lies within this district]
Bolley L. "Bo" Johnson, Milton
5. Parts of Okaloosa, Walton
Robert T. Harden, Fort Walton Beach
6. Part of Bay
Scott W. Clemons, Panama City
7. Holmes, Washington and parts of Bay, Jack-
son, Walton
Sam Mitchell, Vernon
8. Calhoun, Gadsden, Gulf and parts of Bay,
Franklin, Jackson
Robert DeWitt "Rob" Trammell, Marianna
9. Liberty and parts of Franklin, Leon, Wakulla
Alfred J. "Al" Lawson, Jr., Tallahassee
10. Part of Leon
Hurley W. Rudd, Tallahassee
11. Dixie, Gilchrist, Jefferson, Lafayette, Levy,
Taylor and parts of Citrus, Marion, Wakulla
F. Allen Boyd, Jr., Monticello
12. Columbia, Hamilton, Madison, Suwannee
Joseph R. "Randy" Mackey, Jr., Lake City
13. Baker, Nassau, Union and parts of Bradford,
Duval
George A. Crady, Yulee
14. Part of Duval
Stephen R. Wise, Jacksonville
15. Part of Duval
Michael Edward "Mike" Langton, Jacksonville
16. Part of Duval
Betty S. Holzendorf, Jacksonville
17. Part of Duval
Corrine Brown, Jacksonville
18. Part of Duval
James E. "Jim" King, Jr., Jacksonville

District
19. Parts of Duval, St. Johns
Joseph "Joe" Arnall, Jacksonville Beach
20. Part of Duval
Kathy Geller Chinoy, Jacksonville
21. Clay and parts of Bradford, St. Johns
Frances L. "Chance" Irvine, Orange Park
22. Flagler and parts of Putnam, St. Johns
Kelley R. Smith, Jr., Palatka
23. Parts of Alachua, Putnam
Cynthia Moore Chestnut, Gainesville
24. Part of Alachua
David Flagg, Gainesville
25. Part of Marion
George Albright, Ocala
26. Parts of Citrus, Marion
Paul M. Hawkes, Crystal River
27. Parts of Lake, Marion, Putnam, Seminole,
Volusia
Stanley E. "Stan" Bainter, Eustis
28. Part of Volusia
Richard S. "Dick" Graham, Ormond Beach
29. Part of Volusia
T. K. Wetherell, Daytona Beach
30. Part of Volusia
Jack Ascherl, New Smyrna Beach
31. Part of Brevard
Charlie Roberts, Titusville
32. Part of Brevard
Dixie Newton Sansom, Satellite Beach
33. Part of Brevard
Harry C. Goode, Jr., Melbourne
34. Parts of Brevard, Orange, Seminole
Frank Stone, Oviedo
(Changed party affiliation from Republican
to Democrat on September 24, 1991)
35. Part of Seminole
Arthur E. "Art" Grindle, Altamonte Springs
36. Parts of Orange, Seminole
Robert J. "Bob" Starks, Maitland
37. Part of Orange
Tom Feeney, Orlando

District
38. Part of Orange
Bruce McEwan, Orlando
39. Part of Orange
Robert B. "Bob" Sindler, Apopka
40. Part of Orange
Alzo J. Reddick, Orlando
41. Part of Orange
Daniel Webster, Orlando
42. Parts of Osceola, Polk
C. Fred Jones, Auburndale
(Resigned July 1, 1992)
43. Part of Polk
John Laurent, Bartow
44. Part of Polk
Joe Viscusi, Lakeland
45. Part of Polk
William Thomas "Tom" Mims, Lakeland
46. Parts of Lake, Sumter
Everett A. Kelly, Lady Lake
47. Hernando and parts of Pasco, Sumter
Charles R. "Chuck" Smith, Brooksville
48. Part of Pasco
John Long, Land O'Lakes
49. Part of Pasco
Philip Mishkin, Port Richey
50. Parts of Pasco, Pinellas
R. Z. "Sandy" Safley, Clearwater
51. Part of Pinellas
Patricia A. "Trish" Muscarella, Clearwater
52. Part of Pinellas
Sandra Barringer Mortham, Largo
53. Part of Pinellas
Dennis L. Jones, Treasure Island
54. Part of Pinellas
Lars A. Hafner, St. Petersburg
55. Part of Pinellas
Douglas L. "Tim" Jamerson, St. Petersburg
56. Part of Pinellas
Peter Rudy Wallace, St. Petersburg
57. Part of Pinellas
Mary M. Brennan, Pinellas Park
58. Part of Pinellas
Jeffrey C. "Jeff" Huenink, Clearwater
59. Part of Hillsborough
Brian P. Rush, Tampa
60. Part of Hillsborough
Mary Figg, Lutz

District
61. Parts of Hillsborough, Pasco
Buddy Johnson, Plant City
(Elected March 12, 1991)
62. Part of Hillsborough
Chris Corr, Apollo Beach
63. Part of Hillsborough
James T. "Jim" Hargrett, Jr., Tampa
64. Part of Hillsborough
James O. "Jim" Davis III, Tampa
65. Part of Hillsborough
Elvin L. Martinez, Tampa
66. Part of Hillsborough
Ronald Carl "Ron" Glickman, Tampa
67. Hardee and part of Manatee
J. J. "Toby" Holland, Jr., Holmes Beach
68. Part of Manatee
Peggy Simone, Bradenton
69. Parts of Manatee, Sarasota
Harry Jennings, Sarasota
70. Part of Sarasota
James M. Lombard, Osprey
71. Parts of Charlotte, Sarasota
David L. "Dave" Thomas, Sarasota
72. Parts of Charlotte, DeSoto, Lee
Vernon E. Peeples, Punta Gorda
73. Part of Lee
J. Keith Arnold, Fort Myers
74. Part of Lee
Timothy F. "Tim" Ireland, Cape Coral
75. Parts of Collier, Lee
Mary Ellen Hawkins, Naples
76. Glades, Hendry, Highlands and parts of
Collier, DeSoto, Okeechobee
Bert J. Harris, Jr., Lake Placid
77. Parts of Brevard, Indian River, Okeechobee,
Osceola, St. Lucie
Irlo "Bud" Bronson, Jr., Kissimmee
78. Parts of Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie
Charles W. Sembler II, Sebastian
79. Parts of Martin, St. Lucie
Kenneth P. "Ken" Pruitt, Port St. Lucie
80. Parts of Martin, Palm Beach
James C. "Jim" Hill, Jr., Jupiter
81. Part of Palm Beach
Marian V. Lewis, North Palm Beach

District
82. Part of Palm Beach
Ray Liberti, West Palm Beach
83. Part of Palm Beach
Lois Jane Frankel, West Palm Beach
84. Part of Palm Beach
Edward J. "Ed" Healey, West Palm Beach
85. Part of Palm Beach
Mark A. Foley, Lake Worth
86. Part of Palm Beach
Steve Press, Delray Beach
87. Parts of Broward, Palm Beach
Carol G. Hanson, Boca Raton
88. Part of Broward
Jack N. Tobin, Margate
89. Part of Broward
Ben Graber, Coral Springs
90. Part of Broward
Peter R. Deutsch, Tamarac
91. Part of Broward
Bill Clark, Lauderdale Lakes
92. Part of Broward
John C. Rayson, Pompano Beach
93. Part of Broward
Deborah P. "Debby" Sanderson, Fort Lauderdale
94. Part of Broward
Tracy Stafford, Wilton Manors
95. Part of Broward
Anne Mackenzie, Fort Lauderdale
96. Part of Broward
Norman "Norm" Ostrau, Plantation
97. Part of Broward
Frederick "Fred" Lippman, Hollywood
98. Part of Broward
Steven A. "Steve" Geller, Hallandale
99. Part of Broward
Walter C. "Walt" Young, Pembroke Pines
100. Parts of Broward, Dade
Ronald A. "Ron" Silver, North Miami Beach
101. Part of Dade
Michael I. "Mike" Abrams, North Miami Beach

District
102. Part of Dade
Elaine Gordon, Miami
103. Part of Dade
Michael Friedman, Surfside
104. Part of Dade
Elaine Bloom, Miami Beach
105. Part of Dade
Alberto "Al" Gutman, Miami
106. Part of Dade
Darryl Reaves, Miami
107. Part of Dade
James C. "Jim" Burke, Miami
108. Part of Dade
Willie Logan, Jr., Opa-locka
109. Part of Dade
Luis E. Rojas, Hialeah
110. Part of Dade
Miguel A. "Mike" De Grandy, Miami
111. Part of Dade
Rodolfo "Rudy" Garcia, Jr., Hialeah
112. Part of Dade
Carlos L. Valdes, Miami Springs
113. Part of Dade
Luis C. Morse, Miami
114. Part of Dade
J. Bruce Hoffmann, South Miami
115. Part of Dade
Mario Diaz-Balart, Miami
116. Part of Dade
Art Simon, Miami
117. Part of Dade
Susan Guber, Miami
118. Part of Dade
Daryl L. Jones, Miami
119. Part of Dade
John F. Cosgrove, Miami
120. Monroe and part of Dade
Ron Saunders, Key West

OFFICERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Speaker-T. K. Wetherell
Speaker pro tempore-Everett Kelly

Clerk-John B. Phelps
Sergeant at Arms-Wayne Westmark

MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Michael I. Abrams (D)
North Miami Beach
District 101

t
George Albright (R)
Ocala
District 25

Stan Bainter (R) Tom Banjanin (R)
Eustis Pensacola
District 27 District 3

Joseph Amall (R)
Jacksonville Beach
District 19

Elaine Bloom (D)
Miami Beach
District 104

J. Keith Arnold (D)
Fort Myers
District 73

F. Allen Boyd, Jr. (D)
Monticello
District 11

Jack Ascherl (D)
New Smyrna Beach
District 30

Mary Brennan (D)
Pinellas Park
District 57

fl

Irlo "Bud" Bronson (D)
Kissimmee
District 77

Bill Clark (D)
Lauderdale Lakes
District 91

Corrine Brown (D)
Jacksonville
District 17

Scott W. Clemons (D)
Panama City
District 6

James C. Burke (D)
Miami
District 107

Chris Corr (R)
Apollo Beach
District 62

Cynthia Moore Chestnut (D)
Gainesville
District 23

John F. Cosgrove (D)
Miami
District 119

L :
Kathy Geller Chinoy (D)
Jacksonville
District 20

George A. Crady (D)
Yulee
District 13

Miguel A. De Grandy (R)
Miami
District 110

Peter R. Deutsch (D)
Tamarac
District 90

Mario Diaz-Balart (R)
Miami
District 115

A&l
Jim Davis (D)
Tampa
District 64

Tom Feeney (R)
Orlando
District 37

-1

r,

Rodolfo Garcia, Jr. (R)
Hialeah
District 111

Ben Graber, M.D. (D)
Coral Springs
District 89

Lars A. Hafner (D)
St. Petersburg
District 54

Paul M. Hawkes (R)
Crystal River
District 26

David Flagg (D)
Gainesville
District 24

Steven A. Geller (D)
Hallandale
District 98

Richard S. Graham (R)
Ormond Beach
District 28

Carol Hanson (R)
Boca Raton
District 87

Mark A. Foley (R)
Lake Worth
District 85

Ronald C. Glickman (D)
Tampa
District 66

Art Grindle (R)
Altamonte Springs
District 35

Robert T. Harden (R)
Fort Walton Beach
District 5

I .

J24

Mary Ellen Hawkins (l)
Naples
District 75

Edward J. Healey (D)
West Palm Beach
District 84

Lois J. Frankel (D)
West Palm Beach
District 83

Harry C. Goode, Jr. (D)
Melbourne
District 33

Susan Guber (D)
Miami
District 117

James T. Hargrett, Jr. (D)
Tampa
District 63

James C. Hill, Jr. (R)
Jupiter
District 80

Michael Friedman (D)
Surfside
District 103

Elaine Gordon (D)
Miami
District 102

Alberto Gutman (R)
Miami
District 105

1-7-

Bert J. Harris, Jr. (D)
Lake Placid
District 76

aA
Bruce Hoffmann (R)
South Miami
District 114

Mary Figg (D)
Lutz
District 60

Elvin L Martinez (D)
Tampa
District 65

Luis C. Morse (R)
Miami
District 113

Steve Press (D)
Delray Beach
District 86

Bruce McEwan (R)
Orlando
District 38

Sandra Barringer Mortham (R)
Largo
District 52

Kenneth P. Puitt (R)
Port St. Lucie
District 79

William Thomas Mims (D)
Lakeland
District 45

Patricia A. Muscarella (R)
Clearwater
District 51

John C. Rayson (D)
Pompano Beach
District 92

Philip Mishkin (D)
Port Richey
District 49

Norman Ostrau (D)
Plantation
District 96

Darryl Reaves (D)
Miami
District 106

Sam Mitchell (D)
Vernon
District 7

Vernon Peeples (D)
Punta Gorda
District 72

Alzo J. Reddick (D)
Orlando
District 40

Buzz Ritchie (D)
Pensacola
District 2

Charlie Roberts (D) Luis E. Rojas (R)
Titusville Hialeah
District 31 District 109

Hurley W. Rudd (D)
Tallahassee
District 10

Brian P. Rush (D)
Tampa
District 59

i. T /

Debby P. Sanderson (R)
Fort Lauderdale
District 93

Dixie Newton Sansom (R)
Satellite Beach
District 32

Ron Saunders (D)
Key West
District 120

Charles W. Sembler II (R)
Sebastian
District 78

R. Z. Safley (R)
Clearwater
District 50

--"p

J. J. Holland, Jr. (R)
Holmes Beach
District 67

Douglas L. Jamerson (D)
St Petersburg
District 55

Daryl L Jones (D)
Miami
District 118

John Laurent (R)
Bartow
District 43

Betty S. Holzendorf (D)
Jacksonville
District 16

Harry Jennings (R)
Sarasota
District 69

Dennis L. Jones, D.C. (R)
Treasure Island
District 53

Alfred J. Lawson, Jr. (D)
Tallahassee
District 9

Jeffrey C. Huenink (R)
Clearwater
District 58

Bolley L. Johnson (D)
Milton
District 4

Everett A. Kelly (D)
Lady Lake
District 46

Marian V. Lewis (R)
North Palm Beach
District 81

Timothy F. Ireland (R)
Cape Coral
District 74

Buddy Johnson (R)
Plant City
District 61
Elected March 12, 1991

James E. King, Jr. (R)
Jacksonville
District 18

Ray Liberti (D)
West Palm Beach
District 82

Frances L. Irvine (R)
Orange Park
District 21

C. Fred Jones (D)
Aubumdale
District 42
Resigned July 1, 1992

a

Michael Edward Langton (D)
Jacksonville
District 15

Frederick Lippman (D)
Hollywood
District 97

Willie Logan, Jr. (D)
Opa-locka
District 108

r

James M. Lombard (R)
Osprey
District 70

John Long (D)
Land O'Lakes
District 48

Anne Mackenzie (D)
Fort Lauderdale
District 95

,A&

Joseph R. Mackey, Jr. (D)
Lake City
District 12

19=

Ronald A. Silver (D) Art Simon (D)
North Miami Beach Miami
District 100 District 116

Peggy Simone (R) Robert B. Sindler, D.V.M. (D)
Bradenton Apopka
District 68 District 39

Charles R. Smith (D)
Brooksville
District 47

Kelley R. Smith, Jr. (D)
Palatka
District 22

Tracy Stafford (D)
Wilton Manors
District 94

v'A

Robert J. Starks (R)
Maitland
District 36

Frank Stone (R)
Oviedo
District 34

David L. Thomas, M.D. (R)
Sarasota
District 71

Tom Tobiassen (D)
Cantonment
District 1

Jack N. Tobin (D)
Margate
District 88

Robert DeWitt Trammell (D)
Marianna
District 8

Carlos L. Valdes (R)
Miami Springs
District 112

Peter Rudy Wallace (D)
St. Petersburg
District 56

Daniel Webster (R)
Orlando
District 41

T. K. Wetherell (D)
Daytona Beach
District 29

Stephen R. Wise (R)
Jacksonville
District 14

Walter C. Young (D)
Pembroke Pines
District 99

Joe Viscusi (D)
Lakeland
District 44

The Journal OFTHE

House of Representatives

EIGHTH SPECIAL SESSION-"H" of 1990-1992

Number 1

Monday, June 1, 1992

Journal of the House of Representatives for a Special Session of the Seventy-fifth House since Statehood in 1845, convened
by Proclamation of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives and held at the Capitol
in the City of Tallahassee in the State of Florida, on Monday, June 1, 1992.

Pursuant to the following proclamation, the House was called to order
by the Honorable T. K. Wetherell, Speaker, at 10:00 a.m.
The following proclamation was read:

THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE
JOINT PROCLAMATION
TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE FLORIDA SENATE AND
THE FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
We, Gwen Margolis, President of the Florida Senate, and T. K.
Wetherell, Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, by virtue of
the authority vested in us by Article III, Section 3 (c), Florida Constitution,
and Section 11.011, Florida Statutes, do hereby proclaim:
1. That the Legislature of the State of Florida is convened in Special
Session pursuant to Article III, Section 3(c), Florida Constitution and
Section 11.011, Florida Statutes, at the Capitol in Tallahassee,
Florida, beginning at 10:00 a.m. on Monday the 1st day of June, 1992,
for a period of 19 days, ending at 11:59 p.m. on Friday the 19th day
of June, 1992.
2. That the Legislature is convened for the sole and exclusive purpose
of considering the following:
a) A General Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1992-1993
b) An Implementing Bill implementing provisions of the General
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1992-1993
c) Legislation relating to the revenues of state and local
governments
d) Legislation relating to PECO and the construction of educational
facilities
e) Legislation relating to laws and rules which will stand repealed
between June 1, 1992 and the beginning of the 1993 Regular
Session of the Florida Legislature, other than laws relating to
Chapter 395, Florida Statutes
f) Regulation of medical facilities as provided in Chapter 395,
Florida Statutes
g) Legislation relating to the Florida Retirement System
h) Legislation amending the provisions of Chapters 92-127, 92-177,
and 92-178, Laws of Florida
i) Claim bills
j) Properly advertised local bills
k) Legislation containing the provisions of CS/SB 1720 from the
1992 Regular Session of the Florida Legislature, as finally
amended by The Florida Senate on March 13, 1992
1) Legislation authorizing the construction of a natural gas pipeline

m) Legislation relating to the internal organization of the
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
n) Legislation relating to unemployment compensation benefits
o) Legislation relating to solid waste management
p) Legislation relating to witness tampering
q) Legislation transferring the licensure and recruiting of adult
foster homes from the Agency for Health Care Administration to
the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services
r) Legislation limiting the application of definitions contained in
section 408.07, Florida Statutes, by excluding such definitions
from applying to the provisions of sections 408.031 through
408.045, Florida Statutes.
3. That committees of either house of the Legislature are authorized to
consider legislation within the purview of this proclamation beginning
May 18, 1992.

GWEN MARGOLIS
President
The Florida Senate
April 29, 1992

T. K. WETHERELL
Speaker
The Florida House of Representatives
April 29, 1992

Duly filed with and received by
the Florida Department of State
this 1st day of May, 1992
JIM SMITH
Secretary of State
The following communications were received:
The Honorable Gwen Margolis May 29, 1992
President of the Florida Senate
The Honorable T. K. Wetherell
Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives
Dear Madam President and Mr. Speaker:
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 11.011, Florida Statutes, I request
that the purpose of the Special Session of the Legislature of the State of
Florida, convened by your Joint Proclamation, dated April 29, 1992,
include, in addition to the matters set forth in your Joint Resolution, the
following:

1

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

1. Creating the Workers' Compensation Reform Act, the Florida
Workplace Safety and Health Act, revising Sections of Chapter 627,
Florida Statutes, relating to workers' compensation insurance, and
providing relief for small businesses providing workers' compensation
coverage;
2. Enacting legislation to provide funds for Affordable Housing;
3. Providing the funding necessary to continue Preservation 2000
programs;
4. Providing the funding required to fund the Water Quality Assurance
Trust Fund;
5. Providing for property tax relief by resolving to place before the people
a constitutional amendment to reduce required local effort ad valorem
taxation on homestead property; and
6. Amending Section 196.012(9) relating to the definition of "nursing
home."
Thank you for including these matters in the Special Session to be
convened on June 1, 1992.
With kind regards, I am
Respectfully,
LAWTON CHILES
Governor

Prayer
The following prayer was offered by the Reverend Hal Marchman,
Central Baptist Church, Daytona Beach, upon invitation of Speaker
Wetherell:
Let us have a moment of silent prayer for the two police officers, Officers
Flagg and Hartmann in Satellite Beach who were killed, it is said, by a
drunken driver. (moment of silence)
Almighty God, we express our gratitude for the people of this great state
and for all the things that we have. Help us to remember to love people and
use things and refrain from loving things and using people. Amen and
Shalom.
The following Members were recorded present:

The Chair
Abrams
Albright
Arnall
Arnold
Bainter
Banjanin
Bloom
Boyd
Brennan
Bronson
Burke
Chestnut
Chinoy
Clark
Clemons
Corr
Cosgrove
Crady
Davis
De Grandy
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Feeney
Figg
Flagg
Foley
Frankel

Friedman
Garcia
Geller
Goode
Gordon
Graber
Graham
Grindle
Guber
Gutman
Hafner
Hanson
Harden
Hargrett
Harris
Hawkes
Hawkins
Healey
Hill
Hoffmann
Holland
Holzendorf
Ireland
Irvine
Jamerson
Jennings
Johnson, Bo
Johnson, Buddy

Jones, C. F.
Jones, Daryl
Jones, Dennis
Kelly
King
Langton
Laurent
Lawson
Lewis
Liberti
Lippman
Logan
Lombard
Long
Mackenzie
Mackey
Martinez
McEwan
Mims
Mishkin
Mitchell
Morse
Mortham
Muscarella
Ostrau
Peeples
Press
Pruitt

Reddick
Ritchie
Roberts
Rojas
Rudd
Safley
Sanderson
Sansom
Sembler
Silver
Simon
Simone
Smith, C.
Smith, K.
Stafford
Starks
Stone
Thomas
Tobiassen
Tobin
Trammell
Valdes
Viscusi
Wise
Young

Excused: Rep. Ascherl, until 6:46 p.m., due to death in family; Rep.
Brown, until 7:26 p.m.; Rep. Glickman; Rep. Huenink, due to business
matters; Rep. Rayson, for morning session due to airplane difficulties; Rep.
Reaves; Rep. Rush, for morning session; Rep. Saunders, for morning
session; Rep. Sindler, due to serving on mandatory tour of duty in
Honduras as a captain in the U.S. Army Reserves; Rep. Wallace, for
morning session; Rep. Webster.

A quorum was present.

Pledge
The Members, led by Mr. Elliott Powell, pledged allegiance to the Flag.
He attends Florida State University School in Tallahassee.

The Journal
The Journal of April 10, Special Session "G", was corrected and, as
corrected, was approved.

Select Committee Appointment
The Speaker advised that he had appointed the following Members,
under Rule 6.3, to the Select Committee of Inquiry and Investigation on
the Conduct of Kay Spitzer: Rep. Davis, Chair; Reps. Kelly, Feeney,
Lawson and Sansom. The sole purpose of this committee is to explore a
complaint filed against Ms. Spitzer by Marshall Anson.

Introduction and Reference

By Representative Gordon-
HR 1-H-A resolution commending Patricia Seitz for her
accomplishments in being elected as President of The Florida Bar for 1992-
1993.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Brown-
HB 3-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to the college reach-out
program; amending s. 240.61, F.S.; prescribing student eligibility criteria;
specifying data required to evaluate program effectiveness; providing for
the collection of such data; revising the college reach-out advisory
committee; providing for a council and for terms of its members; requiring
the Postsecondary Education Planning Commission to report on program
effectiveness; providing for certain allocations; providing an effective date.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Wise-
HB 5-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to substance abuse
impairment; creating ss. 397.301, 397.305, 397.311, 397.321, 397.401,
397.403, 397.405, 397.406, 397.407, 397.409, 397.411, 397.415, 397.419,
397.427, 397.431, 397.451, 397.461, 397.471, 397.481, 397.501, 397.581,
397.601,397.675,397.6751, 397.6752, 397.6758, 397.6759, 397.677, 397.6771,
397.6772, 397.6773, 397.6774, 397.6775, 397.679, 397.6791, 397.6793,
397.6795, 397.6797, 397.6798, 397.6799, 397.681, 397.6811, 397.6814,
397.6815, 397.6818, 397.6819, 397.6821, 397.6822, 397.693, 397.695,
397.6951, 397.6955, 397.6957, 397.697, 397.6971, 397.6975, 397.6977,
397.701, 397.702, 397.705, 397.706, 397.752, 397.753, 397.754, 397.801,
397.811,397.821, and 397.901, F.S.; creating the "Hal S. Marchman Alcohol
and Other Drug Services Act of 1992"; providing legislative findings, intent,
and purpose; providing definitions; providing duties of the Department of
Health and Rehabilitative Services; providing licensure requirements,
including applications, fees, and exemptions, and providing criminal
"penalties and injunctive relief for violations; providing for joint regulation
of certain state-operated programs; providing for rules waivers for
alternative services; providing for the issuance and renewal of
probationary, interim, and regular licenses for service providers and
licensable service components; authorizing the department to enter and
inspect premises and records; providing for denial, suspension, and
revocation of licenses and for other remedies, including an administrative
fine; requiring service providers to maintain quality assurance programs;
providing for confidentiality of service provider records; providing for
review and repeal; providing for need determinations and selection of
medication treatment providers and injunctions against unlawful
operation; providing client responsibility for cost of services and requiring
certain providers to establish sliding scale fee systems; providing immunity
from civil and criminal liability; requiring background checks of service
provider personnel in direct contact with unmarried minor clients or

developmentally disabled clients, and providing certain exemptions and
certain disqualification from receiving state funds; providing criminal

2

June 1, 1992

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE]

penalties for unlawful activities relating to personnel; requiring
fingerprinting and providing exceptions; providing for confidentiality of
personnel information; providing for review and repeal; establishing
service provider owner, director, personnel, and facility standards;
providing applicability of Community Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental
Health Services Act; establishing the rights of clients, including the rights
to judicial petition and habeas corpus and to counsel; providing for
confidentiality of client records and providing exceptions; providing for
review and repeal; providing for voluntary admission for substance abuse
impairment services; forbidding local ordinances affecting substance abuse
impairment and providing a limited exception and petition for detention
and treatment in secure facilities of habitual abusers; providing for
involuntary admissions for substance abuse services, including protective
custody, emergency admission, and other involuntary admissions for
purposes of assessment, stabilization, and treatment; providing for
involuntary admission hearings; requiring certain parental participation;
authorizing refusal under certain circumstances to admit clients ordered
to involuntary admission; providing criminal penalties for unlawful
activities relating to client assessment and treatment; providing for the
referral of substance abuse law offenders to service providers; providing for
inmate substance abuse services and providing definitions and duties of
the Department of Corrections; requiring coordination of substance abuse
services delivery and establishing the positions of statewide and
departmental coordinators; providing for specialized substance abuse
services coordination for juveniles, including prevention and early
intervention councils and emergency assessment and treatment services;
authorizing substance abuse impairment training and continuing
education programs; reenacting and amending ss. 39.01(64), 39.046(1), (2),
and (5), 39.047(4)(b), 39.063, 90.503(1)(a), 231.1713, 393.0657, 394.4572,
401.445(3), 402.22(3), 402.24(1), 402.3057,409.1757, 490.014(2)(a), 491.014,
(4)(a), 744.3215(4)(a), 766.101(1)(a), 790.06(2)(f) and (10)(e), 877.111(4),
893.15, 895.09(2)(a), (d), and (e), 945.12(1) and (2), and 951.23(2)(b) and
(e), F.S., relating to juvenile justice, evidence, school personnel,
developmental disability and mental health personnel, medical
transportation, health and rehabilitative services, social assistance,
psychological services, counseling services, guardianship, medical review
committees, weapons and firearms, chemical substances, controlled
substances, forfeiture proceedings, and state and county prisoners, to
conform; amending s. 394.90, F.S.; authorizing the department to accept
accreditation for mental health providers in lieu of department inspection;
repealing ss. 396.012, 396.022, 396.0429, 396.062, 396.072, 396.082, 396.092,
396.102, 396.105, 396.106, 396.112, 396.122, 396.131, 396.141, 396.151,
396.1515, 396.161, 396.173, 396.174, 396.175, 396.176, 396.177, 396.178,
396.179, 396.1815, 396.182, 396.052, 396.172, 396.1725, 396.032, 396.042,
396.0427, 396.181, 396.0425, 396.0815, 396.125, 396.1819, 396.1816,
396.1817, and 396.1818, F.S., relating to alcoholism; repealing ss. 397.011,
397.021, 397.031, 397.041, 397.051, 397.0515, 397.0516, 397.0517, 397.0518,
397.052, 397.0525, 397.053, 397.054, 397.055, 397.056, 397.057, 397.061,
397.071, 397.0715, 397.0716, 397.0719, 397.081, 397.082, 397.091, 397.092,
397.093, 397.094, 397.095, 397.0961, 397.098, 397.099, 397.10, 397.12,
397.13, 397.14, 397.15, 397.16, 397.17, 397.18, 397.19, 397.20, 397.21,
397.215, 397.216, 397.217, 397.218, and 397.22, relating to the treatment
and rehabilitation of drug dependents; repealing sections 28 and 29 of ch.
83-245, Laws of Florida, and section 27 of ch. 88-398, Laws of Florida;
providing an effective date.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Brown-
HB 7-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to ad valorem taxation;
amending s. 197.162, F.S.; extending the time periods during which a
taxpayer may make early payment of taxes and qualify for a discount;
amending s. 197.222, F.S.; extending the time periods during which a
taxpayer may prepay estimated taxes by installment and qualify for a
discount; amending s. 197.254, F.S.; revising requirements relating to the
notice to taxpayers of the right to defer taxes; amending s. 197.262, F.S.;
deleting the requirement for a separate deferred payment tax certificate
sale, and the requirement that unsold certificates be purchased by the
State Board of Administration, and providing that such certificates be
struck off to the county; amending s. 197.263, F.S.; providing for the sale
of tax certificates for delinquencies of deferred taxes; amending s. 197.482,

F.S.; excepting deferred payment tax certificates from the limitation upon
lien of tax certificates; amending s. 197.502, F.S.; providing that provisions

June 1, 1992

Wagering Trust Fund; providing that the regulation of bingo is preempted
to the state, with certain exceptions; providing an appropriation and
authorizing positions; providing a credit against first-year license fees and
refunds for license fees previously paid and not refunded; repealing s. 3 of
ch. 91-421, Laws of Florida, which provides for review and repeal of s.

E OF REPRESENTATIVES 3

which require counties to make application for tax deeds do not apply to
deferred payment tax certificates; repealing s. 215.47(2)(d), F.S., relating
to investment by the State Board of Administration in deferred payment
tax certificates; providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Finance & Taxation and Appropriations.

By Representative Ostrau-
HR 9-H-A resolution commemorating Joseph Scevola for his service
to the City of Plantation.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representatives C.F. Jones and Arnold-
HB 11-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to delinquent children;
creating s. 39.0215, F.S.; providing for administering county and municipal
juvenile delinquency programs and facilities, including secure detention
facilities; providing for transfers of children; providing for payment of
children performing services in work programs; requiring that county and
municipal programs comport with state law and department rules and
coordinate with other services; requiring quarterly inspections and
evaluations by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services;
authorizing a monitoring fee ensuring the training of personnel; providing
enforcement powers to the department; providing for injunctions and
termination proceedings; amending s. 39.057, F.S.; authorizing county and
municipal boot camps; providing for injunctions and termination
proceedings; amending s. 39.054, F.S.; providing for the conversion of
certain orders of restitution into judgment liens; providing for construction
of laws enacted at the 1992 Regular Session in relation to this act; providing
an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Criminal Justice and Appropriations.

By Representative Brown-
HB 13-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to the City of
Jacksonville; readopting the Charter of the City of Jacksonville, chapter
67-1320, Laws of Florida, as amended; repealing certain special acts of the
Legislature relating to the Charter of the City of Jacksonville; providing
directions to the Council of the City of Jacksonville, in the event of home
rule or referendum revisions or amendments to the Charter of the City of
Jacksonville; providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Proof of publication of the required notice was attached.
Referred to the Committee on Community Affairs.

By Representatives Healey and Ritchie-
HB 15-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to bingo; amending s.
849.093, F.S.; revising provisions which regulate the conduct of bingo;
providing intent; providing definitions; providing that the Division of Pari-
mutuel Wagering shall supervise bingo activities and specifying powers and
duties of the division; authorizing the conduct of bingo by authorized
organizations; providing for use of bingo proceeds; providing requirements
and conditions for the conduct of bingo; requiring licensing or registration
of such organizations and distributors of bingo equipment; providing
exemptions; providing for special event licenses; providing for fees;
providing limitations on prizes; providing requirements regarding the
location of games and the lease of premises; providing requirements for
records and reports; prohibiting certain activities in connection with bingo;
providing for revocation or denial of licenses and registrations and
administrative fines; providing criminal penalties; providing for
injunctions; providing for deposit of moneys collected in the Pari-mutuel

4

849.093, F.S.; providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Regulated Industries and
Appropriations.

By Representative Sansom-
HR 17-H-A resolution commending the Office of the State Attorney
for the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representatives Sansom, Grindle, Bronson, K. Smith, Graham,
Goode, Bainter, Sembler, Sanderson, Jennings, Hawkins, Starks, Valdes,
Feeney, Stone, Flagg and Mishkin-
HB 19-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to the state correctional
system; creating the "Junny Rios Martinez, Jr., Act of 1992"; amending s.
794.011, F.S.; prohibiting the grant of basic gain-time for persons convicted
of sexual battery against certain persons; providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Corrections and Appropriations.

By Representative Morse-
HB 21-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to the Uniform
Commercial Code; amending s. 679.402, F.S.; revising language with
respect to an additional fee and changing the fee required for filing any
instrument permitted or required to be filed under the provisions of the
code relating to secured transactions; amending s. 679.404, F.S.; revising
language with respect to termination statements; amending s. 15.091, F.S.;
revising language with respect to processing fees under the Uniform
Commercial Code; providing appropriations; providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Commerce, Finance & Taxation and
Appropriations.

By Representative Bainter-
HB 25-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to Lake County;
providing for liens in favor of operators of hospitals in that county, or in
favor of governmental agencies paying for hospital charges or medical
treatment of individuals in that county, upon causes of actions, suits,
claims, counterclaims, and demands accruing to patients therein, or their
legal representatives, and upon judgments, settlements, and settlement
agreements, on account of illnesses or injuries of such patients, for all
reasonable charges for hospital care, treatment, and maintenance
necessitated by such illnesses or injuries; providing a method of perfecting
and enforcing such liens; providing for recovery of costs, including
attorney's fees, and where suits thereon may be maintained; requiring
claims of lien to be recorded; providing for fees for the recording of claims
of lien; providing that a release or satisfaction is not valid against the lien
unless the lienholder joins therein or executes a release thereof; providing
that acceptance of a release or satisfaction of any cause of action, suit,
claim, counterclaim, demand, or judgment and any settlement, in the
absence of a release or satisfaction of lien, prima facie constitutes
impairment of such lien, and giving the lienholder a right of action for
damages on account of such impairment, and providing for recovery from
one accepting release or satisfaction or making settlement; prohibiting
recovery of damages for hospital care, treatment, and maintenance unless
the claimant therefore has paid the costs thereof except in certain cases;
providing for intervention by the lienholder and verdict and judgment in
favor of the lienholder in certain cases; exempting from provisions of this
act matters within the purview of the Workers' Compensation Law;
providing severability; providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).

Proof of publication of the required notice was attached.
Referred to the Committees on Community Affairs and Judiciary.

June 1, 1992

By Representative Pruitt-
HB 27-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to education finance;
authorizing district school boards to use moneys collected for capital outlay
purposes for school operation under specified circumstances and
conditions; providing for review and repeal; providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Public Schools, Finance & Taxation and
Appropriations.

By Representative Figg-
HB 29-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to the Department of
Natural Resources; amending s. 327.46, F.S.; revising language with respect
to restricted areas; authorizing the department to establish, by rule, for
restricted areas based upon public health or welfare; providing additional
criteria for the establishment of restricted boating areas; providing an
effective date.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Long-
HB 33-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to elections; amending
s. 105.041, F.S.; providing that candidates for the office of circuit judge or
county court judge shall be listed on the ballot in the order determined by
lot conducted, after the close of qualifying, by either the supervisor of
elections or the director of the Division of Elections of the Department of
State, depending on the area of jurisdiction of the office sought; providing
an effective date.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Long-
HB 35-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to gain-time; amending
s. 944.275, F.S.; prohibiting grants of basic or incentive gain-time to
offenders convicted under chapter 794, F.S.; amending s. 775.084, F.S.,
relating to habitual and habitual violent felony offenders; establishing
ineligibility of offenders convicted under chapter 794, F.S., for basic or
incentive gain-time; providing an effective date.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Hawkins-
HJR 37-H-A joint resolution proposing an amendment to Section 4
of Article VII and the creation of Section 20 of Article XII of the State
Constitution relating to ad valorem tax assessment.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Finance & Taxation and Appropriations.

By Representative Graham-
HB 39-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to costs of inmates and
probationers; amending s. 944.485, F.S.; requiring prisoner disclosure of
income and assets; providing that an order directing payment of prisoner
daily subsistence costs survives against the estate; deleting obsolete
language; amending s. 948.09, F.S.; revising the maximum amount that
persons in various community supervision programs may be required to
contribute for the cost of such supervision; providing cost of supervision
for misdemeanor probation; requiring a payment plan and priority order
for payments; providing an effective date.
Referred to the Committees on Corrections and Appropriations.

By Representative Graham-
HB 41-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to corporations;
amending s. 607.0120, F.S.; revising filing requirements; amending s.
607.0123, F.S.; revising language with respect to the effective time and date
of certain documents; amending s. 607.0124, F.S.; revising language with
respect to correcting a filed document; amending s. 607.0202, F.S.; deleting
certain required information in the articles of incorporation; amending s.

607.0301, F.S.; revising language with respect to the purposes and
application of the Florida Business Corporation Act; amending s. 607.0401,

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE]

F.S.; revising language with respect to the corporate name; amending s.
607.0501, F.S.; eliminating a required report filed by a registered agent;
amending s. 607.0502, F.S.; revising language with respect to the
resignation of a registered agent; amending s. 607.0601, F.S.; revising
language with respect to authorized shares; providing requirements with
respect to classes of shares; amending s. 607.0603, F.S.; revising language
with respect to outstanding shares; amending s. 607.0620, F.S.; revising
language with respect to subscribers who default; amending s. 607.0703,
F.S.; revising language with respect to court ordered meetings; amending
s. 607.0704, F.S.; revising language with respect to actions by shareholders
without a meeting; amending s. 607.0720, F.S.; revising language with
respect to shareholders' list for meeting; amending s. 607.0725, F.S.;
providing additional requirements with respect to quorum and voting
requirements; repealing s. 607.0727, F.S., relating to shareholder quorum
and voting and greater or lesser voting requirements; amending s. 607.0730,
F.S.; revising language with respect to voting trusts; amending s. 607.0731,
F.S.; revising language with respect to shareholders' agreements; amending
s. 607.0804, F.S.; revising language with respect to the election of directors
by certain voting groups; amending s. 607.0806, F.S.; revising language with
respect to staggered terms for directors; amending s. 607.0831, F.S.;
deleting a provision with respect to certain quorums; deleting a provision
relating to the liability of directors which provided for application to
nonprofit corporations; amending s. 607.0832, F.S.; revising language with
respect to director conflicts of interest; amending s. 607.0901, F.S.; revising
language with respect to affiliated transactions; amending s. 607.0902, F.S.;
revising language with respect to control-share transactions; amending s.
607.1002, F.S.; providing that the board of directors may adopt an
amendment to the articles of incorporation, without shareholder action, to
change the par value for a class or series of shares; amending s. 607.1006,
F.S.; revising language with respect to articles of amendment; amending s.
607.1007, F.S.; revising language with respect to restated articles of
incorporation; amending s. 607.1103, F.S.; deleting language which
provides that action by the shareholders of a surviving corporation is not
required with respect to action on a plan under certain circumstances;
amending s. 607.1104, F.S.; revising language with respect to the merger of
a subsidiary corporation; amending s. 607.1105, F.S.; revising language with
respect to mergers; amending s. 607.1320, F.S.; revising language with
respect to the procedure for exercise of dissenters' rights; amending s.
607.1406, F.S.; revising language with respect to claims against a dissolved
corporation; amending s. 607.1430, F.S.; revising language with respect to
grounds for judicial dissolution; amending s. 607.1433, F.S.; revising
language with respect to judgment of dissolution; amending s. 607.1506,
F.S.; revising language with respect to the use of a fictitious name;
amending s. 607.1507, F.S.; requiring a filed written statement by certain
registered agents; amending s. 607.1508, F.S.; revising language with
respect to a registered agent's change of address; amending s. 607.1509,
F.S.; revising language with respect to the termination of an agency
appointment; amending s. 617.01201, F.S.; providing that certain
documents filed by corporations not for profit must be legible; amending
s. 617.0122, F.S.; providing fees for filing documents; providing a fee
exemption for certain nonprofit organizations; amending s. 617.0123, F.S.;
revising language with respect to the effective date of a document;
amending s. 617.0124, F.S.; revising language with respect to correcting
filed documents; amending s. 617.01301, F.S.; specifying documents which
the Department of State is not required to file; authorizing the Department
of State to bring certain court actions and certify to the Department of
Legal Affairs for further action; amending s. 617.0202, F.S.; providing
additional required information to be set forth in the articles of
incorporation; amending s. 617.0401, F.S.; revising language with respect
to the corporate name; amending s. 617.0501, F.S.; revising language with
respect to a registered agent; amending s. 617.0502, F.S.; revising language
with respect to the resignation of a registered agent; creating s. 617.0503,
F.S.; providing for duties of registered agents; amending s. 617.0601, F.S.;
revising language with respect to corporation members; amending s.
617.0701, F.S.; revising language with respect to members' meetings;
amending s. 617.0721, F.S.; providing for voting by members; creating s.
617.0730, F.S.; providing for required provisions with respect to members
of the corporation; amending s. 617.0808, F.S.; revising language with
respect to removal of directors; amending s. 617.0833, F.S., relating to loans
to directors or officers; amending s. 617.1001, F.S.; providing for
amendments to the articles of incorporation; amending s. 617.1002, F.S.;

revising language with respect to the procedure for amendments to the
articles of incorporation; amending s. 617.1007, F.S.; revising language with

June 1, 1992

certain information with respect to investigations to the party being
investigated; providing a penalty; providing an effective date.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

E OF REPRESENTATIVES 5

respect to restated articles of incorporation; amending s. 617.1401, F.S.;
providing that articles of dissolution must be executed in a certain manner;
amending s. 617.1433, F.S.; providing for judgment of dissolution;
amending s. 617.1502, F.S.; authorizing the Department of State rather
than the Department of Legal Affairs to collect penalties from foreign
corporations; amending s. 617.1504, F.S.; providing an additional set of
circumstances requiring an amended certificate of authority; amending s.
617.1506, F.S.; revising language with respect to the corporate name of a
foreign corporation; amending s. 617.1507, F.S.; revising language with
respect to the registered office and registered agent of a foreign
corporation; amending s. 617.1508, F.S.; revising language with respect to
change of address of a registered agent; amending s. 617.1509, F.S.;
providing for the termination of agency appointments for foreign
corporations; amending s. 617.1601, F.S.; revising language with respect to
corporate records; creating s. 617.1602, F.S.; providing for inspection of
records by members; creating s. 617.1603, F.S.; providing for the scope of
the inspection right; creating s. 617.1604, F.S.; providing for court ordered
inspection; creating s. 617.1605, F.S.; providing for financial reports for
members; amending s. 617.1622, F.S.; providing for additional information
in an annual report; amending s. 617.1623, F.S.; revising language with
respect to corporate information available to the public; amending s.
617.1908, F.S.; providing for the applicability of the Business Corporation
Act; creating s. 617.2102, F.S.; providing for fines and penalties against
members; creating s. 617.2103, F.S.; providing exemptions for certain
corporations; amending s. 620.103, F.S.; revising language with respect to
the name of a limited partnership; providing effective dates.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Muscarella-
HB 43-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to prostitution;
amending s. 796.03, F.S.; increasing the age of the victim applicable to the
crime of procuring prostitution; reenacting ss. 787.01(3)(a)4. and
787.02(3)(a)4., F.S., relating to kidnapping and false imprisonment, to
incorporate said amendment in references thereto; amending s. 796.06,
F.S.; increasing penalty for second and subsequent violations of renting
space for use of prostitution; amending s. 796.07, F.S.; increasing penalty
for second and subsequent violations of prostitution; reenacting ss.
796.09(2) and 893.138(1), F.S, relating to coercion and abatement of public
nuisances, to incorporate said amendment in references thereto; reenacting
ss. 772.102(1)(a)14. and 895.02(1)(a)17., F.S., relating to criminal activities
and racketeering, to incorporate amendments to ss. 796.03 and 796.07, F.S.,
in references thereto; amending s. 796.08, F.S.; clarifying provisions;
amending s. 796.01, F.S.; revising elements of the offense of keeping a
house of ill fame to update obsolete terminology; providing an enhanced
penalty for two or more convictions of keeping, setting up, maintaining, or
operating a place, structure, building, or conveyance for the purpose of
prostitution, assignation, or lewdness; reenacting s. 381.004(3)(i)1.a., F.S.,
relating to HIV testing, to incorporate said amendment in references
thereto; providing an effective date.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Martinez-
HB 45-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to fiscal matters;
repealing s. 27.3455(9), F.S.; providing that additional court costs in
criminal cases shall continue to be imposed, rather than being repealed;
providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

By Representative Sansom-
HB 47-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to fraudulent practices;
amending s. 817.646, F.S.; requiring consumer reporting agencies to report

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

By Representative De Grandy-
HB 49-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to the offense of witness
tampering; amending s. 914.22, F.S.; prohibiting causing or inducing a
person to testify untruthfully in an official investigation or proceeding, for
which criminal penalties are provided by law, and reenacting ss.
914.24(1)(a) and (2)(a), 772.102(1)(a)29., and 895.02(1)(a)33., F.S., relating
to civil actions to restrain harassment of a victim or witness, civil remedies
for criminal practices, and racketeering offenses, to incorporate said
amendment in references thereto; providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Criminal Justice and Appropriations.

By Representative Arnold-
HR 51-H-A resolution honoring the memory of Mr. Chuck Ross, a
friend of the children of Fort Myers.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representatives Goode, Sansom, Simone, Holland, Roberts,
Mitchell, Daryl Jones and Chestnut-
HJR 53-H-A joint resolution proposing an amendment to Section 9
of Article VII of the State Constitution relating to municipal taxing
authority.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Community Affairs, Finance & Taxation
and Appropriations.

By Representative Simon-
HB 55-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to financial institutions
and matters connected therewith; providing a short title; amending s.
655.001, F.S.; expanding the scope of the section to specify the purposes
and application of the financial institutions codes rather than of ch. 655,
F.S.; amending s. 655.005, F.S.; altering and adding definitions applicable
to ch. 655, F.S.; amending s. 655.012, F.S., relating to general supervisory
powers of the Department of Banking and Finance, to conform; creating
s. 655.013, F.S.; providing for the act's effect on existing financial
institutions; creating s. 655.015, F.S.; providing for construction of the act
and standards to be observed by the department; transferring,
renumbering, and amending s. 655.021, F.S., relating to administrative
enforcement guidelines; transferring, renumbering, and amending s.
655.025, F.S., concerning department investigations, subpoenas, hearings,
and witnesses; creating s. 655.0322, F.S.; prescribing prohibited acts and
practices; providing criminal penalties; amending s. 655.034, F.S., relating
to injunctions; inserting the term "members" to conform; amending s.
655.037, F.S., relating to removal of officers, directors, and others by the
department; revising the list of persons that may be so removed and
revising the grounds upon which such persons may be removed; revising
the procedure therefore; creating s. 655.0385, F.S.; providing for the
disapproval of directors and executive officers of a financial institution by
the department; creating s. 655.0386, F.S.; restricting conduct of, and
transactions by, financial institution-affiliated parties; creating s.
655.0391, F.S.; providing for retention of supervision of financial
institutions by the department; creating s. 655.0392, F.S.; allowing a
financial institution to rent space from a governmental entity under certain
circumstances; authorizing a governmental entity to rent such space at a
certain rate; deleting provisions for disposition of fines; amending s.
655.041, F.S.; expanding the department's authority to impose
administrative fines; amending s. 655.044, F.S.; revising recordkeeping
requirements; providing for recovery of certain costs; amending s. 655.045,
F.S.; revising the examination authority of the department; requiring the
department to adopt rules, requiring certain audits under certain
circumstances; amending s. 655.047, F.S.; clarifying the application period
of assessments; allowing proration of assessments but prohibiting refunds
of portions of assessments; deleting provisions for disposition of
assessments; amending s. 655.049, F.S.; clarifying the types of fees that are
required to be deposited into the Financial Institutions' Regulatory Trust
Fund; amending s. 655.053, F.S.; revising the annual report requirements;
amending s. 655.029, F.S., which provides exemptions from public meeting

and records requirements for hearings and documents relating to cease and
desist orders and suspension or removal orders, pursuant to a

determination by the Department of Banking and Finance; revising the
exemption; amending s. 655.033, F.S., which provides an exemption from
public records requirements for emergency cease and desist orders;
amending s. 655.057, F.S., which provides exemptions from public records
requirements for information relating to investigations by the department,
examination reports and papers, confidential information supplied to
other agencies by the department, confidential information supplied to the
department, lists of members of credit unions and mutual associations, and
lists of shareholders of banks, trust companies, and stock associations;
revising the exemptions; amending s. 119.07, F.S.; correcting references
and deleting duplicative references; repealing s. 665.048(9), F.S., which
provides requirements relating to maintenance of stockholder records by
capital stock associations; amending s. 655.059, F.S.; providing certain law
enforcement agencies access to a financial institution's books and records;
amending s. 655.061, F.S., relating to competitive equality with federally
organized or chartered financial institutions; providing for the section to
take precedence over other state statutes; amending s. 655.41, F.S., relating
to cross-industry conversions, mergers, consolidations, and acquisitions;
replacing the term "financial institution" with the term "financial entity"
with reference thereto; amending s. 655.411, F.S.; revising conversion-of-
charter requirements; amending s. 655.412, F.S.; revising merger and
consolidation requirements; amending s. 655.414, F.S.; revising the
conditions and limitations upon which a financial entity may acquire all
or substantially all the assets or liabilities of another financial entity;
amending s. 655.416, F.S.; providing for the valuation of assets after an
acquisition; amending s. 655.417, F.S.; conforming provisions relating to
the effect of merger, consolidation, conversion, or acquisition; amending s.
655.418, F.S.; conforming provisions relating to cessation of nonconforming
activities; amending s. 655.419, F.S.; clarifying the applicability of
provisions for merger, consolidation, conversion, or acquisition of assets;
amending s. 655.50, F.S.; revising the provisions of, and the penalties for
violation of, the Florida Control of Money Laundering in Financial
Institutions Act; providing for confidentiality of reports and records
thereunder; extending the act's penalties to cover violations of ch. 896, F.S.,
or similar state or federal statutes; amending s. 655.51, F.S.; allowing state
and federal regulatory agencies access to certain employment information;
amending s. 655.55, F.S., relating to the law applicable to deposits in and
contracts related to extensions of credit by financial institutions; replacing
the term "financial institution" with the term "deposit or lending
institution" and defining that term; creating s. 655.56, F.S.; providing for
the collection of fines, interest, or premiums on loans made by financial
institutions; creating s. 655.60, F.S.; providing for appraisals of financial
institutions, subsidiaries, or service corporations by the department;
creating s. 655.762, F.S.; regulating the sale of assets by a financial
institution; creating s. 655.769, F.S.; providing definitions related to
deposits in deposit or lending institutions; creating s. 655.77, F.S.;
providing for deposits by minors; creating s. 655.78, F.S.; providing for
deposit accounts in two or more names; creating s. 655.79, F.S.; establishing
a presumption as to vesting on death when deposits and accounts are in
two or more names; creating s. 655.80, F.S.; defining and establishing
requirements for convenience accounts; creating s. 655.81, F.S.; providing
for deposits in trust; creating s. 655.83, F.S.; providing for adverse claims
to deposit or fiduciary accounts; creating s. 655.84, F.S.; establishing a
presumption as to correctness concerning statements of account;
renumbering and amending s. 658.63, F.S.; providing that, prior to the
settlement of any check or draft, the financial institution shall obtain
written authorization from the account holder in compliance with the
Uniform Commercial Code; creating a community bank pilot program;
authorizing the investment of specified state funds; providing for the
selection of participating financial institutions; requiring matching funds;
requiring the establishment of guidelines for the pilot program; requiring
an annual report; providing for expiration of the pilot program; creating
s. 655.86, F.S.; regulating the issuance of postdated checks; creating s.
655.89, F.S.; defining "legal holidays," "business days," and "transactions";
creating s. 655.90, F.S.; providing for the closing of deposit or lending
institutions during emergencies and other special days; creating s. 655.91,
F.S.; providing recordkeeping requirements for such institutions; creating
s. 655.921, F.S.; providing for transaction of business by out-of-state
financial institutions; creating s. 655.922, F.S.; prohibiting banking by
unauthorized persons; providing penalties; creating s. 655.93, F.S.;
providing definitions related to the leasing of safe-deposit boxes; creating

s. 655.931, F.S.; authorizing financial institutions to engage in the safe-
deposit business; creating s. 655.932, F.S.; authorizing the leasing of a safe-

6

June 1, 1992

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSI

deposit box to a minor; creating s. 655.933, F.S.; providing for access to
safe-deposit boxes by fiduciaries; creating s. 655.934, F.S.; specifying the
effect of the death or incapacity of the lessee of a safe-deposit box; creating
s. 655.935, F.S.; establishing safe-deposit search procedures on the death
of the lessee; creating s. 655.936, F.S.; providing for the delivery of safe-
deposit box contents or other property to a personal representative;
creating s. 655.937, F.S.; providing for access to a safe-deposit box leased
in two or more names; creating s. 655.938, F.S.; providing for adverse claims
to the contents of a safe-deposit box; creating s. 655.939, F.S.; limiting the
right of access to a safe-deposit box for failure to comply with security
procedures; creating s. 655.94, F.S.; providing special remedies for the
nonpayment of rent for a safe-deposit box; creating s. 655.941, F.S.;
establishing the Joint Select Committee on Financial Institutions;
providing powers and duties of the committee; providing for meetings;
requiring the annual transfer of a sum of money from the Financial
Institutions Regulatory Trust Fund to the committee for certain costs;
creating s. 655.942, F.S.; specifying standards of conduct for financial
institutions; providing exceptions; creating s. 655.943, F.S.; specifying
requirements for certain applications relating to financial institutions;
creating s. 655.944, F.S.; providing for calculation of interest on certain
accounts; creating s. 655.945, F.S.; providing procedures for recovering
certain amounts of fees; providing for interest on certain fee overcharges
or undercharges; creating s. 655.946, F.S.; providing for single interest
insurance by financial institutions; requiring notice of such insurance;
providing criteria for issuing such insurance; creating s. 655.947, F.S.;
providing for credit reports; creating s. 655.948, F.S.; requiring notice of
certain specified events; creating s. 655.949, F.S.; requiring the department
to establish qualifications for certain positions in the Office of the
Comptroller and in the department; creating s. 655.951, F.S.; requiring the
department to maintain a regulatory decision register; specifying contents
of the register; creating s. 655.953, F.S.; providing for consumer protection
powers of the Comptroller; requiring the Department of Banking and
Finance to adopt certain rules; creating s. 655.018, F.S.; establishing
standards and guidelines for department personnel and operations;
providing certain limitations on certain lobbying activities; limiting certain
employment activities; requiring the Comptroller to establish and
implement a conflict-of-interest policy; providing guidelines; creating s.
655.019, F.S.; limiting certain campaigning activities; amending s. 657.002,
F.S.; providing definitions; amending s. 657.005, F.S.; providing credit
union organizational procedures and forms; creating s. 657.0061, F.S.;
requiring the submission of bylaw amendments to the Department of
Banking and Finance; amending s. 657.008, F.S.; authorizing armored car
services and deleting the requirement that all records be kept at the
principal place of business as described within the bylaws; amending s.
657.021, F.S.; defining the duties and powers of the board of directors;
amending s. 657.023, F.S.; clarifying certain language; amending s. 657.026,
F.S.; authorizing audit committees and defining the duties and
responsibilities of these committees; amending s. 657.0265, F.S.;
prescribing the liability of audit committee members; amending s. 657.027,
F.S.; clarifying certain language; amending s. 657.028, F.S.; prohibiting
certain persons from serving as an officer, director, or committee member;
amending s. 657.031, F.S.; clarifying language and deleting language
requiring notice to the department concerning certain authorized
activities; creating s. 657.0315, F.S.; prohibiting credit unions from
entering into certain contracts; limiting the enforceability of these
contracts; amending s. 657.033, F.S.; clarifying the definition of dormant
accounts; amending s. 657.038, F.S.; deleting reference to an 18-percent
usury cap and defining the term "related interest"; amending s. 657.039,
F.S.; prescribing conditions for credit union loans to its directors, officers,
and employees; defining the term "related interests"; amending s. 657.042,
F.S.; increasing the allowable percentage of certain types of investments
and clarifying the authority to invest in mutual funds; amending s. 657.043,
F.S.; replacing the term "gross earnings" with the term "all income for the
period"; modifying the definition of "risk assets" and increasing the amount
of reserve amounts; amending s. 657.053, F.S.; revising the amounts of the
semiannual assessments collected from credit unions; amending s. 657.055,
F.S.; mandating the type and length of time certain records must be
maintained; amending s. 657.062, F.S.; providing procedures for
assumption of control of an insolvent credit union; amending s. 657.063,
F.S.; authorizing the department to appoint a liquidator; limiting the
enforceability of certain contracts; modifying procedures for involuntary

liquidation; amending s. 657.064, F.S.; altering the procedures for
undertaking a voluntary liquidation; amending s. 657.065, F.S.; prescribing

June 1, 1992

660.37, F.S.; deleting references to the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance
Corporation; permitting the deposit of fiduciary funds in amounts
exceeding insurance in specified circumstances; amending s. 660.41, F.S.;
revising powers of corporations other than banks, associations, and trust
companies with respect to fiduciary functions; creating s. 660.417, F.S.;

E OF REPRESENTATIVES 7

voting requirements and procedures of a credit union merger; amending s.
657.068, F.S.; removing certain limitations on membership in a central
credit union; amending s. 658.12, F.S.; providing definitions; amending s.
658.165, F.S.; correcting a cross-reference and inserting the term "financial
institutions codes"; amending s. 658.20, F.S.; providing for prior approval
of certain directors and executive officers of a failing bank or trust
company; providing a filing fee for approval; amending s. 658.21, F.S.;
altering the approval criteria of an application; amending s. 658.22, F.S.;
requiring orders approving applications to organize a state bank be sent to
the "Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta"; amending s. 658.23, F.S.;
requiring prior Department of Banking and Finance authorization for a
change in the articles of incorporation; amending ss. 658.24, 658.25, F.S.;
substituting the term "bank" for "banking corporation"; amending s.
658.26, F.S.; altering the locations where banks and trust companies may
transact business; amending s. 658.27, F.S.; altering the definition of
control over a bank or trust company; amending s. 658.28, F.S.; providing
an exception to the requirement that the department be given prior notice
of any acquisition of voting securities; amending s. 658.29, F.S.; altering
certain prohibitions concerning ownership and control of a bank or trust
company; amending s. 658.30, F.S.; incorporating changes concerning the
application of the Florida Business Corporation Act; amending s. 658.32,
F.S.; allowing the department to approve an annual meeting date which is
not within the first 4 months of a given year; amending s. 658.33, F.S.;
inserting the term "financial institutions codes"; requiring director's oath
of office to be filed within 30 days of election; amending s. 658.34, F.S.;
requiring shares of common stock to be issued with a minimum par value
and to be paid for in cash; amending s. 658.35, F.S.; requiring certain
approval for providing share options to stockholders; amending s. 658.36,
F.S.; requiring department approval for banks and trust companies to
reduce outstanding common stock; amending s. 658.37, F.S.; clarifying that
a stock split does not constitute a dividend; amending s. 658.38, F.S.;
clarifying that a state bank must have and maintain Federal Deposit
Insurance; amending s. 658.39, F.S.; restricting the right of stockholders to
examine certain records; amending s. 658.40, F.S.; deleting the term
"conversion"; amending s. 658.42, F.S.; providing a technical clarification;
amending s. 658.43, F.S.; modifying the department's authority to issue
emergency rules concerning a failing institution; amending s. 658.44, F.S.,
relating to approval by stockholders; revising cross-references; amending
s. 658.45, F.S.; providing a technical clarification; amending s. 658.48, F.S.;
altering the loan and credit authority of a state bank; amending s. 658.50,
F.S., relating to loans or extensions of credit; removing interest rate
limitations on credit cards or overdraft financing arrangements; improving
clarity; amending s. 658.53, F.S.; altering limits of indebtedness; amending
s. 658.60, F.S.; deleting the term "reserves"; amending s. 658.65, F.S.;
altering the provisions related to remote financial service units; amending
s. 658.67, F.S.; altering the investment powers of a bank and trust company;
amending s. 658.68, F.S.; altering the liquidity requirements of a state
bank; amending s. 658.73, F.S.; increasing examination fees and
assessments; amending s. 658.79, F.S.; allowing the department to take
possession of an imminently insolvent state bank or trust company;
deleting the conditions for determining insolvency; amending ss. 658.80,
658.82, 658.83, F.S.; providing a technical clarification; amending s. 658.84,
F.S.; providing priorities for unsecured claims for payment against
financial institutions; prohibiting the enforcement of certain judicial
actions; creating ss. 659.70, 659.71, 659.72, 659.73, and 659.74, F.S.;
providing definitions; providing for organization of credit card banks;
imposing requirements; authorizing credit card banks to assess certain
charges and fees; providing for regulation of credit card banks; providing
for enforcement; authorizing the department to adopt rules; providing for
applicability of certain banking laws; amending s. 660.25, F.S.; redefining
the term "commercial department"; providing for the use of terms defined
in other chapters of the Florida Statutes; creating s. 660.265, F.S.; requiring
certain financial institutions to pay the costs of examination by the
Department of Banking and Finance; amending s. 660.27, F.S.; deleting
references to state mutual associations with respect to deposits of securities
with the Treasurer; clarifying the term "bank" to include state banks and
national banks; amending s. 660.33, F.S.; prescribing when an association
is "affiliated" or a "successor"; correcting a cross reference; amending s.

8 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE

authorizing certain banks or trust companies to invest or reinvest securities
of certain investment companies or investment trusts under certain
circumstances; providing guidelines; amending s. 660.44, F.S.; authorizing
a bank, association, or trust company to charge reasonable management
expenses for managing common trust funds; amending s. 663.01, F.S.;
providing definitions; amending s. 663.02, F.S.; expanding the applicability
of domestic bank powers to international banking corporations; deleting
reference to a clarification concerning branching authority of bank holding
companies located outside the state; amending s. 663.03, F.S.; providing
that ch. 607, F.S., regulating corporations applies to international banking
corporations unless it conflicts with the banking code; amending s. 663.04,
F.S.; prescribing conditions under which a license may be issued to an
international banking corporation to operate an international bank agency
or an international branch; deleting application fee; amending s. 663.05,
F.S.; modifying the application requirements for an international banking
corporation to maintain an office in this state; creating s. 663.055, F.S.;
prescribing certain capital requirements as a condition of licensing;
providing alternative requirements for licensing; amending s. 663.06, F.S.;
expanding the permissible activities of an international banking
corporation and allowing the department to prescribe by rule the
procedures for surrendering a license; creating s. 663.061, F.S.; defining the
permissible activities of international bank agencies; creating s. 663.062,
F.S.; defining the permissible activities of an international representative
office; amending s. 663.063, F.S.; altering the purposes and powers of an
international administrative office; creating s. 663.064, F.S.; defining the
permissible activities of an international branch; creating s. 663.065, F.S.;
defining the permissible activities of a state investment company; creating
s. 663.066, F.S.; authorizing, under certain conditions, the acquisition of
state banks by international banking corporations; amending s. 663.07,
F.S.; modifying the asset maintenance requirements of an international
bank agency and international branch; amending s. 663.08, F.S.; providing
for certification of capital accounts of an international banking
corporation; amending s. 663.083, F.S.; adding the term "international
branch" and deleting language allowing capital debentures and notes to be
treated as capital in computing capital limitations; amending s. 663.09,
F.S.; providing for the consolidation of reports under certain
circumstances; requiring loan documentation to be in the English language;
amending s. 663.10, F.S.; modifying the provisions related to license
conversion; amending s. 663.11, F.S.; replacing the term "international
bank agency" with the term "office"; amending s. 663.12, F.S.; providing for
filing fees, semiannual assessments, and examination fees; amending s.
663.13, F.S., relating to rulemaking respecting international banking
corporations; conforming a cross reference; amending s. 663.14, F.S.;
including domestic travel in provisions providing for travel expenses;
amending s. 663.302, F.S., relating to the applicability of state banking laws
to international development banks, to conform cross references in that
section to renumbering by this act; amending s. 663.309, F.S., relating to
prohibited activities; deleting an obsolete cross reference; amending s.
663.319, F.S., relating to rulemaking respecting regional development
banks; conforming a cross reference; amending s. 665.012, F.S.; altering and
deleting certain definitions; creating s. 665.0125, F.S.; providing a
moratorium on charters; creating s. 665.013, F.S.; outlining the
applicability of ch. 658, F.S., to ch. 665, F.S.; amending s. 665.0211, F.S.;
deleting exclusiveness-of-name provisions; amending s. 665.0315, F.S.;
correcting a cross reference and incorporating a nonrefundable filing fee;
amending s. 665.033, F.S.; inserting reference to the financial institutions
codes and permitting denial of an application due to the existence of a
state-imposed order; increasing the fee for converting from a federal
mutual to a state capital stock association and authorizing examination
fees for conversions; revising a cross reference; amending s. 665.0335, F.S.;
deleting a reference to the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance
Corporation; amending s. 665.034, F.S.; changing certain requirements
concerning acquisition of assets of, or control over, an association;
amending s. 665.0501, F.S.; altering the general powers of an association
organized under ch. 665, F.S.; amending s. 665.0711, F.S.; limiting the
association's power to invest in loans; amending s. 665.074, F.S.; deleting
the requirement that a settlement statement be furnished to each
borrower; amending s. 665.1001, F.S.; clarifying the definition of a "foreign

association"; deleting reference to the term "savings"; deleting a
requirement relating to references to insurance or guaranty of accounts in
advertising, solicitations, or representations; amending s. 665.1011, F.S.;
deleting the term "savings and loan"; amending s. 697.04, F.S.; providing
for interests in leaseholds on real property as security for future advances;

I]

providing for legislative review of such sections before that date; amending
s. 154.238, F.S., relating to the authority of a health facilities authority to
deal with a bank that employs a member of the authority, to conform
terminology to that used in this act; amending s. 159.414, F.S., relating to
the authority of a board of a local agency, under the Florida Industrial

E OF REPRESENTATIVES June 1, 1992

repealing s. 655.081, F.S., relating to disclosure of practices with respect to
availability of funds; repealing s. 655.413, F.S., relating to acquisition of
stock by a financial institution in another financial institution; reviving
and readopting ss. 655.001, 655.005, 655.012, 655.016, 655.021, 655.025,
655.029, 655.033, 655.034, 655.037, 655.041, 655.043, 655.044, 655.045,
655.049, 655.053, 655.057, 655.059, 655.061, 655.071, 655.41, 655.411,
655.412, 655.414, 655.416, 655.417, 655.418, 655.419, 655.50, 655.51, and
655.55, F.S., as renumbered and amended by this act, notwithstanding
their scheduled termination July 1, 1992, pursuant to the Regulatory
Sunset Act and other laws; terminating ss. 655.001-655.953, F.S., effective
October 1, 2002, and providing for legislative review of such sections before
that date; repealing ch. 88-113, Laws of Florida, relating to a contingent
amendment to s. 655.061, F.S.; repealing ss. 657.004, 657.029, 657.032,
657.034, 657.035,657.036, and 657.037, F.S., relating to regulation of credit
unions; reviving and readopting ss. 657.001, 657.002, 657.003, 657.005,
657.008, 657.021, 657.022, 657.023, 657.024, 657.026, 657.027, 657.028,
657.031, 657.033, 657.0335, 657.038, 657.039, 657.041, 657.042, 657.043,
657.051, 657.053, 657.055, 657.062, 657.063, 657.064, 657.065, 657.066,
657.068, F.S., as amended by this act, notwithstanding their scheduled
termination July 1, 1992, pursuant to the Regulatory Sunset Act and other
laws; terminating ss. 657.001-657.068, F.S., effective October 1, 2002, and
providing for legislative review of such sections before that date; repealing
ss. 658.1101, 658.13, 658.14, 658.15, 658.46, 658.47, 658.54, 658.55, 658.56,
658.57, 658.58, 658.59, 658.61,658.62, 658.63, 658.64,658.66, 658.69, 658.70,
658.71, 658.72, 658.74,658.75, 658.76,658.77, 658.78, 658.85, 658.86,658.87,
658.88, 658.89, 658.91, 658.92, 658.93, 658.97, 658.98, 658.99, F.S., relating
to the regulation of banks and trust companies; reviving and readopting ss.
658.12, 658.16, 658.19, 658.20, 658.21, 658.22, 658.23, 658.235, 658.24,
658.25, 658.26, 658.27, 658.28, 658.29, 658.295, 658.30, 658.32, 658.33,
658.34,658.35, 658.36, 658.37, 658.38, 658.39, 658.40,658.41,658.42, 658.43,
658.44, 658.45, 658.48, 658.49, 658.491, 658.50, 658.51, 658.53, 658.60,
658.65, 658.67,658.68, 658.73, 658.79,658.80,658.81,658.82, 658.83, 658.84,
658.90, 658.94, 658.95, and 658.96, F.S., notwithstanding their scheduled
termination July 1, 1992, pursuant to the Regulatory Sunset Act and other
laws; terminating ss. 658.12-658.96, F.S., effective October 1, 2002, and
providing for legislative review of such sections before that date; repealing
s. 660.32, F.S., relating to the place of transacting trust business and trust
company branches; reviving and readopting ss. 660.25, 660.26, 660.27,
660.28,660.29,660.30, 660.31, 660.33, 660.34, 660.35, 660.36,660.37, 660.38,
660.39, 660.40, 660.41, 660.415, 660.42, 660.43, 660.44, 660.45, 660.46,
660.47, and 660.48, F.S., as amended by this act, notwithstanding their
scheduled termination July 1, 1992, pursuant to the Regulatory Sunset Act
and other laws; terminating ss. 660.25-660.48, F.S., effective October 1,
2002, and providing for legislative review of such sections before that date;
repealing ss. 661.45-661.55, F.S., relating to regulating the safe-deposit
business, in accordance with the Regulatory Sunset Act; repealing ss.
662.01-662.08, F.S., relating to bank service corporations, in accordance
with the Regulatory Sunset Act; reviving and readopting ss. 663.01, 663.02,
663.03, 663.04, 663.05, 663.06,663.07, 663.08,663.09, 663.10, 663.11, 663.12,
663.13, 663.14, 663.301, 663.302, 663.303, 663.304, 663.305, 663.306,
663.307, 663.308, 663.309, 663.310, 663.311, 663.312, 663.313, 663.314,
663.315, 663.316, 663.317, 663.318, and 663.319, F.S., as amended by this
act, notwithstanding their scheduled termination July 1, 1992, pursuant to
the Regulatory Sunset Act and other laws; terminating ss. 663.01-663.319,
F.S., effective October 1, 2002, and providing for legislative review of such
sections before that date; repealing ss. 664.01-664.12, F.S., relating to
industrial savings banks, in accordance with the Regulatory Sunset Act;
repealing ss. 665.011, 665.0201, 665.022, 665.023, 665.024, 665.025, 665.027,
665.028, 665.0301, 665.0311, 665.038, 665.0401, 665.044, 665.045, 665.047,
665.048, 665.0601, 665.0611, 665.062, 665.063, 665.064, 665.065, 665.066,
665.067, 665.068, 665.069, 665.0701, 665.0731, 665.076, 665.077, 665.0801,
665.082, 665.083, 665.093, 665.096, 665.097, 665.099, 665.102, 665.1021,
665.103, and 665.104, F.S., relating to the regulation of savings associations;
reviving and readopting ss. 665.012, 665.0211, 665.0315, 665.033, 665.0335,
665.034, 665.0345, 665.0501, 665.0711, 665.074, 665.075, 665.1001, and
665.1011, F.S., as amended by this act, notwithstanding their scheduled
termination July 1, 1992, pursuant to the Regulatory Sunset Act and other
laws; terminating ss. 665.012-665.1011, F.S., effective October 1, 2002, and

Development Financing Act, to deal with a bank that employs a board
member, to conform terminology to that used in this act; amending s.
159.494, F.S., relating to the authority of an industrial development
authority to deal with a bank that employs a member of the authority;
amending s. 240.488, F.S., relating to the investment of funds of a county
education loan authority, to conform terminology to that used in this act;
amending s. 288.753, F.S., relating to examination of the Florida Export
Finance Corporation by the Department of Banking and Finance, to
conform terminology to that used in this act; amending s. 289.121, F.S.,
relating to examination of the Florida Industrial Development
Corporation, to conform terminology to that used in this act; amending s.
420.141, F.S., relating to examination of the Housing Development
Corporation of Florida, to conform terminology to that used in this act;
amending s. 538.03, F.S., relating to definitions applicable to secondhand
dealers, to conform a cross reference made obsolete by this act; amending
s. 607.0501, F.S., relating to registered offices and agents of corporations,
to conform terminology to that used in this act; amending s. 627.826, F.S.,
relating to insurance premium finance companies, to delete a cross
reference to a law repealed by this act; amending s. 671.304, F.S., relating
to laws not repealed by the enactment of the Uniform Commercial Code,
to delete cross references to laws repealed by this act; amending s. 687.12,
F.S., relating to interest rates of licensed lenders and creditors, to revise
a cross reference to a law repealed by this act; amending s. 896.101, F.S.,
relating to the conduct of financial transactions involving the proceeds of
unlawful activity, to revise cross references to conform with this act;
providing an appropriation; providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Commerce and Appropriations.

By Representative Martinez-
HB 57-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to fiscal matters;
amending s. 27.702, F.S.; requiring the capital collateral representative to
file certain motions for compensation and reimbursement and providing
for deposit of funds into a trust fund; repealing s. 27.3455(9), F.S., relating
to the future repeal of provisions regarding additional court costs;
amending ss. 27.38 and 27.60, F.S.; authorizing expenditure of
appropriated state funds for items enumerated in ss. 27.34 and 27.54, F.S.;
providing for reporting requirements; providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Criminal Justice and Appropriations.

By Representative Martinez-
HB 59-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to fiscal matters;
amending ss. 27.38 and 27.60, F.S.; providing for carryforward of
unexpended funds appropriated for state attorneys and public defenders;
providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Criminal Justice and Appropriations.

By Representative Glickman-
HB 61-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to education; amending
s. 232.246, F.S., relating to high school graduation requirements; providing
for additional high school credit opportunities; providing for a reduction
in the minimum credit requirement under certain conditions; revising
provisions relating to funding for special instruction for certain high school
students; amending s. 232.2462, F.S.; revising provisions relating to
requirements for receipt of credit; amending s. 232.2465, F.S., relating to
the Florida Academic Scholars' Certificate Program; providing for
additional high school credit opportunities; requiring the Department of
Education to update the Course Code Directory for substitution of certain
courses; requiring certain school boards to maintain reasonable student
access to vocational programs; providing an effective date.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Cosgrove--
HB 63-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to enterprise zones;
amending s. 290.0055, F.S.; revising the calculation for the determination

of the total population of all areas authorized to be enterprise zones in
certain counties; providing an effective date.

9

Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Glickman-
HB 65-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to education finance;
amending s. 236.081, F.S.; providing a formula for calculating an equity
comparison allocation for school operations; providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Public Schools and Appropriations.

By Representative Bloom-
HB 67-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to the licensure and
recruitment of adult foster homes; canceling transfer of regulation of adult
foster homes to the Agency for Health Care Administration; repealing s.
30 of ch. 92-33, Laws of Florida; canceling transfer of recruitment and
licensure authority for adult foster homes to the agency; providing an
effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Health Care and Appropriations.

By Representative Rush-
HB 69-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to Hillsborough County;
repealing ch. 84-449, Laws of Florida, relating to the Northdale
Maintenance District; abolishing the present district, transferring its
assets and obligations to the county or to a successor district created by
ordinance, and providing for assumption of the present district's
obligations and liabilities by the county or the successor district; providing
an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Proof of publication of the required notice was attached.
Referred to the Committee on Community Affairs.

By Representative Muscarella-
HJR 71-H-A joint resolution proposing the creation of Section 19 of
Article III, an amendment to Section 5 of Article IV, and the creation of
Section 16 of Article X of the State Constitution to prohibit election of a
legislator, cabinet member, or congressman to a succeeding term under
certain circumstances.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Pruitt-
HB 73-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to public school finance;
amending s. 236.081, F.S.; prescribing a minimum allocation of state funds
under the Florida Education Finance Program to a school district for
current operation of the schools in the district; revising the formula for
calculating the total annual state allocation to each district; limiting the
local required effort under that program for a school district; providing for
retroactive application; providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Public Schools and Appropriations.

By Representative Logan-
HB 75-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to civil rights; amending
section 14 of chapter 92-177, Laws of Florida, changing the effective date
of that law; providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

By Representative Arnold-
HB 77-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to tax on sales, use, and
other transactions; providing an exemption for taxes not collected prior to
the effective date of this act on admissions to museums and historic

buildings owned by any political subdivision of the state; providing an
effective date.

June 1, 1992

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

10 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE

First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Finance & Taxation and Appropriations.

By Representative Sindler-
HB 79-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to tax on sales, use, and
other transactions; amending s. 212.08, F.S.; removing the requirement
that the exemption for butane, propane, and other liquefied petroleum
gases used for agricultural purposes inure to the taxpayer only through
refund; providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Finance & Taxation and Appropriations.

By Representative Liberti-
HB 81-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to the Acme
Improvement District, Palm Beach County; amending chapter 28557, Laws
of Florida, 1953, as amended; clarifying the election of supervisors by a
majority vote of the electorate; providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Proof of publication of the required notice was attached.
Referred to the Committees on Community Affairs and Ethics &
Elections.

By Representative De Grandy-
HB 83-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to political misuse of
public position by district school board employees; amending s. 112.311,
F.S.; providing legislative intent and policy; amending s. 112.312, F.S.;
expanding definitions of "agency" and "conflict of interest"; amending s.
112.313, F.S.; prohibiting misuse intended to further political agenda
under specified circumstances; providing that such prohibition does not
prohibit legitimate academic exchange of political ideas; reenacting s.
104.31, F.S., relating to political activities of state, county, and municipal
officers and employees, to update a reference to said section in s. 112.313,
F.S.; amending s. 112.317, F.S.; providing civil penalties and aggravating
and mitigating circumstances; providing an effective date.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representatives Lippman, Simone, Press, Stone, Brennan and
Mishkin-
HB 85-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to black bear; creating
s. 372.670, F.S.; prohibiting the killing of the Florida Bear or black bear;
providing penalties; providing an effective date.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Hawkins-
HB 87-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to ad valorem taxation;
amending s. 192.001, F.S.; revising the definition of "real property" to
specify when improvements to real property are substantially completed;
creating s. 192.039, F.S.; providing that such improvements substantially
completed subsequent to January 1 of the prior year and prior to January
1 of the current year shall be assessed and listed on a partial-year
assessment roll; providing requirements with respect thereto; providing for
computation of tax on such partial-year real property; providing for
application of exemptions; providing requirements when such property is
replacement property; amending s. 192.042, F.S.; specifying the date of
assessment of such property; amending s. 212.08, F.S.; correcting a
reference; amending s. 192.091, F.S.; authorizing counties to prorate the
property appraisers' additional costs of the initial year of implementing
partial-year rolls among all taxing authorities; providing for
reimbursement of tax collectors' actual start-up expenses of the first year
partial-year assessment roll by county commissions; amending ss. 193.052
and 193.062, F.S.; requiring the filing of returns with respect thereto and

specifying the date; providing for notice; amending s. 193.114, F.S.;
directing the Department of Revenue to promulgate regulations for
partial-year rolls and providing requirements with respect thereto;
amending s. 195.027, F.S.; providing requirements with respect to
department rules relating to returns of such improvements; amending s.

I]

627.6841, 627.6842, 627.6843, 627.6844, and 627.6845, F.S.; providing
definitions; providing general requirements for credit insurance
consolidations; providing certain exceptions for group-to-group credit
insurance consolidations; requiring certain disclosures; providing
exemptions from rules relating to replacement, requiring filing and

E OF REPRESENTATIVES June 1, 1992

196.011, F.S.; providing requirements relating to application for exemption
for such property; amending s. 197.3635, F.S.; providing requirements with
respect to partial-year taxes included on the combined notice of ad valorem
taxes and non-ad valorem assessments; authorizing a separate partial-year
tax notice; creating s. 200.0695, F.S.; providing for a notice of partial-year
assessment to such taxpayers; providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Finance & Taxation and Appropriations.

HB 91-H-Withdrawn

By Representative Ascherl-
HB 93-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to insurance and matters
connected therewith; revising provisions of part V of chapter 626 and
chapter 627, F.S., scheduled for repeal under the Regulatory Sunset Act;
amending s. 213.05, F.S.; removing a reference to a repealed section;
amending s. 337.106, F.S.; removing a reference to a repealed section;
amending ss. 624.462 and 624.5092, F.S.; removing references to a repealed
section; amending ss. 626.022, 626.031, 626.241, 626.2815, 626.331, 626.611,
626.841, and 626.8417, F.S.; creating ss. 626.8411, 626.8412, 626.8414,
626.8418, and 626.8419, F.S.; requiring licensure and appointment of title
insurance agents and agencies; providing for examinations and continuing
education; specifying grounds for discipline; providing definitions;
specifying applicability of Insurance Code provisions; providing for
applications; providing exemptions; amending ss. 627.021, 627.062,
627.0645, 627.0652, 627.0653, 627.311, 627.351, 627.3515, and 627.357, F.S.;
specifying scope of part I of chapter 627, F.S.; revising provisions relating
to establishment and approval of rates for property and casualty insurance
and motor vehicle insurance; revising provisions relating to annual filing
requirements, motor vehicle insurance discounts, joint underwriting and
risk apportionment, the market assistance plan, and medical malpractice
self-insurance; amending ss. 627.408, 627.409, 627.410, 627.411, 627.4133,
627.4143, 627.4234, 627.4235, and 627.429, F.S.; creating ss. 627.4091,
627.4131, 627.4236, and 627.4238, F.S.; amending and renumbering s.
627.726, F.S.; renumbering ss. 627.7262 and 627.7264, F.S.; revising
provisions relating to applications for insurance, filing and approval of
forms, notices of cancellation, nonrenewal, or renewal premium, outlines
of coverage, cost-containment, coordination of benefits, and medical tests
for HIV infection and AIDS; requiring a phone number on policies and
certificates; requiring specification of reasons for denials, cancellations,
and nonrenewals; providing requirements for exclusion of coverage for
bone marrow transplants; prohibiting the denial of issuance or renewal or
the cancellation of certain insurance; amending s. 627.481, F.S.; creating s.
627.4765, F.S.; revising provisions relating to annuity agreements; creating
the standard nonforfeiture law for individual deferred annuities; creating
s. 627.522, F.S.; providing requirements and prohibitions for industrial life
insurance policies; amending ss. 627.551, 627.5515, 627.552, 627.554,
627.555, and 627.556, F.S.; amending and renumbering s. 627.572, F.S.;
revising provisions relating to group life insurance, out-of-state groups,
employee groups, labor union groups, trustee groups, credit union groups,
and association groups; amending ss. 627.601, 627.607, 627.6417, and
627.643, F.S.; creating ss. 627.6086 and 627.6407, F.S.; amending and
renumbering s. 627.6145, F.S.; renumbering s. 627.6085, F.S.; revising
provisions relating to the scope of part VI of chapter 627, F.S., claims
payment methodology, time limits on defenses, mastectomy coverage,
minimum standards for certain forms; providing circumstances under
which an insurer must allow revocation of the insured's notice to cancel;
requiring certain coverage for massage; amending ss. 627.651, 627.6515,
627.653,627.6575, 627.6612, 627.666, 627.667, and 627.668, F.S.; creating ss.
627.6516, 627.6619, and 627.6647, F.S.; revising provisions relating to group
health insurance contracts, out-of-state group health insurance, employee
groups, coverage for newborn children, mastectomy coverage, liability of
the succeeding insurer upon replacement of a group health policy,
extension of benefits, and coverage for mental and nervous disorders;
providing for issuance of group health policies to trustee groups; requiring
certain coverage for massage; requiring release of certain group health
claims experience to a policyholder; amending s. 627.677, F.S.; creating ss.

approval of forms; creating s. 627.7061, F.S.; providing that inquiries about
property insurance coverage do not constitute claim activity; amending ss.
627.727, 627.728, 627.7282, 627.7283, 627.7295, 627.744, and 627.745, F.S.;
creating s. 627.7284, F.S.; revising provisions relating to uninsured and
underinsured motorist coverage, cancellations and nonrenewals,
cancellation upon nonpayment of additional premium, return of premium
upon cancellation, issuance and cancellation of motor vehicle insurance
contracts, preinsurance inspection of motor vehicles, and mediation of
claims; limiting the circumstances under which a motor vehicle policy may
be voided for misrepresentation; amending s. 627.756, F.S.; limiting the
liability of sureties who issue bonds in connection with construction
activities where hazardous substances exist or are discovered; amending ss.
627.7711, 627.776, 627.777, 627.7773, 627.7776, 627.778, 627.780, 627.782,
627.783, 627.784, 627.7841, 627.7842, 627.7845, 627.785, 627.786, 627.7865,
627.791, and 627.792, F.S.; creating ss. 627.7831 and 627.7843, F.S.; revising
provisions relating to definitions for title insurance, applicability of
Insurance Code provisions to title insurers, approval of forms, accounting
and auditing of forms, furnishing of supplies, limit of risk, illegal dealings
in risk premium, adoption of rates, rate deviations, prohibition of casualty
title insurance, insurance against certain adverse matters, policy
exceptions, evidence of title search and examination, state preemption,
transaction of title insurance and other insurance, assessments, violations
by unlicensed persons or entities, and liability for defalcation; requiring
certain charges for issuance of a title binder or commitment; providing for
regulation of ownership and encumbrance reports; amending ss. 627.826,
627.828, 627.8281, 627.829, 627.832, 627.833, 627.834, 627.835, 627.836,
627.838, 627.839, 627.840, 627.8405, 627.841, 627.845, and 627.848, F.S.;
creating ss. 627.8282, 627.8283, 627.8311, 627.8361, 627.8381, 627.8391,
627.8491, and 627.865, F.S.; revising provisions relating to definitions for
premium finance companies and contracts, licensure of premium finance
companies, levy upon deposit, applications and renewals, denial of
certificate of authority, administrative fines and probation, examinations,
excessive charges and penalties therefore, books and records, filing and
approval of forms, service charges, form and content of premium finance
agreements, limitations on service charges and other charges, prohibited
premium financing, other charges and fees, statements of account, and
cancellation of insurance contract upon default; providing for application
for certificate of authority; specifying net worth requirements; applying s.
628.4615, F.S., to acquisition of premium finance companies; requiring
annual reports; specifying grounds for disapproval of forms; providing
requirements for disbursement of funds; requiring adoption of rules;
providing circumstances limiting dividends and other distributions;
amending ss. 627.901, 627.902, and 627.904, F.S.; revising provisions
relating to premium financing by an insurance agent or agency, premium
financing by an insurer or subsidiary, and filing of forms by insurers and
subsidiaries; amending s. 627.945, F.S.; limiting the prohibition on
participation in guaranty funds by risk retention groups; repealing ss.
627.0627, 627.0635, 627.356, 627.403, 627.4149, 627.6176, 627.6573,627.781,
and 627.827, F.S., relating to medical malpractice rate filings, motor vehicle
rate standards, professional liability self-insurance trust funds, rating
classifications for medical malpractice insurance, mandated offers of
certain coinsurance in individual and group health policies, definition of
"risk premium," and definition of "premium finance agreement;" creating
s. 627.0623, F.S.; limiting campaign contributions; prohibiting solicitation
of campaign contributions; providing a penalty; creating s. 627.0613, F.S.;
requiring appointment of a consumer advocate and specifying powers and
duties thereof; saving s. 624.3161, F.S., and provisions of part V of chapter
626 and chapter 627, F.S., from Sunset repeal; rescheduling Sunset repeal
of ss. 634.045, 634.3073, and 634.4085, F.S.; providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Insurance and Appropriations.

By Representative Arnold--
HB 95-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to bridge designation;
designating the two high-level bridge spans over the Caloosahatchee River
in Lee County on Business U.S. 41 (State Road 739) as the "Edison Bridge";
directing the Department of Transportation to erect suitable markers;
providing an effective date.

Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

11

By Representative Daryl Jones-
HB 97-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to education; amending
s. 228.041, F.S.; revising terminology in definitions of the terms "school
day" and "exceptional student" and defining the term "year-round school";
amending s. 228.053, F.S.; conforming a cross-reference to changes made
by the act; amending s. 228.195, F.S.; providing for school breakfast
programs for prekindergarten students; amending s. 229.555, F.S.;
requiring school improvement plans to meet certain planning and
budgeting requirements; amending s. 229.58, F.S.; revising provisions for
establishing school advisory councils; defining the term "education support
employee"; amending s. 229.591, F.S.; adding the arts to the state education
goals; amending s. 229.592, F.S.; conforming cross-references to changes
made by the act; amending s. 229.808, F.S.; providing for biennial
nonpublic school surveys; amending s. 229.8341, F.S.; revising terminology
relating to services for infants and preschool children; amending s. 230.23,
F.S.; revising provisions relating to district school board powers and duties
for provision of special instruction and services for exceptional students;
amending and renumbering s. 235.439, F.S.; revising provisions relating to
program monitoring and evaluation of full school utilization programs;
amending s. 230.2303, F.S.; revising terminology relating to the Florida
First Start Program; amending s. 230.2305, F.S., relating to the
prekindergarten early intervention program; revising terminology; revising
requirements for plans and plan approval; requiring certain guidelines;
amending s. 230.2316, F.S.; revising provisions relating to dropout
prevention programs and program plans; deleting provisions relating to
dropout retrieval assistance programs, a dropout prevention manual,
community-based dropout prevention program grants, grants for mini-
schools as educational alternatives, and grants for alternatives to out-of-
school suspension; amending s. 230.2318, F.S.; conforming a cross-
reference to changes made by the act; amending s. 230.33, F.S.; revising
provisions relating to planned school programs with respect to duties of the
superintendent; providing for extension of a suspension if additional time
is required by the school board to provide for a fair hearing; providing
conditions to be met prior to the extension of a suspension; amending s.
231.15, F.S.; revising provisions relating to fees for certification; amending
s. 231.17, F.S.; revising provisions relating to issuance of certificates,
application procedures, the professional orientation program, and
application of rules; requiring the State Board of Education to adopt rules
under which applicants who have failed certain test requirements may be
awarded a teaching certificate; amending s. 231.1711, F.S.; revising
provisions relating to the statement of eligibility for certification;
amending s. 231.173, F.S.; providing for qualification for certification of
out-of-state administrators; amending s. 231.24, F.S.; revising provisions
relating to certificate renewal; creating s. 231.263, F.S.; creating a recovery
network program for educators who are impaired as a result of alcohol
abuse, drug abuse, or a mental condition; providing an implementation
date; providing eligibility for participation; providing for staff; providing
for treatment contracts; providing procedures; providing an exemption
from public records requirements for certain disclosed information and
providing for review and repeal of the exemption; providing for
determination of ineligibility for further assistance; providing for funds for
implementation; providing for rules; providing for future repeal; amending
s. 231.603, F.S.; revising provisions relating to teacher education center
inservice plans; amending s. 231.606, F.S.; revising teacher education
center council duties; amending s. 231.609, F.S.; deleting college and
university funding for teacher education centers; amending s. 231.613, F.S.;
revising provisions relating to inservice training institutes; revising
requirements for plan approval; amending s. 231.62, F.S.; conforming a
cross reference to changes made by the act; creating s. 231.66, F.S.;
providing for tuition-free courses for instructional personnel and teacher
aides; amending s. 232.01, F.S., relating to school attendance; revising
terminology; amending s. 232.032, F.S.; providing for automated transfer
of immunization certification; amending s. 232.246, F.S.; revising
provisions relating to funding for special instruction for certain high school
students; amending s. 232.2462, F.S.; revising provisions relating to
requirements for receipt of credit; creating s. 232.259, F.S.; authorizing
rules to assist schools and school districts in implementing driver's license
requirements; amending s. 233.056, F.S.; revising terminology relating to
certain instructional programs; amending s. 233.07, F.S.; revising definition
of the term "instructional materials"; amending s. 233.16, F.S.; authorizing
cash deposits in lieu of bonds for instructional materials contracts;

amending s. 233.18, F.S.; revising provisions relating to copies of bids,
contracts, and books; amending s. 233.25, F.S.; revising provisions relating

June 1, 1992

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

12 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE

to publishers and manufacturers of instructional materials; amending s.
234.01, F.S.; authorizing the provision of certain transportation; amending
s. 234.02, F.S.; revising terminology relating to transportation of certain
students; including participants in teenage parent programs in student
transportation requirements; amending s. 234.041, F.S.; revising
terminology relating to transportation of certain students; amending s.
235.014, F.S., and repealing subsection (3), relating to off-site hazards;
revising provisions relating to functions of the Office of Educational
Facilities; providing Department of General Services' duties; amending s.
235.19, F.S.; providing for waiver of site standards; providing for request
relating to offsite hazards; amending s. 235.196, F.S.; revising conditions
with respect to requests for funds to construct a community educational
facility; requiring the Office of Educational Facilities through an
independent appraiser to determine the value of existing sites for purposes
of developing community education facilities; amending s. 235.211, F.S.;
providing exceptions from requirements for architect services in certain
educational facility plans; amending s. 235.26, F.S.; revising provisions
relating to conformance to the state uniform building code; amending s.
235.31, F.S.; providing for purchase of maintenance, repair, and site
improvement services by district school boards from other governmental
contracts; amending s. 236.013, F.S., relating to definitions; revising
requirements for summer school programs; amending s. 236.081, F.S.;
revising provisions relating to a program membership survey of schools and
year-round schools; limiting the required local effort under the Florida
Education Finance Program; amending s. 236.0815, F.S.; revising
provisions relating to funding of additional educational services to certain
high school students; amending s. 236.083, F.S.; providing for funding for
transportation to year-round schools; amending s. 236.0835, F.S.; revising
terminology; amending s. 236.13, F.S.; conforming a cross reference to
changes made by the act; amending s. 236.145, F.S., relating to residential
nonpublic school contract reimbursement; revising terminology; amending
s. 237.041, F.S.; revising provisions relating to the examination of annual
budgets; amending s. 237.081, F.S.; revising provisions relating to
submission of budgets; amending s. 239.117, F.S.; providing for certain
exemption from student fees; amending s. 240.405, F.S.; revising provisions
relating to grants for teachers for training in exceptional student
education; amending s. 242.332, F.S.; revising terminology; amending ss.
200.065, 236.25, 237.161, F.S.; permitting the purchase of instructional
equipment, including software; amending s. 318.21, F.S.; providing for
funding crossing guard programs from civil penalties for certain traffic
infractions; authorizing community college boards of trustees to grant
certain fee waivers; authorizing the Department of Education to purchase
annuities to be used as reduction-in-force bonuses for eligible employees;
repealing ss. 229.565(5), 231.532, 233.0615, 236.022, 236.1227, 236.135, F.S.,
relating to evaluation of prekindergarten early intervention programs,
district quality instruction incentives programs, law education, study of
alternative methods of school finance, quality instruction incentive
categorical program, and equipment purchasing or leasing; providing an
effective date.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Mitchell-
HB 99-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to public libraries;
amending s. 257.171, F.S.; providing for multicounty libraries rather than
regional libraries; amending s. 257.172, F.S.; revising provisions relating to
state grants to libraries; providing for use of funds and computation and
adjustment of grants; amending s. 257.18, F.S.; revising provisions relating
to the computation of equalization grants; creating s. 257.195, F.S.;
providing procedures in the event of revenue shortfalls; providing an
effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Tourism, Hospitality & Economic
Development and Appropriations.

By Representative Geller-

HB 101-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to insurance; amending
s. 627.311, F.S.; requiring joint underwriting plans for motor vehicle
insurance to provide a list of insureds under certain circumstances;
prohibiting such plans from offering certain credits or inducements;
providing an effective date.

I

training of personnel; providing enforcement powers to the Department of
Health and Rehabilitative Services; amending s. 39.057, F.S.; authorizing
county and municipal boot camps; providing for enforcement, including
injunctive relief and proceedings to terminate facility operation; providing
an effective date.

_ ____ __

E OF REPRESENTATIVES June 1, 1992

Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Pruitt-
HB 103-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to local government
budgets; amending s. 129.06, F.S.; authorizing certain local governments to
propose budget amendments by resolution or ordinance under certain
circumstances; providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Community Affairs and Appropriations.

By Representative Long-
HB 105-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to corrections; creating
s. 794.0115, F.S.; providing ineligibility for gain-time for persons sentenced
under chapter 794, F.S.; amending s. 944.275, F.S.; prohibiting grants of
basic or incentive gain-time to offenders convicted under ch. 794, F.S.;
amending s. 775.084, F.S.; prescribing ineligibility of habitual felony
offenders and habitual violent felony offenders for basic gain-time,
sentencing guidelines, and parole consideration; providing an effective
date.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Ascherl-
HB 107-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to the Department of
Natural Resources; amending s. 212.69, F.S.; revising the portion of the
revenues from the tax on the sale of motor and special fuels that is
distributed to the department and the uses thereof; providing an effective
date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Natural Resources and Appropriations.

By Representative Sindler-
HB 109-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to juvenile offenders;
amending s. 39.01, F.S.; revising the definition of "serious or habitual
juvenile offender"; reenacting ss. 39.052(5) and 39.058(3)(e) and (4)(a),
F.S., relating to serious or habitual delinquent child placement and
assessments, to incorporate said amendment in references thereto;
amending s. 39.052, F.S.; providing for arraignment at an adjudicatory
hearing; amending s. 39.0585, F.S.; revising provisions relating to
information systems and records to authorize identification files on chronic
delinquent offenders; defining "chronic delinquent offender"; providing for
certain sharing of information; amending s. 39.044, F.S.; amending
detention criteria, and reenacting ss. 39.037(1), 39.042(3)(b)1., 39.049(5),
39.064(1), and 39.402(4), F.S., relating to taking a child into custody, use
of detention, process and service, detention of escaped child, and
placement in a shelter, to incorporate said amendment in references
thereto; amending s. 39.038, F.S.; requiring the child to join in the release
agreement; amending s. 39.047 F.S.; amending the responsibilities of the
case manager; creating s. 39.0445, F.S.; providing for placement of juvenile
domestic violence offenders; amending s. 39.054, F.S.; revising powers of
disposition; amending s. 39.023, F.S.; expanding powers of the Commission
on Juvenile Justice; amending ss. 960.001, 960.002, 960.003, 960.01, 960.02,
960.03, 960.07, 960.17, 960.20, and 960.28, F.S., relating to victim
assistance, to provide that victims and witnesses in juvenile delinquency
cases have the same rights as those afforded to victims and witnesses in
adult criminal cases; providing for the removal of the disabilities of nonage
for certain minors; providing for a separate program for young offenders;
creating s. 39.0215, F.S.; providing for administering county and municipal
juvenile delinquency programs and facilities, including secure detention
facilities; providing for transfers of children; providing for payment of
children performing services in work programs; requiring that county and
municipal programs comport with state law and department rules and
coordinate with other services; requiring quarterly inspections and
evaluations by the department; requiring a monitoring fee; ensuring the

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE]

First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Criminal Justice and Appropriations.

By Representative Silver-
HB 111-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to educational
facilities; amending s. 235.215, F.S., relating to energy efficiency
contracting; conforming language; providing an effective date.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Mortham-
HB 113-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to taxation; creating
s. 213.015, F.S.; providing requirements with respect to the rights,
safeguards, and protections afforded taxpayers during tax assessment,
collection, and enforcement processes; creating s. 213.018, F.S.; providing
for a taxpayer problem resolution program; providing for a taxpayers'
rights advocate with authority to issue taxpayer assistance orders;
amending s. 213.21, F.S.; providing a taxpayer's right to have
representation and record informal conferences; creating s. 213.025, F.S.;
requiring the Department of Revenue to conduct its audits, inspections,
and interviews at reasonable times and places, with exceptions; amending
s. 213.34, F.S.; directing the department to offset overpayments against
deficiencies; creating s. 213.731, F.S.; requiring notice before collection
action is taken; providing a taxpayer's right to protest and seek a review;
creating s. 213.732, F.S.; providing procedural requirements, taxpayers'
rights, and venue for certain legal actions with respect to jeopardy findings
and assessments; creating s. 213.733, F.S.; providing for cancellation,
amendment, or modification of warrants; amending ss. 199.262, 206.075,
211.125, 211.33, 212.14, 212.15, 220.719, and 220.815, F.S.; specifying
procedures applicable if jeopardy to the revenue exists and is asserted in
or with an assessment; repealing s. 220.719(4), F.S., relating to taxpayer
protest regarding a jeopardy assessment lien; amending s. 20.21, F.S.;
creating within the department the position of taxpayers' rights advocate
and providing his responsibilities; amending s. 72.011, F.S.; prohibiting
certain legal actions when an action has been initiated under s. 120.575,
F.S.; amending s. 95.091, F.S.; requiring the department to commence an
audit within a specified period of time after it issues a notice of intent to
conduct an audit; amending s. 120.575, F.S., which provides procedures and
requirements applicable when a taxpayer contests specified taxes, interest,
penalties, or denials of refund; removing provisions which specify
requirements applicable to proceedings involving tax on the sale or use of
services; specifying conditions under which collection and enforcement of
contested amounts is stayed; providing for recovery of legal costs, including
attorney's fees; amending ss. 57.111 and 120.57, F.S., to conform; repealing
s. 120.65(5), F.S., which provides for hearing officer panels for proceedings
involving tax on the sale or use of services; providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Finance & Taxation and Appropriations.

By Representative Hawkes-
HB 115-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to consumer reports;
creating the "Florida Consumer Reporting Act"; providing definitions;
authorizing the Department of Legal Affairs to adopt rules and be the
enforcement agency; limiting fees to be paid by consumers; requiring
agencies to follow reasonable procedures to assure accuracy; requiring
agencies to disclose specified information upon a consumer's request;
providing dispute resolution; providing for civil penalties after a finding of
liability; providing an effective date.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Bainter-
HB 117-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to the Florida

Retirement System; amending s. 121.052, F.S.; providing for the
calculation of a legislator's retirement benefits under the Elected State and
County Officers' Class and under other classes of the system as separate
benefits; providing for combined payment of benefits; providing
applicability; prohibiting creditable service earned by a legislator under
the Elected State and County Officers' Class from being used to attain the

normal retirement date under any other class of the system; providing
applicability; providing an effective date.

June 1, 1992

HB 131-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to state correctional
institutions; providing legislative intent and purpose; providing guidelines
for regulating inmate behavior at state correctional institutions; requiring
the Department of Corrections to adopt certain rules; requiring the
department to report to the Legislature; providing an effective date.

E OF REPRESENTATIVES 13

First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Employee & Management Relations and
Appropriations.

By Representative Guber-
HB 119-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to education; amending
s. 236.013, F.S.; providing an exemption to enrollment funding calculations
for certain students; amending s. 239.117, F.S.; making technical
corrections; limiting the applicability of fee exemptions for certain
students; revising the assessment of certain fees for community college
students; amending s. 239.233, F.S., relating to vocational education
reporting; providing for annual reports, performance indicators and
targets, and longitudinal analyses for vocational programs; providing for
confidentiality of certain information; requiring the Department of
Education to withhold funds under certain circumstances; amending s.
239.245, F.S., relating to public information on vocational education
programs; conforming language; amending s. 455.212, F.S., relating to
educational requirements of licensing boards; providing exemption for
licensing boards under certain conditions; providing effective dates.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Vocational/Technical Education and
Appropriations.

By Representative Brennan-
HB 121-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to health care special
districts; amending s. 154.331, F.S.; providing that ordinances establishing
such districts may provide for their dissolution after a specified period of
time unless continuation is approved in a referendum; providing an
effective date.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Rudd-
HB 123-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to juvenile
delinquency; amending s. 39.044, F.S.; revising detention criteria to
provide for extension under certain circumstances; amending s. 39.061,
F.S.; revising provisions relating to escape from certain juvenile facilities,
for which felony penalties are provided by law; providing an effective date.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Hanson-
HJR 125-H-A joint resolution proposing the creation of Section 19 of
Article VII of the State Constitution relating to exemptions from state
taxes and fees.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Finance & Taxation and Appropriations.

By Representative Foley-
HR 127-H-A resolution commending John "Jack" Scarola for 20 years
of service to the people of Palm Beach County.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Feeney-
HB 129-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to public educational
facilities; repealing ss. 235.26, 235.018, F.S.; amending ss. 235.056, 235.06,
553.77, F.S.; repealing provisions relating to a uniform building code;
providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Public Schools and Appropriations.

By Representative Hawkes-

14 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE

First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Corrections and Appropriations.

By Representative Hargrett-
HB 133-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to affordable housing;
providing a short title; amending s. 201.02, F.S.; increasing the excise tax
on deeds and other instruments relating to real property; amending s.
201.15, F.S.; revising the distribution of excise taxes on documents;
allocating a portion of the excise tax on documents to the State Housing
Trust Fund and to the Local Government Housing Trust Fund; providing
for the use of moneys deposited in those trust funds; amending s. 240.5111,
F.S.; requiring the Multidisciplinary Center for Affordable Housing to
establish a research agenda in cooperation with the Department of
Community Affairs; amending s. 420.0001, F.S.; revising the short title of
the State Housing Incentive Partnership Act of 1988; amending s.
420.0002, F.S.; revising the legislative findings; amending s. 420.0005, F.S.;
providing that funds from the State Housing Trust Fund may be used to
administer housing programs; amending s. 420.306, F.S.; revising and
providing definitions for the Housing Predevelopment and Elderly
Homeowner Rehabilitation Assistance Act; amending s. 420.307, F.S.;
revising provisions relating to administration of the Housing
Predevelopment Trust Fund and providing for availability of funds;
"amending s. 420.308, F.S.; revising provisions relating to authorized loans
and grants made from the trust fund and activities eligible for support;
amending s. 420.309, F.S.; revising application procedures for receipt of
funds; requiring notice and establishment of a review committee and
scoring system; amending s. 420.31, F.S.; revising provisions relating to
rules and annual reports; amending s. 420.32, F.S.; revising provisions
relating to default on a loan; providing for deposit of funds; creating s.
420.36, F.S.; creating the Low-income Emergency Home Repair Program;
providing eligibility, allowable expenses, fund distribution, and
departmental powers; creating s. 420.37, F.S.; providing additional powers
of the Florida Housing Finance Agency; amending s. 420.503, F.S.;
providing additional definitions under the Florida Housing Finance
Agency Act; amending s. 420.507, F.S.; revising powers of the agency with
respect to loans under the Florida Homeownership Assistance Program
and the State Apartment Incentive Loan Program; amending s. 420.5087,
F.S., relating to the State Apartment Incentive Loan Program; amending
provisions relating to eligibility for loans; amending provisions relating to
allocation of loans; transferring certain duties of the Department of
Community Affairs to the Florida Housing Finance Agency; amending s.
420.5088, F.S.; amending provisions relating to the Florida
Homeownership Assistance Program; amending requirements with respect
to mortgage loans; providing requirements with respect to construction
loans; providing for allocation of program funds; providing for transfer of
moneys to the Florida Homeownership Assistance Trust Fund; creating s.
420.5089, F.S.; creating the HOME Partnership Program and establishing
a trust fund; providing for loans based on competitive selection; providing
for pilot programs; providing for eligible activities; providing for a review
committee; providing for approval and determination of loans; providing
agency powers; providing for the deposit of funds; creating s. 420.5091, F.S.;
providing for rules to implement the HOPE Program; providing for the
acquisition of property; creating s. 420.5092, F.S.; creating the Florida
Affordable Housing Guarantee Program and authorizing agency action;
providing purposes; providing definitions; providing for funding; providing
for establishing rates and fees for guarantees; providing for the issuance of
revenue bonds; providing a specified maximum amount of such bonds;
providing for an annual audit; providing for a feasibility study; amending
s. 420.601, F.S.; revising the short title; amending s. 420.6015, F.S.; revising
the legislative findings; amending s. 420.606, F.S.; requiring the
Department of Community Affairs to provide technical support for the
implementation of the State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program;
amending s. 420.6075, F.S.; requiring the Department of Community
Affairs to participate in establishing an annual research agenda for the
Multidisciplinary Center for Affordable Housing; amending s. 420.609,
F.S.; requiring the Affordable Housing Study Commission to make
recommendations regarding an annual research agenda for the
Multidisciplinary Center for Affordable Housing; creating ss. 420.907,

420.9071, 420.9072, 420.9075, 420.9076, 420.9078, 420.9079, F.S.; providing
a short title; providing definitions relating to affordable housing;
establishing the State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program; providing
legislative findings and intent; providing for administration of the program
and for rules; providing approval procedures and requirements; providing

I]

E OF REPRESENTATIVES June 1, 1992

for the distribution and use of funds; providing criteria for the issuance of
revenue bonds by local governments; establishing criteria and
administrative procedures for local housing assistance programs adopted
by local governments; requiring a report; requiring reporting of violations
to the Office of the Governor and the Auditor General; requiring adoption
of affordable housing incentive plans; providing for affordable housing
advisory committees; providing for state administration of remaining local
housing distribution funds; providing for notice of the availability of funds;
creating the Local Government Housing Trust Fund; providing for the
distribution of moneys from the trust fund; transferring the program
functions of the Housing Predevelopment Trust Fund to the Florida
Housing Finance Agency; providing that each county that has
implemented ch. 83-220, Laws of Florida, as amended, shall not be subject
to section 2 of the act and shall be eligible for certain programs on a limited
basis; amending s. 1, ch. 83-220, Laws of Florida, as amended; providing
additional uses of the discretionary surtax on documents authorized
thereunder; providing appropriations from the Local Government Housing
Trust Fund and from the State Housing Trust Fund to fund housing
programs; repealing ss. 420.603, 420.604, 420.605, F.S., relating to the
Florida Affordable Housing Trust Fund, the Florida Affordable Housing
Demonstration Program, and the Affordable Housing Loan Program;
repealing ss. 420.801, 420.802, 420.803, 420.804, 420.805, 420.806, 420.808,
420.809, 420.810, 420.811, 420.812, 420.813, F.S., relating to the Pocket of
Poverty Programs; repealing ss. 420.901,420.902, 420.903, 420.904, 420.905,
420.906, F.S., the Maintenance of Housing for the Elderly Act of 1988;
providing a severability clause; providing effective dates.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Community Affairs, Finance & Taxation
and Appropriations.

By Representative Martinez-
HB 135-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to sentencing,
excluding capital felonies; creating the Truth in Sentencing Act of 1992;
providing legislative intent; amending s. 775.084, F.S.; redefining and
providing for enhanced sentencing of habitual felony offenders and
habitual violent felony offenders; stating legislative intent that all cross
references to s. 775.084, F.S., refer to that section as amended and
enumerating said references; amending s. 777.04, F.S., relating to criminal
attempts, solicitation, and conspiracy, to conform to the sentencing
guidelines revision; amending s. 921.001, F.S.; providing the purpose of and
additional requirements for the sentencing guidelines that are
recommended to the Supreme Court by the Sentencing Commission;
requiring the commission, with the Division of Economic and Demographic
Research, to estimate rates of incarceration in the state correctional system
and make funding and other recommendations to the Legislature; deleting
obsolete provisions pertaining to alternative sentencing guideline
recommendations; deleting a restriction on appellate review of departure
sentences; amending ss. 924.06, 924.07, and 958.04, F.S., relating to appeal
by defendant, appeal by the state, and judicial disposition of youthful
offenders, to conform; creating s. 921.0011, F.S.; providing definitions;
creating s. 921.0012, F.S.; providing sentencing guidelines offense levels
based on severity rankings for specified crimes, including drug trafficking;
providing multipliers for drug trafficking, habitual offender, and Law
Enforcement Protection Act violation; providing additional points for
possession of a firearm or destructive device, and providing for scoring
criminal attempt, solicitation, or conspiracy; creating s. 921.0013, F.S.;
providing requirements for ranking unlisted felony offenses; creating s.
921.0014, F.S.; providing sentencing guidelines worksheet computations;
creating s. 921.0016, F.S.; providing nonexclusive aggravating and
mitigating circumstances supporting departure by increasing or decreasing
the length of the guidelines sentence; requiring the Sentencing
Commission to adopt procedures for implementing revised sentencing
guidelines; amending ss. 775.0823, 775.087, 775.0875, 784.08, 790.161,
790.165, 790.221, 893.13, 893.135, and 893.20, F.S., relating to violent
offenses committed against certain law enforcement officials, possession of
a firearm or destructive device, unlawful taking of a law enforcement
officer's firearm, assault or battery on persons 65 years of age or older,

unlawful activities involving destructive devices, planting of hoax bombs,
unlawful possession of certain guns, controlled substances violations,
trafficking violations, and continuing criminal enterprise; deleting
provisions relating to mandatory minimum sentences and certain release,
to conform to the sentencing guidelines revision; amending s. 944.275, F.S.;

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSI

prohibiting the granting of basic gain-time for offenses committed after a
specified date; prohibiting the granting of control release or provisional
credits on or after a specified date; providing eligibility for consideration
for control release or parole under certain circumstances; amending s.
775.082, F.S.; revising the first degree felony penalty provision; providing
a listing of statutory cross references to s. 775.084, F.S., and a directive to
the Division of Statutory Revision; providing effective dates.

SOF REPRESENTATIVES 15

public education license plates; providing for fees and for the deposit and
use of such fees; providing for deauthorization based on sales; providing an
effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Transportation, Finance & Taxation and
Appropriations.

Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled By Representative Silver-
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Hawkes-
HB 137-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to Citrus County,
Homosassa Special Water District; amending section 2 of chapter 59-1177,
Laws of Florida, as amended; increasing the membership of the board of
commissioners of the district from three to five; providing for an election
for the additional members; decreasing the maximum amount of
compensation that may be provided to the members of the board;
providing for an increase in such compensation upon approval by the
electors of the district; providing for a referendum; providing an effective
date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committee on Community Affairs.

By Representative Crady-
HB 139-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to the Jacksonville Port
Authority, Duval County; amending chapter 63-1447, Laws of Florida, as
amended, the Charter of the Jacksonville Port Authority, repealing
provisions that require that the Council of the City of Jacksonville must
approve the removal of an Authority member from office; amending
provisions regarding voting requirements for lease approval; eliminating
language no longer applicable regarding payment of expenses; eliminating
invalid authorization to issue industrial development bonds; expanding
authorization to enter into joint ventures for development; eliminating
necessity to record leases as they are already public records; eliminating
duplication of appraisals and simplifying language regarding
intergovernmental contracts; eliminating references to general obligation
bonds and revising reference to Chapter 159, F.S.; removing transition
language no longer applicable; creating provisions concerning rights of
bondholders and rights of employees; revising provisions to reflect current
practice and eliminate redundancy of oath of office; providing an effective
date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Proof of publication of the required notice was attached.
Referred to the Committees on Community Affairs and Finance &
Taxation.

By Representative Ascherl-
HB 141-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to the Department of
Insurance; amending s. 527.01, F.S.; revising a definition of the term
"installer C"; providing a definition; amending s. 527.02, F.S.; providing
license fees for persons engaged in providing liquefied petroleum gas;
requiring pipeline system operators to be licensed; amending s. 527.021,
F.S.; providing for registration fees for persons who deliver liquefied
petroleum gas in bulk; providing for inspection decals; amending s.
527.0605, F.S.; providing a fee for certain inspections of liquefied
petroleum gas facilities; amending ss. 624.501, 624.5015, 648.31, F.S.;
revising fees related to engaging in the business of providing insurance;
amending s. 624.5091, F.S.; revising the distribution of retaliatory taxes;
amending s. 626.989, F.S.; deleting a provision prohibiting certain
investigators from eligibility for membership in the Special Risk Class of
the Florida Retirement System; providing for retroactive effect; providing
an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Insurance, Finance & Taxation and
Appropriations.

By Representative Holland--

HB 145-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to road designations;
designating a portion of State Road 916 in Miami as "Maurice Rosen
Boulevard"; directing the Department of Transportation to erect suitable
markers; providing an effective date.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Boyd-
HB 147-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to tax collectors;
increasing service fees collected by tax collectors; amending s. 197.462, F.S.;
increasing fee for the transfer of tax certificates; amending s. 197.502, F.S.;
increasing fee for obtaining tax deed; amending s. 319.32, F.S.; increasing
fee for issuance, duplication, or transfer of certificates of title; amending
s. 320.04, F.S.; increasing fee for registration of motor vehicles; amending
s. 320.0815, F.S.; increasing fee for mobile homes and recreational vehicles
license plates or stickers; amending s. 327.11, F.S.; increasing fees for vessel
registration; amending s. 327.25, F.S.; increasing vessel registration service
fees; amending s. 328.03, F.S.; increasing fees for vessel certificates of title;
amending s. 370.0605, F.S.; increasing saltwater fishing license fee;
amending s. 370.1111, F.S.; increasing fee for snook stamp; amending s.
370.14, F.S.; increasing fee for crawfish stamp; amending s. 372.561, F.S.;
increasing fees for issuing hunting and freshwater fishing licenses;
amending s. 372.574, F.S.; increasing fee for fishing, hunting, and trapping
license or stamp; amending s. 372.60, F.S.; increasing fees for issuing
duplicate licenses; providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Transportation, Finance & Taxation and
Appropriations.

By Representative Rudd-
HB 149-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to road and highway
designations; designating a portion of U.S. Highway 319 as the "Kate
Ireland Highway"; directing the Department of Transportation to erect
suitable markers; providing an effective date.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Hargrett-
HB 151-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to unemployment
compensation; amending s. 443.101, F.S.; providing for the application of
a provision excluding from unemployment compensation calculations any
benefits from programs under the United States Social Security Act;
providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Employee & Management Relations and
Appropriations.

By Representative Crady-
HB 153-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to the Consolidated
City of Jacksonville; enlarging the boundaries of the Town of Baldwin by
adding certain properties to Urban Services District 5; providing an
effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Proof of publication of the required notice was attached.
Referred to the Committee on Community Affairs.

By Representative Bainter-

HB 143-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to motor vehicle license HB 155-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to insurance; amending
plates; creating s. 320.08095, F.S.; providing for the issuance of specialized s. 627.311, F.S.; deleting a requirement that self-insurers participate in the

June 1, 1992

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

joint underwriting association; amending s. 626.022, F.S.; revising
application of part I, ch. 626, F.S.; amending s. 626.031, F.S.; redefining the
term "agent" for purposes of part I, ch. 626, F.S.; amending s. 626.241, F.S.;
providing requirements for licensure examinations for title insurance
agents; amending s. 626.2815, F.S.; providing continuing education
requirements for title insurance agents; amending s. 626.331, F.S.;
providing a limitation on agents and agency licenses; amending s. 626.611,
F.S.; providing circumstances under which the department may deny,
suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew a title agent's license or appointment;
amending s. 626.841, F.S.; providing definitions; creating s. 626.8411, F.S.;
providing for application of part II, ch. 626, F.S., to title insurance agents;
providing an exemption; creating s. 626.8412, F.S.; providing licensure and
appointment requirements for title insurance agents; creating s. 626.8414,
F.S.; providing licensure requirements for title insurance agents; providing
certain exemptions from the examination requirement; amending s.
626.8417, F.S.; revising qualification requirements for licensure as a title
insurance agent; authorizing the designation of an insurer's corporate
officer to take certain actions on behalf of the insurer; providing an
exemption from licensing and appointment requirements; creating s.
626.8418, F.S.; providing application requirements for licensure as a title
insurance agency; providing requirements for a surety deposit or bond;
creating s. 626.8419, F.S.; providing for the appointment of title insurance
agencies by title insurers; requiring a fidelity bond and errors and
omissions insurance of specified amounts; amending s. 627.7711, F.S.;
providing definitions; amending s. 627.776, F.S.; providing for the
application of the Insurance Code to title insurers; amending s. 627.777,
F.S.; requiring the approval of title insurance forms by the department;
amending s. 627.7773, F.S.; providing for accounting and audits of forms
used by title insurance agents; amending s. 627.7776, F.S.; prohibiting the
furnishing of supplies; providing a penalty; amending s. 627.778, F.S.;
providing certain limitations on assumption of risk by title insurers;
amending s. 627.780, F.S.; prohibiting certain illegal dealings in risk
premiums; amending s. 627.782, F.S.; requiring the department to adopt
minimum rates for title services; providing requirements for the
department in adopting premium rates; amending s. 627.783, F.S.;
providing for deviations in rates for title insurance upon order of the
department; creating s. 627.7831, F.S.; requiring charging and collection of
the risk premium; amending s. 627.784, F.S.; prohibiting the issuance of
title insurance with disregard to possible title defects; amending s.
627.7841, F.S.; providing requirements for insurance against adverse
matters and defects in title; amending s. 627.7842, F.S.; providing for
certain exceptions from coverage in title insurance policies; creating s.
627.7843, F.S.; providing requirements for ownership and encumbrance
reports; amending s. 627.7845, F.S.; providing requirements for title
searches; providing requirements for maintaining records pertaining to
title searches, risk premiums, and service charges; amending s. 627.785,
F.S.; preempting to the state the regulation of title insurers and title
insurance; amending s. 627.786, F.S.; prohibiting the transaction of title
insurance and other kinds of insurance; amending s. 627.7865, F.S.;
providing for payment of unpaid outstanding claims through insurer
assessments; amending s. 627.791, F.S.; providing penalties; amending s.
627.792, F.S.; providing for liability in the event of defalcation, conversion,
or misappropriation of funds held in trust by a title insurance agent;
repealing s. 627.781, F.S., relating to the definition of the term "risk
premium"; amending s. 627.6575, providing clarification for prospective
charges; reviving provisions of s. 634.045, F.S., of part V, ch. 626, F.S., and
of ch. 627, F.S., notwithstanding repeals scheduled under the Regulatory
Sunset Act; providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Insurance and Appropriations.

By Representatives Lippman, Jamerson, Chinoy and Tobin-
HB 157-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to unemployment
compensation; amending s. 443.111, F.S.; modifying the maximum weekly
benefit amount that may be paid to an individual from the Unemployment
Compensation Trust Fund; providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).

Referred to the Committees on Employee & Management Relations and
Appropriations.

By Representative Bo Johnson-
HB 159-H-A bill to be entitled An act for the relief of Cecil S. Head;
providing an appropriation; requiring the Comptroller to draw a warrant
upon funds in the General Revenue Fund; providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Claims and Appropriations.

By Representative Ritchie-
HB 161-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to firefighters' pension
trust funds; amending s. 175.021, F.S.; providing that it is the legislative
intent that firefighters employed by special fire control districts should be
entitled to the same retirement benefits as municipal firefighters;
amending ss. 121.021, 175.032, 175.041, 175.061, 175.071, 175.081, 175.091,
175.101, 175.111, 175.122, 175.131, 175.141, 175.152, 175.162, 175.191,
175.201, 175.211, 175.251, 175.261, 175.291, 175.301, 175.311, 175.321,
175.351, and 175.361, F.S.; providing for pension funds and retirement
benefits for firefighters employed by special fire control districts, which
funds and benefits are subject to the same statutory requirements as
pension funds and retirement benefits for municipal firefighters; amending
s. 175.121, F.S.; clarifying that undistributed funds are annually
transferred to support the firefighters' supplemental compensation
program; providing for redistribution of certain funds to specified cities
and special districts; amending s. 624.520, F.S., to conform; amending s.
633.382, F.S.; providing for curing of deficits; providing for redistribution
of certain funds; providing an effective date.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Harris-
HB 163-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to definition of
"nursing home"; amending s. 196.012, F.S.; updating the definition of
"nursing home" in provisions relating to property tax exemptions;
providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Health Care, Finance & Taxation and
Appropriations.

By Representative Bainter-
HB 165-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to public fairs and
expositions; amending s. 616.21, F.S.; increasing the membership of the
Agricultural and Livestock Fair Council; prescribing duties of the council;
creating s. 616.221, F.S.; establishing the Florida Fairs, Festivals, and
Livestock Shows Trust Account; providing for collection and disbursement
of funds in the account; prescribing uses of moneys in the trust account;
authorizing the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to
adopt rules; repealing s. 616.22, F.S., which provides matching funds for
construction or repair of exhibit buildings; providing an effective date.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Rayson-
HB 167-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to health maintenance
organizations; creating s. 402.481, F.S.; creating the Statewide Health
Maintenance Organization Patient Ombudsman Committee; providing for
membership, powers, duties, staffing, and funding of the committee;
requiring reports; providing exemptions from public records requirements;
providing for review and repeal; providing a penalty for disclosing
confidential information; creating s. 402.482, F.S.; creating district health
maintenance organization patient ombudsman committees; providing for
membership, powers, duties, staffing, and funding of the committees;
providing exemptions from public records requirements; providing for
review and repeal; providing a penalty for disclosing confidential
information; providing immunity for health maintenance organization
enrollees who submit quality of care complaints and for members of the
Statewide Health Maintenance Organization Patient Ombudsman
Committee or district health maintenance organization patient
ombudsman committees who investigate such complaints; creating s.

402.483, F.S.; providing duties for the Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services relating to the statewide and district committees;

16

June 1, 1992

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE]

amending s. 641.58, F.S.; providing for use of funds from the Health
Maintenance Organization Quality Care Trust Fund for expenses of the
SStatewide Health Maintenance Organization Patient Ombudsman
Committee and the district health maintenance organization patient
ombudsman committees; providing an appropriation; providing an
effective date.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Mims-
HB 169-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to public assistance;
creating s. 409.2352, F.S.; requiring the department to conduct criminal
name checks for public assistance applicants and recipients with
outstanding arrest warrants on request of law enforcement agencies;
requiring that costs be paid by the requesting agency; providing for the
Department of Law Enforcement to conduct checks in certain
circumstances when the department's criminal name check is inconclusive;
providing for confidentiality of information; providing for denial of public
assistance to any applicant or recipient revealed to have an outstanding
arrest warrant; providing for administrative procedure; providing for rules
and federal waivers; providing an effective date.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representatives Davis, Wallace and Dennis Jones-
HB 171-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to natural gas
transmission pipelines; creating ss. 403.9401-403.9425, F.S.; creating the
Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Siting Act to establish a certification
process for siting natural gas transmission pipelines; providing legislative
intent; providing definitions; providing powers and duties of the
Department of Environmental Regulation; providing applicability,
certification, and exemptions; providing for applications; specifying
pipeline corridor requirements; providing for appointment of a hearing
officer; providing for distribution of applications and schedules; providing
for determination of completeness of application; providing for
determination of sufficiency of application; providing for preliminary
statements of issues, reports, and studies by affected agencies; providing
for notice, proceedings, parties, and participants; providing for the
proposal of alternate corridors; providing for amendment of an application;
providing for alteration of time limits; providing for final disposition of the
application; providing for certification as the sole license for natural gas
transmission pipeline siting; providing for use of a corridor by other
applicants; providing for notice of certified corridor routes; providing for
modification of certification; providing for enforcement; providing for
superseding of laws, rules, and ordinances; establishing fees; providing for
applicability to existing natural gas transmission pipelines or applications;
providing for determination of need by the Florida Public Service
Commission; providing for admissibility of certification in eminent domain
proceedings; prohibiting the requesting of certain attorney's fees and costs;
providing for local government informational meetings; providing for
revocation or suspension of certification; creating the Natural Gas
Transmission Pipeline Intrastate Regulatory Act; providing legislative
declaration; providing definitions; providing powers and duties of the
Florida Public Service Commission to regulate rates and services of natural
gas transmission companies; providing for the setting of rates; providing
for a statement of intent to revise rates, a hearing on revised rates, and
determination of rate level; providing for determination of rates as
unreasonable or violative; providing for confidentiality and discovery;
providing for Open Government Sunset review and repeal; providing for
regulatory assessment fees; providing for administrative fines; providing
for judicial review; amending s. 361.05, F.S.; giving natural gas
transmission pipeline companies the power of eminent domain; amending
s. 366.02, F.S.; excluding certain natural gas sales companies from the
definition of the term "public utility" for the purposes of ch. 366, F.S.;
providing appropriations and positions; providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).

June 1, 1992

HR 183-H-A resolution commending the Reverend Cornelius Ellis
Jenkins for his many accomplishments.

Referred to the Committees on Regulated Services & Technology and Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
Appropriations. the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

E OF REPRESENTATIVES 17

By Representative Lawson-
HB 173-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to the Eastpoint Water
and Sewer District in Franklin County; amending chapter 67-1399, Laws
of Florida; expanding the boundaries of the district; providing an effective
date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Proof of publication of the required notice was attached.
Referred to the Committees on Community Affairs and Finance &
Taxation.

By Representative Ritchie-
HB 175-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to tax on sales from
food and beverage vending machines; amending s. 212.0515, F.S.; revising
the method for calculating the tax for certain beverages; revising the
reporting requirement for persons who sell food or beverages for resale;
removing a requirement that dealers who purchase food or beverages for
resale provide certain information to the dealer from whom such items are
purchased; requiring operators who purchase food or beverages for resale
to furnish certain information to the dealer from whom such items are
purchased; providing penalties for failing to file required information with,
or providing false information to, the Department of Revenue; providing
an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Finance & Taxation and Appropriations.

By Representatives Wallace, Mackenzie and Guber-
HB 177-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to water quality;
amending s. 206.9935, F.S.; revising the rates of the tax for water quality
and the circumstances under which they are imposed; amending s.
287.0595, F.S.; correcting a reference; amending s. 376.307, F.S.; revising
the uses of funds in the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund and
requirements with respect thereto; authorizing transfer of a portion of trust
fund moneys to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust
Fund for response actions on lands owned by the board, subject to certain
conditions; amending s. 403.7185, F.S.; increasing the fee on lead-acid
batteries; providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Natural Resources, Finance & Taxation
and Appropriations.

By Representative Clark-
HB 179-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to a pretrial
intervention program; amending s. 948.08, F.S.; expanding the program for
limited purposes under certain circumstances; providing procedure;
providing an effective date.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Hoffmann-
HB 181-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to the Florida Evidence
Code; creating s. 90.6065, F.S.; requiring interpreters used by the courts of
this state to be certified or designated as otherwise qualified and
delineating the circumstances for the use of each; requiring the State
Courts Administrator to establish the requirements for certification and
issue guidelines for designation as otherwise qualified and to maintain a
master list of certified and otherwise qualified interpreters for use by the
courts; providing applicability to existing provisions of law governing court
interpreters; providing a time period for currently employed interpreters
to be certified or designated as otherwise qualified; providing an effective
date.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Logan-

18

By Representative Holzendorf-
HB 185-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to state retirement
systems; amending ss. 122.08, 122.35, 238.07, and 238.11, F.S.; advancing
the date for the application of retirement after 30 years of service for
members of the State and County Officers and Employees Retirement
System and for members of the Teachers' Retirement System of Florida;
advancing the date for increased contribution; providing an effective date.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Reddick-
HB 187-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to private activity
bonds; amending s. 159.807, F.S.; revising provisions related to eligibility
for, and availability of, allocations from the state allocation pool for private
activity bonds; amending s. 7, ch. 92-127, Laws of Florida, which
establishes a manufacturing facility bond pool, to specify the manner in
which written confirmations of allocations for manufacturing projects are
to be made when allocation is not available from that pool; providing an
effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Tourism, Hospitality & Economic
Development and Appropriations.

By Representative Arnall-
HR 189-H-A resolution designating the week of June 7 through June
13, 1992, and the first week of June of each year thereafter as "Florida
Garden Week."
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Brown-
HR 191-H-A resolution expressing affection and gratitude to all
fathers.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Crady-
HB 193-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to taxation;
transferring, renumbering, and amending s. 166.231, F.S.; authorizing
counties with a population less than a specified number to levy a tax within
the unincorporated area on electricity, gas, water, and telecommunications
service; providing a tax rate; providing for certain exemptions from the tax;
providing for collection of the tax; transferring, renumbering, and
amending s. 166.232, F.S.; conforming cross-references and terminology to
changes made by the act; amending s. 212.055, F.S.; providing
circumstances under which certain counties and municipalities may use
the proceeds and interest from the local government infrastructure surtax
for any public purpose; authorizing counties with a population less than a
specified number to levy a discretionary sales surtax pursuant to ordinance
or referendum; providing procedures and requirements for levying the
surtax; specifying uses of proceeds of the surtax; revising provisions that
authorize certain counties to levy a discretionary sales surtax for the
purpose of funding indigent health care; authorizing counties with a
population less than a specified number to levy a discretionary sales surtax
for the purpose of funding indigent health care; providing procedures and
requirements for levying the surtax; limiting the combined rate of
discretionary sales surtaxes; providing for repeal of the surtax; amending
s. 336.021, F.S.; authorizing the governing body of counties with a
population less than a specified number to levy a gas tax pursuant to
ordinance for purposes other than servicing bond indebtedness; providing
procedures and requirements for levying the gas tax; redesignating the
Voted Gas Tax Trust Fund as the Ninth-cent Gas Tax Trust Fund;
creating the Small County Technical Assistance Program; requiring the
Comptroller to enter into contracts with program providers for the purpose
of assisting certain counties in financial and administrative matters;
requiring the Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations to advise
the Comptroller and conduct performance reviews of the program;
amending ss. 212.02, 212.08, 218.60, 290.0065, 290.007, 366.11, F.S.;

conforming cross-references and terminology to changes made by the act;
providing an effective date.

June 1, 1992

First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Community Affairs, Finance & Taxation
and Appropriations.

By Representative Kelly-
HB 195-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to license fees for
motorcycles, motor-driven cycles, and mopeds; amending s. 320.08, F.S.;
restricting the use of such fees to funding the Florida Motorcycle Safety
Education Program; providing an effective date.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Logan-
HB 197-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to corrections;
amending s. 20.315, F.S.; transferring legal services in the Department of
Corrections from the Office of Management and Budget to the secretary;
renaming the Community Services Program Office the Probation and
Parole Program Office; transferring program evaluation responsibilities
from the Office of Management and Budget to the Assistant Secretary for
Programs; transferring staff development from the Office of Programs to
the Office of Management and Budget; repealing an obsolete provision;
amending s. 944.17, F.S.; requiring agencies to release records relating to
inmate custody classification to the Department of Corrections under
certain circumstances; amending s. 922.10, F.S.; relating to Department of
Corrections records identifying executioners; repealing the department's
authority to adopt rules regulating privacy or privilege of information
contained in such records; repealing s. 945.25(4), F.S., relating to
departmental rulemaking authority with respect to privacy of information;
amending s. 944.702, F.S.; revising intent relating to the Transition
Assistance Program Act; amending s. 944.703, F.S.; revising the time period
within which the department must confirm certain information; amending
s. 944.704, F.S.; deleting the title of transition assistance coordinator and
specifying the duties of staff who provide such assistance; amending s.
944.705, F.S.; deleting requirements relating to the release orientation
program; amending s. 944.706, F.S.; eliminating certain provisions relating
to basic release assistance; amending s. 944.707, F.S.; eliminating certain
postrelease services; amending s. 944.277, F.S.; expanding exceptions to
eligibility for grants of provisional credits and authorizing use of certain
information in determining eligibility for provisional credits; requiring the
Department of Corrections to deliver a report to the Legislature; specifying
What is to be considered in the report; authorizing the department to use
sole-source contracted services; amending s. 947.1405, F.S.; requiring
maximum level and length of supervision of offenders convicted of certain
offenses; amending s. 947.146, F.S.; limiting control release to in-state
inmates; requiring certain recommendations for advancement or
extension; requiring a review process for certain inmates; creating s.
947.149, F.S.; requiring a conditional medical release program for inmates
determined to be permanently incapacitated or terminally ill; providing
rulemaking authority; requiring a study by the Department of Corrections
concerning older inmates and long-term adult inmates with extensive
chronic health care needs; creating s. 946.521, F.S.; authorizing the
Department of Corrections or the corporation established pursuant to s.
946.504(1) to contract with private industries to provide in-prison industry
programs; creating s. 944.471, F.S.; providing a short title; creating s.
944.472, F.S.; providing legislative findings and purposes; creating s.
944.473, F.S.; providing for the establishment of a program for random
drug and alcohol testing for inmates in the correctional system; authorizing
the department to adopt rules; providing for substance abuse treatment
programs for inmates testing positive, if available; providing reporting
requirements; amending s. 242.68, F.S.; authorizing the Board of
Correctional Education to contract with state-licensed independent
postsecondary schools for educational services; providing contract
requirements; requiring the board to adopt rules governing contracts;
authorizing the State Board of Independent Postsecondary Vocational,
Technical, Trade, and Business Schools to investigate violations of rules
adopted by the Board of Correctional Education; requiring each
independent postsecondary school operating under a contract with the
Board of Correctional Education to document its compliance with rules;
providing for termination of contracts by the Board of Correctional
Education; authorizing school districts and community colleges who

provide education services through a federal Pell Grant program to inmate
students to charge the full educational cost; authorizing in-kind

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE]

contributions as partial payment; amending s. 246.203, F.S.; revising the
definition of the term "school" for purposes of ss. 246.201-246.231, F.S.;
amending s. 246.213, F.S.; requiring the State Board of Education to adopt
certain licensing requirements for independent postsecondary schools that
operate within state correctional facilities; requiring the State Board of
Independent Postsecondary Vocational, Technical, Trade, and Business
Schools to make certain recommendations to the Board of Correctional
Education; amending s. 246.215, F.S.; providing licensing requirements for
independent postsecondary schools that operate within state correctional
facilities; amending s. 246.228, F.S.; authorizing the Board of Independent
Postsecondary Vocational, Technical, Trade, and Business Schools to take
certain disciplinary actions against schools that violate rules adopted by
the Board of Correctional Education; amending s. 246.229, F.S.;
authorizing the Department of Legal Affairs and the state attorney to
enforce rules adopted by the Board of Correctional Education; amending
s. 246.231, F.S.; providing penalties; amending s. 775.16, F.S.; disqualifying
persons convicted of a drug offense under the laws of other states or
countries, if such offense would be a felony under chapter 893, from
applying for state employment, licenses, and other benefits unless specified
conditions are met; amending s. 794.011, F.S.; prohibiting eligibility for
basic gain-time for persons convicted of sexual battery against victims
under 18 years of age; amending s. 921.187, F.S.; authorizing the court to
require an offender on community control, probation, or probation
following incarceration to make a good faith effort toward completion of
basic or functional literacy skills or a high school equivalency diploma;
amending s. 948.03, F.S.; requiring an offender, as a condition of his
probation or community control, to make a good faith effort toward
completion of basic or functional literacy skills or a high school equivalency
diploma; providing a definition; creating ss. 945.71-945.74, F.S.; providing
legislative intent and purpose as to inmate training programs; providing
eligibility and screening of inmates; providing for program operation;
requiring the department to adopt certain rules; requiring the department
to report to the Legislature; creating s. 766.317, F.S., relating to
applicability of medical malpractice provisions to prisoners; providing that
the medical negligence provisions of ch. 766, F.S., do not apply to prisoners
in state, county, or municipal detention facilities; providing that ss.
766.303-766.316, F.S., which provide the no-fault remedy for infants who
meet the definition under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury
Compensation Plan, are applicable; creating s. 946.5026, F.S.; extending
sovereign immunity to the corporation established pursuant to s.
946.504(1); creating s. 946.5027, F.S.; authorizing the corporation
established pursuant to 946.504(1) to contract with waste collection
systems for the purpose of recycling and to sell such recycled products to
private entities; providing effective dates.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Corrections and Appropriations.

By Representatives Hawkes and Buddy Johnson-
HM 199-H-A memorial to the Congress of the United States urging
Congressto take appropriate action to rectify an inequity caused by the
Social Security Act.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Safley-
HB 201-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to the Legislature;
providing that s. 11.13(1)(b), F.S., relating to automatic pay increases for
legislators does not apply with respect to the 1992-1993 fiscal year;
providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on House Administration and
Appropriations.

By Representative Ritchie-
HB 205-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to criminal
proceedings; amending s. 939.01, F.S.; providing requirements for the
deposit and use of funds received by a State Attorney in payment of a
judgment rendered in a criminal proceeding; providing an effective date.

Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

June 1, 1992

certain circumstances; amending s. 400.426, F.S.; providing circumstances
under which certain residents may remain in an adult congregate living
facility; amending s. 400.419, F.S.; revising provisions requiring the
department to list facilities cited for violations of part II, ch. 400, F.S.;
amending s. 400.616, F.S.; redesignating the Adult Foster Home Care Act

E OF REPRESENTATIVES 19

By Representative Ritchie-
HB 207-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to public accountancy;
amending s. 20.30, F.S.; creating a Division of Certified Public Accounting
within the Department of Professional Regulation and transferring the
Board of Accountancy to that division; amending s. 473.302, F.S.; defining
the term "division," for purposes of regulation of public accountancy;
creating s. 473.3035, F.S.; providing duties of the Division of Certified
Public Accounting; amending s. 473.304, F.S.; prescribing additional duties
of the Board of Accountancy; creating s. 473.3045, F.S.; prescribing powers
of the board with respect to adoption of bylaws and rules; providing
effective dates.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representatives Geller and Bainter-
HB 209-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to life and health
guaranty associations; amending s. 631.713, F.S.; removing an exception of
certain annuities from coverage by the Florida Life and Health Insurance
Guaranty Association; amending s. 631.714, F.S.; defining the term "court
of competent jurisdiction" for purposes of pt. III of ch. 631, F.S.; amending
s. 631.715, F.S., relating to the Florida Life and Health Insurance Guaranty
Association; authorizing the board of directors to borrow between the
association's accounts for certain purposes if repaid annually; amending s.
631.717, F.S.; authorizing the association to assist and advise certain
persons and to pay the costs of such activities from the health insurance
account or the life insurance account at the discretion of the board;
amending s. 631.718, F.S., relating to assessments; revising the methods of
assessing the member insurers; deleting the cap on assessments for a
member insurer; amending s. 631.719, F.S., relating to the premium or
income tax credits for assessments paid; updating cross-references;
providing an effective date.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Bloom-
HB 211-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to nursing homes and
other adult living arrangements; amending s. 196.012, F.S.; deleting
obsolete terminology relating to property tax exemptions for nursing
homes; amending s. 400.23, F.S.; revising legislative intent under part I of
chapter 400, F.S.; providing additional requirements for rules adopted by
the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services; creating the
Nursing Home Advisory Committee; providing membership of the
committee; providing duties of the committee; revising evaluation
requirements for nursing home facilities; revising requirements for rating
such facilities; amending s. 400.063, F.S.; conforming a cross preference;
amending s. 400.401, F.S.; providing legislative findings regarding the
significance of a license under part II, ch. 400, F.S.; amending s. 400.402,
F.S.; adding and amending definitions of terms used in that part; amending
s. 651.011, F.S.; conforming a cross reference; amending s. 400.407, F.S.;
revising a violation relating to failure to obtain a license after receiving
notification; creating a violation and penalties relating to failure to obtain
a license and the maintenance of a threatening condition; revising the
provisions relating to the issuance of licenses; amending s. 400.412, F.S.,
relating to sale or transfer of ownership of a facility; revising the penalties
and responsibilities of the transferor and the transferee of certain facilities;
requiring a plan of correction or the correction of the condition before
issuance of a license or lifting of a moratorium on admissions; amending
s. 400.414, F.S.; listing the categories of licenses that the department may
deny, revoke, or suspend; revising the actions that may result in license
denial, revocation, or suspension or the imposition of a fine; prohibiting
certain actions; providing for applicability to a part owner of a facility;
providing for denial of licenses to certain applicants who had licenses
denied or suspended, facilities closed under certain circumstances, or
unpaid fines; providing a time period for a hearing under ch. 120, F.S., by
the Division of Administrative Hearings; amending s. 400.415, F.S.;
providing for immediate imposition of a moratorium on admissions under

20 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE

as the Adult Family-Care Home Act; amending s. 400.617, F.S.; revising
legislative intent; amending s. 400.618, F.S.; providing definitions;
amending s. 400.619, F.S.; providing for licensure; providing license fees;
providing access for the nursing home and long-term care facility
ombudsman council; prohibiting the transfer of licenses; providing for
conditional licenses; providing circumstances under which the department
may deny, suspend, or revoke a license; providing for disposition of funds;
creating s. 400.6196, F.S.; authorizing the department to impose penalties
and require corrective action for certain violations; creating s. 400.6197,
F.S.; requiring certain adult congregate living facilities to become licensed
as adult family-care homes within a specified time; amending s. 400.621,
F.S.; providing for rules; providing for placement of clients; creating s.
400.6211, F.S.; requiring the department to provide training and education
for persons who operate adult family-care homes; amending s. 400.622,
F.S.; providing for injunctive proceedings; repealing s. 30 of ch. 92-33, Laws
of Florida, and amending s. 400.623, F.S.; requiring the department to
recruit and license adult family-care homes; deleting obsolete provisions;
creating s. 400.625, F.S.; providing contract requirements for residents of
adult family-care homes; amending s. 509.032, F.S.; expanding the duties
of the Division of Hotels and Restaurants of the Department of Business
Regulation in certain establishments which have had a license issued under
part II of ch. 400 denied, suspended, or revoked; providing for the safety
of residents in certain establishments; amending s. 509.241, F.S.; clarifying
that the division may defer disposition of an application for licensure of
facilities previously licensed under part II of ch. 400 in certain
circumstances; canceling transfer to the Agency for Health Care
Administration of regulation of adult foster homes; preserving Department
of Health and Rehabilitative Services rulemaking authority with respect
to licensure of adult congregate living facilities and adult day care centers;
providing a disclaimer; providing effective dates.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Bloom-
HB 213-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to health care;
amending s. 383.15, F.S.; revising legislative intent relating to perinatal
care services; amending s. 383.16, F.S.; revising definitions; amending s.
383.17, F.S.; providing for regional perinatal intensive care centers;
deleting reference to grants to health care providers; amending s. 383.18,
F.S.; providing for contractual agreements; providing for Medicaid and
financial eligibility; amending s. 383.19, F.S.; providing for transportation
services; providing for Medicaid reimbursement; modifying priority
consideration for the establishment of centers; amending s. 383.21, F.S.;
modifying provisions relating to program review; amending s. 383.215, F.S.,
relating to developmental evaluation and intervention programs at
hospitals providing certain neonatal intensive care services; revising
legislative findings and intent; revising definitions; revising program
requirements; providing for coordination with the Florida Interagency
Coordinating Council for Infants and Toddlers; providing for rules;
providing for program funding and contracts; providing for program
review; repealing s. 383.171, F.S., relating to grants to neonatal intensive
care centers; repealing s. 383.212, F.S., relating to program review,
evaluations, and projections for such centers; creating s. 385.2062, F.S.;
establishing the care and assistance program for persons with hemophilia;
authorizing the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services to
establish a hemophilia program to the extent that resources are available;
establishing standards for participation; providing for services and
counseling; providing for development of an educational program;
providing for contracts for the provision of care; providing legislative
findings and intent relating to breast cancer; establishing a Breast Cancer
Task Force; providing for appointment of members; providing
responsibilities; providing for support services and assistance; requiring
reports to the Governor and the Legislature; providing for termination of
the task force; providing a disclaimer; providing an effective date.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Cosgrove--

HB 217-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to municipal clerks;
creating s. 119.033, F.S.; creating the Municipal Clerk's Capital Equipment
Modernization Trust Fund; creating a surcharge on the recording of
documents in the official records of the county; providing for the collection
and distribution of surcharge revenues; providing an effective date.

]

application, issuance, and renewal; providing fees; providing for duplicate
permits and fees; providing for searches without warrants; providing a
penalty for operating without a permit; providing for appeal; authorizing
the division to suspend or revoke permits and impose administrative fines;
restricting the sale or delivery of tobacco products through vending

E OF REPRESENTATIVES June 1, 1992

First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Judiciary, Finance & Taxation and
Appropriations.

By Representative Pruitt-
HR 219-H-A resolution expressing sorrow at the death of Sgt. Donald
Richard Mahan, who was killed in the line of duty.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Ascherl-
HB 221-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to jurors; amending s.
40.013, F.S.; revising language with respect to exemptions for prior juror
service; amending s. 40.24, F.S.; providing for a juror compensation and
reimbursement policy; providing for certain employers to compensate
employees summoned to jury duty; providing for compensation for certain
jurors; amending s. 40.41, F.S.; revising language with respect to the length
of service of petit jurors; amending s. 905.37, F.S.; eliminating a statutory
cross reference; providing effective dates.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Figg-
HB 223-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to the confidentiality
of records and proceedings relating to financial institutions; amending s.
655.029, F.S., which provides exemptions from public meeting and records
requirements for hearings and documents relating to cease and desist
orders and suspension or removal orders, pursuant to a determination by
the Department of Banking and Finance; revising the exemption;
amending s. 655.033, F.S., which provides an exemption from public
records requirements for emergency cease and desist orders; amending s.
655.057, F.S., which provides exemptions from public records requirements
for information relating to investigations by the department, examination
reports and papers, confidential information supplied to other agencies by
the department, confidential information supplied to the department, lists
of members of credit unions and mutual associations, and lists of
shareholders of banks, trust companies, and stock associations; revising the
exemptions; amending s. 655.50, F.S., which provides an exemption from
public records requirements for reports filed under the Florida Control of
Money Laundering in Financial Institutions Act; revising the exemption;
amending s. 663.02, F.S., which provides for application of certain
exemptions to international bank agencies; saving such exemptions from
repeal; providing for future review and repeal; amending ss. 119.07,
655.059, and 658.39, F.S.; correcting references and deleting duplicative
references; repealing s. 665.048(9), F.S., which provides requirements
relating to maintenance of stockholder records by capital stock
associations; providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committee on Governmental Operations.

By Representative Langton-
HB 225-H-A bill to be entitled An act for the relief of Mr. and Mrs.
Darriel Swindell; providing an appropriation to compensate them for
injuries caused by the negligence of Prison Rehabilitative Industries and
Diversified Enterprises, Inc., (PRIDE); providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committee on Claims.

By Representative Frankel-
HB 227-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to tobacco products;
creating the Florida Prevention of Access by Children to Tobacco Products
Act; defining terms used in the act; providing for retail tobacco products
dealer permits to be issued by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and
Tobacco of the Department of Business Regulation; providing for

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

machines; authorizing dealers to require proof of age by purchasers;
permitting wholesale dealers, distributing agents, and distributors to sell
or deliver tobacco products only to retail tobacco products dealers who
have permits; providing for responsible retail tobacco products dealers;
providing legislative intent; providing qualifications; providing criteria for
mitigating penalties; providing rulemaking authority; amending s. 561.025,
F.S., relating to the Alcoholic Beverage and Tobacco Trust Fund; providing
for deposit of fees collected for retail tobacco products dealers permits into
that fund; providing for use of the funds; amending s. 859.06, F.S., relating
to the prohibition against selling, delivering, bartering, furnishing, or
giving tobacco products and cigarette wrappers to minors; revising the
prohibition to apply to persons under 18 years of age; providing penalties;
providing a defense; amending s. 859.061, F.S., relating to the posting of
a sign with respect to the prohibition of the sale of cigarettes and other
tobacco products to minors; revising requirements with respect to such
signs; eliminating a fee for signs; providing an appropriation and positions;
providing an effective date.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Cosgrove-
HB 229-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to tax on sales, use, and
other transactions; amending s. 212.02, F.S.; defining "sea trial"; amending
s. 212.05, F.S.; revising requirements and conditions relating to the tax
exemption provided for boats and airplanes removed from the state after
purchase; amending s. 212.08, F.S.; revising requirements and conditions
relating to the tax exemption provided for boats temporarily docked in the
state; amending s. 212.06, F.S.; providing a presumption with respect to
when boats are considered commingled with the general mass of property
of the state; providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Finance & Taxation and Appropriations.

By Representative Langton-
HB 231-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to death sentence
proceedings; amending s. 921.141, F.S.; adding as an aggravating
circumstance that the victim was a minor under 12 years of age; providing
an effective date.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representatives McEwan and Reddick-
HB 233-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to mortgage lenders;
amending s. 494.006, F.S.; clarifying language with respect to an exemption
from provisions relating to mortgage lenders to exclude certain persons
who service only nonresidential loans; providing an effective date.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Wise-
HB 235-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to traffic regulations;
amending ss. 316.1301, 316.1303, F.S.; increasing fines for violations of
regulations which result in injury or property damage to a pedestrian
crossing a public street or highway; providing for the distribution of such
fines; providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Transportation and Appropriations.

By Representatives Silver, Langton and Grindle--
HB 237-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to motor vehicle
inspection; amending s. 325.202, F.S.; clarifying that inspection certificates
can be issued by reinspection facilities; adding a definition of"reinspection
facility" and a definition of "dealer certificate"; amending s. 325.203, F.S.;
removing an exemption; providing an exemption for new motor vehicles
that are used as rental vehicles; providing for inspection of vehicles owned
or leased by federal and local governments; specifying the period for which
a dealer certificate is valid; amending s. 325.207, F.S.; authorizing the

department to contract for auditing services; providing procedures and
requirements; amending s. 325.209, F.S.; excluding vehicles offered for

retail sale from eligibility for waiver; providing a limitation on the
eligibility for a waiver from inspection requirements for persons who
perform their own repairs; amending s. 325.211, F.S.; deleting requirement
pertaining to when repairs must occur; amending s. 325.212, F.S.; changing
the term "certified" to "licensed"; clarifying the Department of Highway
Safety and Motor Vehicle's responsibility to monitor and evaluate
reinspection facilities; providing that a reinspection facility may assess a
fee for the reinspection of a vehicle that was not repaired by such facility;
providing a limitation on such fees; amending s. 325.213, F.S.; providing for
nonrefundable fees; deleting requirement for national criminal background
check; providing for payment of processing costs by the applicant;
providing for imposition of civil fines on reinspection facilities and self-
inspectors for violations of law or rules; authorizing joint application for
a self-inspector license; providing requirements for such licensure;
amending s. 325.214, F.S.; providing an additional fee for the issuance of
a dealer certificate; amending s. 325,216, F.S.; prohibiting fraudulent acts
or presentation of fraudulent documentation or information and providing
penalties therefore; providing an effective date.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Hawkins-
HB 239-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to postsecondary
education; creating s. 240.155, F.S.; providing for educational leadership
enhancement grants; providing for submission of proposals and eligibility
for grants; amending ss. 240.214 and 240.324, F.S., relating to the State
University System and State Community College System accountability
processes; requiring access and equity accountability plans, reports, and
recommendations; requiring university vacant position pools and rules
related thereto; providing effective dates.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Harris-
HB 241-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to the Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services; amending ss. 20.14 and 570.29, F.S.;
revising administrative structure of the department; amending ss. 570.02
and 570.242, F.S.; modifying definitions; amending s. 570.07, F.S.;
modifying department powers and duties; creating s. 570.073, F.S.;
authorizing establishment of an Office of Agricultural Law Enforcement
within the department; providing duties and authority of officers; creating
s. 570.091, F.S.; providing for deputy commissioners of agriculture; creating
s. 570.092, F.S.; providing for an inspector general and providing duties;
amending s. 570.30, F.S.; transferring certain responsibilities relating to
public fairs and expositions from the Division of Administration to the
Division of Standards and the Division of Marketing and Development;
amending s. 570.33, F.S.; deleting qualifications for director of the Division
of Plant Industry; amending s. 570.37, F.S.; revising qualifications for
director of the Division of Animal Industry; amending s. 570.41, F.S.;
deleting qualifications for director of the Division of Dairy Industry;
amending s. 570.44, F.S.; renaming the Division of Inspections as the
Division of Agricultural Environmental Services; transferring various
duties to the Division of Food Safety, the Division of Dairy Industry, and
the Office of Agricultural Law Enforcement; providing additional duties
relating to soil and water conservation; transferring responsibilities for
analysis of fertilizers, pesticides, commercial feed, and seed to the Division
of Agricultural Environmental Services from the Division of Chemistry;
amending s. 570.45, F.S.; revising duties of division director; amending s.
570.46, F.S.; transferring responsibility for testing certain samples for
conformity with state specifications to the Division of Standards from the
Division of Chemistry; amending s. 570.47, F.S.; deleting qualifications for
division director; amending s. 570.48, F.S.; renaming the Division of Fruit
and Vegetable Inspection as the Division of Fruit and Vegetables;
amending s. 570.50, F.S.; renaming the Division of Chemistry as the
Division of Food Safety; providing additional duties relating to inspection
of meat and poultry, and food and food products; amending s. 570.51, F.S.;
deleting qualifications for division director; amending s. 570.53, F.S.;
renaming the Division of Marketing as the Division of Marketing and
Development; providing additional responsibilities relating to public fairs
and expositions; amending s. 570.544, F.S.; providing procedure for

resolution of complaints by the Division of Consumer Services; amending
s. 570.549, F.S.; deleting qualifications for director of the Division of

June 1, 1992

21

22 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE

Forestry; amending s. 570.55, F.S.; renaming the Florida Avocado, Mango,
and Lime Sales Law as the "Florida Avacado, Mango, Lime, and Tomato
Sales Law"; transferring from the Division of Inspection to the Office of
Agricultural Law Enforcement enforcement duties relating to sale of
avocados, mangoes, limes, and tomatoes; revising definitions; amending ss.
585.001, 585.002, and 585.01, F.S.; conforming provisions relating to the
Division of Animal Industry; amending s. 585.21, F.S.; clarifying
responsibilities; amending s. 585.715, F.S.; providing that the Division of
Food Safety enforce part II of chapter 585, F.S.; amending ss. 616.001,
616.21, and 616.28, F.S.; deleting references to the Bureau of Public Fairs
and Expositions; creating s. 932.708, F.S.; creating the Law Enforcement
Trust Fund within the department; providing for deposit therein of
revenues from certain criminal or forfeiture proceedings; amending ss.
235.014 and 468.382, F.S.; correcting cross references; amending ss.
487.159, 570.09, 570.23, 570.244, 570.248, 570.31, 570.34, 570.38, 570.42,
570.49, 570.531, 570.54, 570.541, 570.543, 571.23, 573.111, 574.01, 574.03,
601.28, 601.58, and 601.66, F.S.; conforming terminology; directing the
Division of Statutory Revision to make changes in terminology; repealing
ss. 534.081(3), 570.36(6), and 590.02(4), F.S., relating to enforcement of
agricultural provisions by law enforcement officers, special officers, the
Division of Animal Industry, and special officers of the Division of
Forestry; amending s. 501.015, F.S.; requiring health studios to post a
certificate; providing requirements with respect to occupational licenses;
amending s. 501.016, F.S.; revising language with respect to health studio
security requirements; amending s. 501.019, F.S.; revising language with
respect to administrative penalties for health studios; amending s. 501.059,
F.S.; providing for the deposit of civil penalties with respect to telephone
solicitation in the Consumer Protection Trust Fund; amending s. 501.604,
F.S.; revising language with respect to exemptions; amending s. 501.912,
F.S.; revising definitions; amending s. 501.913, F.S.; revising registration
provisions under the Antifreeze Act of 1978; amending s. 501.917, F.S.;
clarifying language with respect to inspections by the department;
amending s. 501.918, F.S.; clarifying language with respect to prohibited
activities; amending s. 501.919, F.S.; revising language with respect to stop-
sale orders; amending s. 501.922, F.S.; increasing timeframes for revocation
or suspension of registration under the act; providing for deposit of funds
into the General Inspection Trust Fund; amending s. 525.01, F.S.;
providing definitions with respect to gasoline and oil inspections by the
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services; amending s. 525.02,
F.S.; revising language with respect to analysis of petroleum fuel; repealing
s. 525.03, F.S., relating to the submission of samples of gasoline or oil to
the department; creating s. 525.035, F.S., relating to mislabeled petroleum
fuel being subject to stop sale; creating s. 525.037, F.S.; providing for stop
sale with respect to petroleum fuel which is below standard; amending s.
525.07, F.S.; revising language with respect to the power of the department
to make inspections; revising penalties; providing for registration of
persons who repair or install certain pump meter devices; amending s.
525.08, F.S.; revising language with respect to the access of the department;
amending s. 525.09, F.S.; revising language with respect to inspection fees;
amending s. 525.10, F.S.; revising language with respect to the payment of
expenses; amending s. 525.14, F.S.; revising language with respect to rules;
amending s. 525.15, F.S; clarifying language with respect to inspectors;
amending s. 525.16, F.S.; providing for administrative fines and penalties;
amending s. 526.50, F.S.; revising definitions with respect to the law
governing the sale of brake fluid; amending s. 526.53, F.S.; revising
language with respect to enforcement, inspection, and analysis, stop sale
and disposition, and regulations; amending s. 531.41, F.S.; revising
language with respect to the powers and duties of the department under
the Weights and Measures Act of 1971; amending ss. 559.801, 559.803,
559.805, 559.807, and 559.815, F.S.; changing the term "division" to
"department"; increasing a fee in s. 559.805, F.S.; amending s. 559.813, F.S.;
authorizing the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to bring
an action for injunction or civil relief; amending s. 559.927, F.S.; revising
language with respect to regulation of sellers of travel; amending s.
570.5441, F.S.; providing for the uses of the Consumer Protection Trust
Fund in the Division of Consumer Services; amending s. 616.091, F.S.;
revising language with respect to safety standards for the operation of
amusement devices; providing permitting and inspection procedures for

amusement rental companies; providing an exemption from requirements
of chapter 616, F.S., under certain conditions; prohibiting the operation of
certain amusement attractions; repealing s. 525.06, F.S., relating to
gasoline or oil which is below standard and subject to confiscation;
repealing s. 525.11, F.S., relating to the requirement that the Comptroller

I

Florida Pari-mutuel Commission; amending s. 24.103, F.S.; providing
definitions; amending s. 24.105, F.S.; providing rules and a timetable for
implementing video lottery games; amending s. 24.111, F.S.; providing for
vendor selection; creating s. 24.1121, F.S.; providing for video lottery games
to be conducted at pari-mutuel facilities which are authorized lottery retail

E OF REPRESENTATIVES June 1, 1992

must pay certain expenses of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services; repealing s. 525.13, F.S., relating to a report of the department;
repealing s. 525.17, F.S., relating to penalties for violation of law relating
to gasoline and oil inspection; repealing s. 525.18, F.S., relating to
injunctions; repealing s. 559.925, F.S., relating to receptive tour operators;
repealing s. 570.151, F.S., relating to appointment and duties of road guard
inspection special officers; redesignating s. 616.091(2), F.S., as s. 616.0915,
F.S.; saving ss. 500.12 and 500.121, F.S., from repeal and providing for
future review and repeal; providing effective dates.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Agriculture and Appropriations.

By Representative Davis-
HJR 243-H-A joint resolution proposing an amendment to Section 9
of Article XII of the State Constitution, relating to certain bonds, to
continue using gross receipts revenue for educational facilities for public
school districts, community college districts, and universities, to continue
using motor vehicle license revenues for capital outlay projects and other
educational needs of public school districts and community college
districts, to begin to use motor vehicle license revenues for capital outlay
projects and other school purposes of the state university system, and to
remove interest and maturity restrictions on education bond refunding.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Public Schools, Finance & Taxation and
Appropriations.

By Representatives Hargrett, Ritchie and Bloom-
HB 245-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to public pension or
retirement benefits and subsidies; amending s. 20.13, F.S., relating to the
structure of the Department of Insurance, to delete duties of the Division
of Benefits that are assigned or eliminated by this act; creating s. 112.666,
F.S.; establishing the Florida Protection of Public Employee Retirement
Benefits Trust Fund; providing for assessment of local retirement systems
or plans to pay the costs of administering the Florida Protection of Public
Employee Retirement Benefits Act; amending ss. 175.032, 175.061,
175.111, 175.121, 175.261, 175.341, 175.351, 175.361, 175.401, 185.02,
185.05, 185.10, 185.221, 185.23, 185.35, 185.37, and 185.50, F.S., relating to
municipal firefighters' and police officers' pension or retirement plans and
retiree health insurance subsidies; transferring certain powers, duties, and
functions of the Department of Insurance respecting those plans and
subsidies to the Department of Administration and assigning these and
other duties respecting those plans and subsidies to the Division of
Retirement; providing for inclusion of matters assigned to the Division of
Retirement in the transfer of the division to the Department of
Management Services at a subsequent time; providing for transfer of
related records, personnel, property, and funds; providing for continuation
of certain existing rules of the Department of Insurance as rules of the
division; abolishing the Bureau of Municipal Police Officers' and
Firefighters' Pension Funds of the Division of Benefits of the Department
of Insurance; providing for disposition of premium tax moneys collected
under chs. 175 and 185, F.S.; providing for annual appropriation of such
moneys; providing for payment of the respective expenses of the
Department of Insurance and the Division of Retirement in administering
their respective duties under chs. 175 and 185, F.S.; conforming the
provisions of those chapters to this act; conforming cross-references;
deleting obsolete provisions; revising terminology; improving clarity;
repealing s. 185.24, F.S., relating to annual appropriations for
administrative expenses, which section is superseded by this act; providing
an effective date.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Ostrau-
HB 247-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to legalized gaming;
amending s. 20.16, F.S.; revising language with respect to the powers of the

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE]

establishments; prohibiting minors from playing such games; providing
penalties; providing for allocation of proceeds; providing penalties for
specified acts; providing for the implementation of a linked-progressive
system; creating s. 24.124, F.S.; providing for a Sportsbetting Study Group;
amending s. 24.113, F.S.; providing for minority participation; amending
s. 24.121, F.S., relating to revenue allocation; creating s. 24.1122, F.S.;
providing for location vendors; providing an appropriation; amending s.
120.633, F.S.; revising language with respect to the partial exemption from
hearing and notice requirements of the Division of Pari-mutuel Wagering;
amending s. 212.08, F.S.; deleting a sales tax exemption for certain feed;
directing the Division of Statutory Revision and Indexing of the Joint
Legislative Management Committee to retitle chapter 550, F.S., as Pari-
mutuel Wagering; creating s. 550.7101, F.S.; creating the Florida Pari-
mutuel Code; creating s. 550.7105, F.S.; providing for the effect of the code
on existing permits and licenses; creating s. 550.711, F.S.; providing
definitions; amending and renumbering s. 550.02, F.S.; providing for the
powers and duties of the Division of Pari-mutuel Wagering; creating s.
550.7116, F.S.; providing for off-track wagering; amending and
renumbering s. 550.23, F.S.; providing for application; creating s. 550.7201,
F.S.; providing for applications for permits to conduct pari-mutuel
wagering; amending and renumbering s. 550.181, F.S.; providing that
certain persons are prohibited from holding permits; amending and
renumbering s. 550.215, F.S.; providing for the costs of investigation;
creating s. 550.7211, F.S.; providing for facility restrictions; creating s.
550.7215, F.S.; providing for permit approval or disapproval; amending and
renumbering s. 550.21, F.S.; providing for the transfer of permits;
amending and renumbering s. 550.06, F.S.; providing for permit elections;
amending and renumbering s. 550.18, F.S.; providing for a petition for
election to revoke a permit; amending and renumbering s. 550.055, F.S.;
providing conditions for relocation of a permit within a county; creating s.
550.724, F.S.; providing for permitholder license; creating s. 550.7245, F.S.;
providing for license application, periods of operation, and bond; amending
and renumbering s. 550.52, F.S.; revising provisions relating to Florida
thoroughbred racing, certain permits, and operating days; amending and
renumbering s. 550.0121, F.S.; revising provisions relating to certain
permitholders; amending and renumbering s. 550.47, F.S.; providing for the
lease of facilities by pari-mutuel permitholders; amending and
renumbering s. 550.03, F.S.; providing for charity or scholarship racing
days; amending and renumbering s. 550.33, F.S.; providing conditions for
quarter horse racing; amending and renumbering s. 550.37, F.S.; providing
conditions for harness horse racing; creating s. 550.727, F.S.; providing
conditions for thoroughbred horse racing; amending and renumbering s.
550.10, F.S.; providing for occupational licenses; creating a study
commission; amending and renumbering s. 550.48, F.S.; providing for
totalisator licensing; amending and renumbering s. 550.50, F.S.; requiring
a license for nonwagering permits; amending and renumbering s. 550.16,
F.S.; providing for pari-mutuel pools; amending and renumbering s. 550.09,
F.S.; providing for payment of fees and taxes; amending and renumbering
s. 550.162, F.S., relating to taxes, purse allowance, wagering restrictions,
greyhound adoption facilities, and hours of operation with respect to
dogracing; creating s. 550.73015, F.S.; providing for a Greyhound Breeders
Program; amending and renumbering s. 550.2616, F.S., relating to
breeders' awards; amending and renumbering s. 550.262, F.S., relating to
horseracing purse requirements and Florida breeders' and owners' awards;
transferring and renumbering s. 550.65, F.S., relating to backside medical
and health benefits; creating s. 550.7302, F.S.; providing for tax credits for
certain permitholders; providing for future repeal; providing for the
application of certain exemptions; creating s. 550.73021, F.S.; providing for
the distribution of certain funds to a horsemen's association; amending and
renumbering s. 550.164, F.S.; providing for abandoned interest in or
contribution to pari-mutuel pools; providing an exception; amending and
renumbering s. 550.13, F.S.; providing for the distribution of pari-mutuel
moneys; amending and renumbering s. 550.14, F.S.; providing for the
distribution of pari-mutuel moneys by counties; amending and
renumbering s. 550.11, F.S.; providing for the effect of taxes imposed;
amending and renumbering s. 550.042, F.S.; providing for restrictions on
minors; amending and renumbering s. 550.12, F.S.; providing for a uniform
reporting system; creating s. 550.734, F.S.; providing for chief judges of jai
alai; amending and renumbering s. 550.04, F.S.; providing for mutt derbies
and amateur jai alai contests; amending and renumbering s. 550.60, F.S.;
providing definitions; amending and renumbering s. 550.61, F.S.; revising

provisions relating to intertrack wagering; amending and renumbering s.
550.62, F.S.; providing for horseracing purses and breeders' awards with

June 1, 1992

F.S., relating to the Breeders' Crown Meet; repealing s. 550.28, F.S.,
relating to obtaining feed with intent to defraud; repealing s. 550.29, F.S.,
relating to the reallocation of racing dates; repealing s. 550.291, F.S.,
relating to a limitation on periods of operation of jai alai and racing;
repealing s. 550.32, F.S., relating to the resumption of dogracing at certain

E OF REPRESENTATIVES 23

respect to intertrack wagering; amending and renumbering s. 550.63, F.S.;
revising provisions relating to intertrack wagering; providing for guest
permitholder payments; transferring and renumbering s. 550.631, F.S.;
providing for applicability; renumbering s. 550.632, F.S., relating to
uncashed tickets and breakage tax; amending and renumbering s. 550.635,
F.S.; providing for purses; amending and renumbering s. 550.356, F.S.;
authorizing broadcasts to out-of-state locations and for the commingling
of pari-mutuel pools; creating s. 550.7455, F.S.; providing for broadcasts
from out-of-state locations; amending and renumbering s. 550.25, F.S.;
providing a penalty for conducting unauthorized pari-mutuel
performances; amending and renumbering s. 550.023, F.S.; providing a
limitation on civil liability; creating s. 550.751, F.S.; providing for
revocation, suspension, fines, and divestiture; creating s. 550.7515, F.S.;
providing penalties with respect to occupational licenses; amending and
renumbering s. 550.115, F.S.; providing for the authority of certain persons
to impose penalties against occupational licensees; creating s. 550.7525,
F.S.; providing that certain attendance is prohibited; providing exceptions;
creating s. 550.753, F.S.; providing penalties with respect to totalisator
licenses; creating s. 550.7535, F.S.; providing for the authority of the
division with respect to nonwagering meets; creating s. 550.754, F.S.;
providing for penalties for failure to pay taxes; amending and renumbering
s. 550.35, F.S.; providing penalties with respect to the unlawful
transmission of information; creating s. 550.755, F.S.; prohibiting wagering
for another; providing penalties; amending and renumbering s. 550.36, F.S.;
providing restrictions on the use of electronic transmitting equipment;
amending and renumbering s. 550.361, F.S.; prohibiting bookmaking at
pari-mutuel facilities; transferring and renumbering s. 550.24, F.S.;
amending and renumbering s. 550.2405, F.S.; prohibiting the use of
controlled substances or alcohol by certain occupational licensees;
amending and renumbering s. 550.021, F.S.; revising provisions relating to
records; amending and renumbering s. 550.241, F.S.; prohibiting the racing
of animals under certain conditions; providing testing procedures;
providing penalties; creating s. 550.758, F.S.; providing certain prohibitions
with respect to euthanizing greyhounds; transferring and renumbering ss.
550.266 and 550.267, F.S.; amending ss. 772.102 and 895.02, F.S.; correcting
cross references; repealing s. 550.011, F.S., relating to the fixing of racing
dates; repealing s. 550.031, F.S., relating to the limitation on the number
of charity days; repealing s. 550.041, F.S., relating to minors attending
certain meets; repealing s. 550.05, F.S., relating to the application for a
permit; repealing s. 550.051, F.S., relating to minors attending greyhound
dog racing; repealing s. 550.061, F.S., relating to the cancellation of a
permit to conduct a race; repealing s. 550.065, F.S., relating to certain
harness racing permits; repealing s. 550.066, F.S., relating to approval by
the division of harness racing; repealing s. 550.067, F.S., relating to
dogracing permits; repealing s. 550.068, F.S., relating to the validation of
certain harness racing permits; repealing s. 550.07, F.S., relating to issuance
of license by the division; repealing s. 550.074, F.S., relating to the
conversion of pari-mutuel permits to summer jai alai; repealing s. 550.075,
F.S., relating to conversion to a dogracing license; repealing s. 550.076, F.S.,
relating to conversion of a jai alai permit to dogracing; repealing s. 550.08,
F.S., relating to the maximum length of a race meeting; repealing s.
550.081, F.S., relating to restrictions on permits for horseracing or harness
or sulky racing; repealing s. 550.082, F.S., relating to special allocation of
periods of certain dogracing tracks; repealing s. 550.083, F.S., relating to
dogracing periods of operation; repealing s. 550.0831, F.S., relating to
dogracing periods; repealing s. 550.0841, F.S., relating to the restoration of
certain performances; repealing s. 550.096, F.S., relating to the payment of
taxes by electronic funds transfer; repealing s. 550.131, F.S., relating to the
payment of racing funds to district school boards; repealing s. 550.15, F.S.,
relating to bonds required of licensees; repealing s. 550.17, F.S., relating to
the required proof of referendum; repealing s. 550.19, F.S., relating to the
applicability of the chapter; repealing s. 550.22, F.S., relating to moneys
held by the Treasurer; repealing s. 550.2406, F.S., relating to certain
evidence; repealing s. 550.242, F.S., relating to racing laboratory at
horserace facility; repealing s. 550.263, F.S., relating to the distribution of
abandoned interests in horseracing pools; repealing s. 550.2634, F.S.,
relating to verification of breaks and unclaimed ticket payments; repealing
s. 550.2635, F.S., relating to the Breeder's Cup Meet; repealing s. 550.2636,

24 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE

tracks; repealing s. 550.335, F.S., relating to harness track licenses for
summer quarter horse racing; repealing s. 550.34, F.S., relating to dogracing
at North Florida Tracks; repealing s. 550.371, F.S., relating to harness
racing at leased facilities; repealing s. 550.39, F.S., relating to summer
horseracing; repealing s. 550.525, F.S., relating to Florida harness racing;
repealing s. 550.012, F.S., relating to additional operating days; repealing
s. 550.1635, F.S., relating to the greyhound racing race of champions;
repealing s. 550.51, F.S., relating to Sunday operations; repealing s.
550.26355, F.S., relating to the exemption from taxes and purse
requirements on intertrack wagers; repealing s. 550.67, F.S., relating to the
Off-Track Wagering and Intertrack Wagering Study Commission;
repealing s. 550.26356, F.S., relating to legislative intent; repealing s.
550.351, F.S., relating to the effect of certain amendments to the law;
repealing s. 550.633, F.S., relating to a surcharge; repealing s. 550.64, F.S.,
relating to applicability of related laws; repealing s. 550.68, F.S., relating
to the Florida Pari-mutuel Commission; repealing s. 550.355, F.S., relating
to simulcasting facilities; repealing chapter 551, F.S.; consisting of ss.
551.01 through 551.19, F.S., relating to jai alai frontons; amending s.
849.085, F.S.; providing for an increase in wagering limits; creating s.
849.47, F.S.; creating the Florida Indian Gaming Commission; providing
powers and duties; creating s. 285.20, F.S.; regulating gaming activities on
Indian lands; providing for a cardroom study; providing for the application
of the act with respect to the duties of the Department of the Lottery;
providing effective dates.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Regulated Industries, Finance &
Taxation and Appropriations.

By Representative Reddick-
HB 249-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to tourism; providing
legislative intent; providing definitions; creating the Florida Commission
on Tourism; providing purposes; providing for membership and terms;
providing powers and duties; providing for the creation of a program to
provide an incentive for and recognize those entities voluntarily
contributing significant resources to the Tourism Promotion Investment
Trust Fund; providing for trade secrets; providing confidentiality of
certain information; providing for deposit of such contributions into the
Tourism Promotion Investment Trust Fund; creating the Tourism
Promotion Investment Trust Fund; amending s. 215.22, F.S.; exempting
the Tourism Promotion Investment Trust Fund from the General Revenue
Fund service charge; requiring the Florida Commission on Tourism to
establish the Tourism Promotion Investment Corporation; providing
criteria; providing for use of commission property by the corporation;
providing for a board of directors; providing for audits; amending ss.
212.0606, 288.121, 288.8032, 288.805, 288.809, 288.810, 288.811, 288.822,
288.825, and 288.826, F.S.; clarifying and conforming provisions related to
tourism; repealing s. 288.821, F.S., relating to the Florida International
Tourism Promotion Council; specifying funding for the division and for the
commission; providing effective dates.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

HB 251-Reserved for general appropriations bill

HB 253-Reserved for appropriations implementation bill

By Representative Ostrau--
HB 255-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to pari-mutuel
wagering; rescheduling repeal of the provisions of ss. 550.2635 and
550.26355, F.S., relating to a Breeders' Cup Meet and certain tax
exemptions; providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Regulated Industries, Finance &
Taxation and Appropriations.

By Representative Daryl Jones-
HB 257-H-A bill to be entitled An act for the relief of Mary Theresa
Boyle, widow, and Brian Boyle and Amy Boyle, children, of Edward Boyle
to compensate them for damages sustained from the wrongful death of
Edward Boyle; providing an appropriation; providing an effective date.

I!

E OF REPRESENTATIVES June 1, 1992

First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committee on Claims.

By Representatives Bloom and Roberts-
HB 259-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to health care cost
containment; amending section 7 of chapter 92-178, Laws of Florida;
revising definitions; correcting cross references; providing a penalty for a
hospital that discriminates against or penalizes a provider for referrals
made to other facilities; amending and renumbering section 8 of chapter
92-178, Laws of Florida, as s. 408.066, F.S.; including health care facilities
in the prohibition against paying or receiving a kickback; providing a
penalty; amending and renumbering section 9 of chapter 92-178, Laws of
Florida, as s. 408.067, F.S.; providing a penalty for a health care provider
who charges an additional amount of more than $5 for services rendered
by an entity outside of that provider's practice; providing additional
penalties; amending and renumbering s. 407.61, F.S.; limiting the types of
health care providers who must report to the Health Care Board; amending
s. 455.25, F.S.; removing a requirement for a written disclosure form by a
health care provider; amending section 14 of chapter 92-178, Laws of
Florida; providing an appropriation to the Agency for Health Care
Administration instead of the Health Care Cost Containment Board;
correcting cross references; amending section 15 of chapter 92-178, Laws
of Florida; providing a 2-year divestiture period for other health services;
reducing the divestiture period for designated health care services by 1
year; creating s. 408.064, F.S., creating the Radiation Therapy Center
Licensure Act; providing a declaration of policy statement and purpose;
exempting certain entities from regulation; providing definitions;
providing powers and duties for the agency; establishing licensure
standards, fees, annual licensing process, standards of performance,
standards for construction, standards for safety and sanitary conditions,
standards for equipment, and minimum qualifications for personnel;
providing for inspection of centers; providing for licensing of centers;
requiring a display of license; providing grounds for disciplinary action;
providing administrative penalties; establishing offenses; providing
criminal penalties; providing authority for injunction; creating s. 408.065,
F.S.; creating the Diagnostic Imaging Center Licensure Act; providing a
declaration of policy statement and purpose; exempting certain entities
from regulation; providing definitions; providing powers and duties for the
agency; establishing licensure standards, fees, annual licensing process,
standards of performance, standards for construction, standards for safety
and sanitary conditions, standards for equipment, and minimum
qualifications for personnel; providing for inspection of centers; providing
for licensing of centers; requiring a display of license; providing grounds for
disciplinary action; providing administrative penalties; establishing
offenses; providing criminal penalties; providing authority for injunction;
repealing s. 10 of chapter 92-178, Laws of Florida, relating to designated
health care services; providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Health Care and Appropriations.

By Representatives Ritchie, Tobiassen, Stone and Ireland-
HB 261-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to medical practice;
amending s. 7, ch. 92-178, Laws of Florida; providing definitions; reducing
the civil penalty for knowingly presenting a claim for a service for which
payment is unlawful; providing for disciplinary proceedings against certain
hospitals; providing an exception to prohibited referrals; amending s. 8, ch.
92-178, Laws of Florida; prohibiting kickbacks after a certain date;
providing exceptions; amending s. 9, ch. 92-178, Laws of Florida;
prohibiting certain markups after a certain date; amending s. 10, ch. 92-
178, Laws of Florida; providing for licensure of entities providing
designated health services after a certain date; amending s. 407.60, F.S., as
created by s. 11, ch. 92-178, Laws of Florida; providing for an annual study
by the Health Care Board; requiring the board to determine charges for
radiation therapy procedures for participating physicians under the 1993
Medicare program; amending s. 407.61, F.S., as created by s. 12, ch. 92-178,
Laws of Florida; providing for a study; amending s. 455.25, F.S., as
amended by s. 13, ch. 92-178, Laws of Florida; prohibiting certain entities
from referring patients under certain conditions after a certain date;

amending s. 14, ch. 92-178, Laws of Florida; providing for an appropriation;
amending s. 15, ch. 92-178, Laws of Florida; providing for applicability of
ss. 7-15, ch. 92-178, Laws of Florida, to certain referrals for designated
health services; repealing s. 16, ch. 92-178, Laws of Florida, which provides
a fee schedule; providing an effective date.

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Health Care and Appropriations.

By Representative Press-
HJR 263-H-A joint resolution proposing an amendment to Section 9
of Article IV of the State Constitution, relating to the Game and Fresh
Water Fish Commission, to increase the number of commissioners,
decrease the length of their terms, impose qualifications for certain
commissioners, and provide for appeal of commission decisions.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Bloom-
HB 265-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to health care; revising
and reorganizing chapter 395, F.S.; providing for part I of said chapter,
relating to hospitals and other licensed facilities; amending s. 395.002, F.S.;
revising definitions; amending s. 395.003, F.S.; revising licensure
provisions; providing for licensure of hospitals and ambulatory surgical
centers by the Agency for Health Care Administration; amending s.
395.004, F.S., relating to application for license; providing a fee for
provisional licensure of a health care facility; amending and renumbering
s. 395.006, F.S.; revising provisions relating to licensure inspection;
providing criteria; deleting an exemption from public records law for
accrediting organizations; amending and renumbering s. 395.008, F.S.,
relating to inspection reports; providing a maximum copying fee; amending
and renumbering s. 395.007, F.S.; deleting authority to delegate review of
plans and specifications to a county or municipality; amending and
renumbering s. 395.011, F.S.; modifying provisions relating to staff
membership and clinical privileges; amending and renumbering s.
395.0115, F.S., relating to peer review and disciplinary powers; amending
and renumbering s. 395.014, F.S., relating to access of chiropractors to
diagnostic reports; amending and renumbering s. 395.041, F.S., relating to
internal risk management programs; limiting responsibilities of part-time
risk managers; providing for annual, rather than quarterly, reports to the
Agency for Health Care Administration; changing procedure for reports of
adverse or untoward incidents; providing for administrative fine by the
agency; conforming language relating to transfer of responsibilities from
the Department of Professional Regulation to the Agency for Health Care
Administration; requiring the agency to publish an annual summary of
incident reports; deleting a requirement relating to information bulletins;
amending and renumbering s. 395.0172, F.S., relating to private utilization
review; deleting duplicate language; amending and renumbering s.
395.0101, F.S., relating to treatment of biomedical waste; amending and
renumbering s. 395.0201, F.S.; requiring certain facilities to treat and
protect the anonymity of sexual assault victims; amending and
renumbering s. 395.0205, F.S.; requiring protocols for the treatment of
victims of child abuse or neglect; renumbering s. 395.0147, F.S., relating to
notification to emergency medical personnel of exposure to infectious
diseases; amending and renumbering s. 395.038, F.S., relating to regional
poison control centers; creating s. 395.1031, F.S.; providing communication
requirements for hospital emergency departments; amending and
renumbering s. 395.0142, F.S.; expanding requirements for providing
access to emergency services; providing for inventory of hospital emergency
services; revising provisions relating to legislative intent, medically
necessary transfers, discrimination, liability, and records; prohibiting
retaliation for patient transfers; providing penalties; providing for civil
actions; requiring reports; amending and renumbering s. 395.0175, F.S.,
relating to complaint investigation procedures; amending and renumbering
s. 395.005, F.S., relating to rules and enforcement; providing for standards
for the use of seclusion and restraint; providing for hospital quality
improvement programs; amending and renumbering s. 395.018, F.S.;
increasing fines for operating without a license; increasing an
administrative fine; also including within part I of chapter 395, F.S., ss.
395.001, 395.009, and 395.0185, F.S., relating to legislative intent,
minimum standards for clinical laboratory tests, and prohibitions and
penalties for rebates; amending and renumbering s. 395.015, F.S., relating
to itemized patient bills; providing for a copy to the physician, upon
request; revising applicability; renumbering s. 395.016, F.S., relating to
content of patient records; renumbering s. 395.0165, F.S., relating to
penalties for altering patient records; amending and renumbering s.

395.017, F.S.; revising requirements for disclosure of patient records;
providing charges for copies and searches of records; providing exemptions;

providing for disclosure of records to the Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services for certain purposes; creating s. 395.304, F.S.;
providing for additional regulatory studies by the Agency for Health Care
Administration; requiring a report; providing for part II of said chapter,
relating to trauma; amending and renumbering s. 395.031, F.S.; revising
definitions; providing additional component of trauma care system plans;
specifying a period for approval of plans; providing for hearings;
renumbering s. 395.032, F.S., relating to state regional trauma planning;
amending and renumbering s. 395.033, F.S., relating to trauma service
areas; amending and renumbering s. 395.0335, F.S.; revising provisions
relating to selection of state-approved trauma centers; revising provisions
relating to notice of termination of operation; providing certain immunity
from liability for out-of-state experts; renumbering ss. 395.034 and
395.0345, F.S., relating to reimbursement of centers and the Trauma
Services Trust Fund, respectively; amending and renumbering s. 395.035,
F.S., relating to review of trauma registry data; providing for trauma
transport protocols for use of air ambulance service; renumbering s.
395.036, F.S., relating to transport of trauma victims to centers; providing
for trauma transport protocols for use of air ambulance service;
renumbering and amending s. 395.037, F.S., relating to rulemaking
authority; providing for part III of said chapter, relating to rural hospitals;
amending and renumbering s. 395.102, F.S.; providing definitions; deleting
certain limitations on rural hospital swing bed length of stay; renumbering
s. 395.103, F.S., relating to rural hospital impact statements; amending and
renumbering ss. 395.104 and 395.01465, F.S., relating to other rural
hospital programs and emergency care hospitals, respectively; providing
for part IV of said chapter, relating to the Public Medical Assistance Trust
Fund; amending and renumbering s. 395.101, F.S., relating to hospital
annual assessments; providing liability for fines, penalties, and
assessments upon transfer or termination of a facility; providing
alternative payment method for certain statutory teaching hospitals;
amending and renumbering s. 395.1015, F.S., relating to annual
assessments of other health care entities; clarifying an exemption for blood
and plasma centers; exempting certain clinical laboratories; providing an
exclusion for out-of-state revenues; specifying the types of radiological
services to be included in the assessment; providing for part V of said
chapter, relating to medical education and tertiary care; amending and
renumbering ss. 395.60 and 395.62, F.S., relating to short title and the
Medical Education and Tertiary Care Trust Fund, respectively;
renumbering s. 395.61, F.S., and renumbering and amending s. 395.63, F.S.,
relating to legislative intent and distribution of trust fund moneys,
respectively; amending ss. 119.07, 240.4067, 320.0801, 322.0602, 381.004,
381.026, 383.336, 394.4787, 394.4789, 401.425, 401.251, 408.033, 408.036,
408.072, 408.08, 409.918, 427.708, 440.13, 440.185, 458.331, 459.015,
461.013, 626.941, 626.943, 641.55, 766.101, 766.110, and 766.314, F.S.;
correcting cross references; saving s. 381.0035, F.S., relating to educational
courses on AIDS for employees and clients of health care facilities, from
repeal; amending s. 394.463, F.S.; revising provisions relating to the
detainment period for involuntary examination of certain patients and
transfer of such patients for appropriate medical treatment; amending s.
408.0455, F.S.; providing that certain rules of the Department of Health
and Rehabilitative Services under the Health Facility and Services
Development Act remain in effect and are enforceable by the Agency for
Health Care Administration; providing for the continuation of certain
proceedings under said act that are pending on a specified date; amending
s. 408.07, F.S.; providing that the definitions contained in that section do
not apply to the Health Facility and Services Development Act; amending
s. 409.911, F.S.; revising provisions relating to distribution of moneys under
the regular disproportionate share program; deleting a limitation on the
source of funds; modifying the definition of "base Medicaid per diem";
specifying data to be used in calculating the disproportionate share rate;
revising criteria for determining disproportionate share percentages;
amending section 34 of chapter 92-58, Laws of Florida; modifying a saving
clause relating to clinical laboratory personnel; preserving judicial and
administrative actions pending and licenses in effect as of the dates
specified; repealing ss. 395.012 and 395.013, F.S., relating to prohibitions
against interference with the prescription of amygdalin laetrilee) or
dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO); repealing s. 395.0141, F.S., relating to
inventory of hospitals with emergency departments; repealing s. 395.0143,
F.S., relating to denial of emergency treatment; repealing s. 395.0144, F.S.,
relating to duty to admit or transfer emergency patients; repealing s.

395.0146, F.S., relating to certificates of need for emergency services;
providing an appropriation; saving specified provisions from Sunset repeal;

June 1, 1992

25

26 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE

providing for review and repeal; providing for construction of sections
conforming cross references; providing a disclaimer; providing effective
dates.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Health Care, Finance & Taxation and
Appropriations.

By Representatives Simon and Hargrett-
HB 267-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to workers'
compensation; creating "The Workers' Compensation Reform Act of 1992";
creating s. 287.044, F.S.; providing for compliance with chapter 440, F.S.;
providing definitions; requiring a sworn statement prior to bidding on a
contract under certain circumstances; amending s. 287.058, F.S.; requiring
certain contract documents to contain certain payment security provisions;
amending ss. 350.0611 and 350.0613, F.S.; providing additional
responsibilities of representation for the Public Counsel; amending s.
440.02, F.S.; providing definitions; amending s. 440.05, F.S.; providing for
election of exemption; providing for revocation of an election; amending s.
440.055, F.S.; deleting the requirement that employer affidavits be made
annually; amending s. 440.09, F.S.; revising coverage provisions related to
injuries due to alcohol or drug abuse; amending s. 440.10, F.S.; deleting a
penalty; authorizing the Division of Workers' Compensation of the
Department of Labor and Employment Security to assess a penalty against
certain employers; amending s. 440.101, F.S.; revising legislative intent;
amending s. 440.102, F.S.; revising provisions related to the drug-free
workplace program; providing certain employers are ineligible for certain
discounts; providing additional requirements for followup testing;
providing for payment of medical treatments; providing a penalty;
providing that certain screening and testing need not comply with certain
rules; providing additional employer protection provisions; creating s.
440.103, F.S.; requiring proof of secured compensation as a condition to
receiving a building permit; creating s. 440.104, F.S.; providing for civil
actions for competitive bidders; creating s. 440.105, F.S.; prohibiting
certain activities; providing penalties; creating s. 440.106, F.S.; providing
for civil remedies, stop-work orders, and liens under certain circumstances;
authorizing the division to bring certain actions; amending s. 440.11, F.S.;
extending to county governments certain immunity from liability;
amending s. 440.13, F.S.; requiring employers to provide certain medical
services and supplies; providing for eligibility of providers; requiring notice
of treatment to carriers; providing for independent medical examinations;
providing for utilization review; providing for resolving utilization and
reimbursement disputes; providing for certification of expert medical
advisors; providing for witness fees; providing for audits by the division;
providing for creation of a three-member panel; providing duties;
providing for managed care; amending s. 440.135, F.S.; providing legislative
intent regarding certain pilot programs; providing for additional pilot
programs; amending s. 440.15, F.S.; requiring the three-member panel to
establish and use a uniform permanent impairment guide; specifying a
basis for the guide; requiring certain forms to be filed for temporary partial
disability; providing for repayment of certain benefits under certain
circumstances; amending s. 440.16, F.S.; revising certain provisions related
to compensation for death; amending s. 440.185, F.S.; revising certain
provisions related to notice of injury or death; deleting a requirement that
the division forward certain files to a judge of compensation claims;
amending s. 440.19, F.S.; providing additional claim filing requirements;
amending s. 440.20, F.S.; requiring the division to monitor the timely
payment of compensation benefits; providing additional permissible
condition for lump-sum payment; amending s. 440.21, F.S.; deleting a
penalty; amending s. 440.25, F.S.; revising provisions related to certain
hearings held by a judge of compensation claims; revising procedures
related to such hearings; authorizing the division to adopt rules; amending
s. 440.29, F.S.; requiring receipt of certain medical reports into evidence;
amending s. 440.34, F.S.; deleting a penalty; amending s. 440.37, F.S.;
deleting provisions relating to misrepresentation, fraudulent activities, and
penalties; amending s. 440.38, F.S.; revising provisions related to securing
the payment of compensation by employers; requiring the division to adopt
rules; permitting employers to obtain coverage by use of a 24-hour health

insurance policy; specifying certain coverages; deleting a penalty;
amending s. 440.381, F.S.; requiring updating of certain insurance
applications; amending s. 440.45, F.S.; revising provisions relating to
membership of the statewide nominating commission; amending s. 440.48,
F.S.; requiring the department annually report to the Governor and the

1]

sums to the Office of Public Counsel, the Division of Workers'
Compensation and the Department of Insurance to implement provisions
of the act; requiring economic study of indemnity benefit calculation
method; creating a commission to study licensing of laboratories and drug
testing procedures; providing for membership; requiring a report; repealing

E OF REPRESENTATIVES June 1, 1992

Legislature on administration of chapter 440, F.S.; requiring the division
to complete a quarterly analysis of injuries resulting in claims; requiring
the division to submit an annual closed claim report to the Governor and
the Legislature; requiring the division to engage in certain continuous
studies; creating a premium data collection office in the Department of
Labor and Employment Security; amending s. 440.49, F.S.; revising
provisions related to reemployment and rehabilitation of injured workers;
providing for reemployment status review and reports; providing for
reemployment assessments; providing for medical care coordination and
reemployment services; providing for training and education; specifying
provider qualifications; providing for cost analysis; providing for
permanent disability settlements; providing for a study of the
reimbursement levels to employers for employment of the disabled;
amending s. 440.57, F.S.; revising provisions related to employer liability
pooling; providing for pool formation, organization and responsibilities,
and membership; providing procedures for failing to maintain adequate
funds; providing for assessments against fund members; providing
penalties; providing for dividends; creating s. 440.570, F.S.; providing for
application of certain provisions to rate filings and applications of group
self-insurer's funds; providing for deviations and discounts; creating s.
440.573, F.S.; authorizing the Board of Regents to provide coverage as a
self-insurer under certain circumstances; creating s. 440.574, F.S.;
authorizing a group self-insurer's fund to become an assessable mutual
insurer; providing requirements; creating s. 440.576, F.S.; providing for
venue in certain assessment actions; creating s. 440.577, F.S.; creating the
"Florida Self-Insurer's Fund Guaranty Association"; providing definitions;
providing purposes; providing for a board of directors; providing powers
and duties of the association; requiring the association to submit a plan of
operation to the division; providing for preventing self-insurer's fund
insolvencies or impairments; providing for public disclosure of certain
records of the association; providing for confidentiality of certain reports
and information of the association; providing for liability for unpaid
claims; providing immunity; prohibiting certain advertisements or
solicitations; creating s. 440.592, F.S.; exempting certain records,
information, or reports of the division from public disclosure; providing
exceptions; creating s. 440.593, F.S.; providing for data collection by the
division; creating s.440.595, F.S.; providing for establishment of a pilot
program for legal assistance to injured workers; providing requirements of
the program; creating part I of chapter 442, F.S.; creating the "Florida
Workplace Safety and Health Act"; providing objectives; providing
definitions; providing duties and responsibilities of employers; providing
powers and jurisdiction of the division; providing for compensation of
injured division employees; providing duties of carriers; requiring the
division to conduct certain studies and investigations; providing penalties
and sanctions; providing for enforcement; providing for notice of death;
creating the Occupational Safety and Health Enhancement Trust Fund;
specifying uses of the fund; providing for deposit of moneys into the fund;
requiring carriers to file certified statements with the division; specifying
employee rights, obligations, and responsibilities; designating ss. 442.102-
442.127, F.S., as part II of chapter 442, F.S.; amending s. 442.102, F.S.;
providing definitions; amending ss. 442.103, 442.104, 442.105, 442.106,
442.107, 442.108, 442.109,442.111, and 442.112, F.S.; placing the provisions
relating to the Florida Substance List and regulation of toxic substances
under the authority of the division; creating s. 442.110, F.S.; requiring
labelling of toxic substance containers; providing exceptions; amending s.
442.118, F.S.; exempting certain employers from certain reporting
requirements; amending s. 442.123, F.S.; deleting certain civil penalty and
judicial restraint provisions; amending s. 624.488, F.S.; providing for
application of certain laws; amending s. 627.091, F.S.; authorizing the
Department of Insurance to combine certain filing information in
determining rates; amending s. 627.101, F.S.; requiring the department to
publish certain approved filings; providing for effect and operation of
certain filings; repealing s. 627.111(2), F.S., relating to effectiveness of
certain filings; creating s. 627.212, F.S.; authorizing the department to
approve certain workers' compensation coverage insurance rating plans;
amending s. 627.311, F.S., relating to self-insurer participation in equitable
apportionment; amending s. 627.4133, F.S.; excluding workers'
compensation insurance from certain notice provisions; appropriating

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE]

ss. 440.152, 440.43, 440.46, 440.56, 440.59, 442.116, 442.119, 442.125, 442.20,
and 627.0915, F.S., relating to division study of occupational diseases,
penalty for failure to secure compensation, investigations of the division,
safety rules, a risk management report, employee rights, contractor
liability and responsibility, annual evaluation reports, workplace safety,
and rate filings for workers' compensation insurance and drug-free
workplace employers, respectively; providing effective dates.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Commerce and Appropriations.

By Representative Safley-
HB 269-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to educational finance;
amending s. 236.25, F.S.; removing provisions which authorize the
Legislature to prescribe a maximum amount of nonvoted current operating
discretionary millage that school boards may levy and authorizing school
boards to levy a nonvoted discretionary millage within constitutional
limits; amending s. 228.053, F.S.; revising provisions relating to funding for
operating purposes for developmental research schools; amending ss.
200.001 and 236.081, F.S., to conform; providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Public Schools, Finance & Taxation and
Appropriations.

By Representative Muscarella-
HB 271-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to trust funds;
repealing s. 15, ch. 92-142, Laws of Florida, relating to a study of trust
funds; creating s. 215.3206, F.S.; providing for the abolishment of specified
trust funds and the reversion of assets in such funds to the General
Revenue Fund; providing for future abolishment of specified trust funds;
providing for the appropriation of such funds; providing limitations on
funding of specified state programs and activities; providing an effective
date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Finance & Taxation and Appropriations.

By Representative Safley-
HJR 273-H-A joint resolution proposing the creation of Section 19 of
Article VII of the State Constitution relating to sales and use tax
exemptions.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Finance & Taxation and Appropriations.

By Representative Safley-
HB 275-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to educational finance;
amending s. 236.25, F.S.; removing the limitations on the uses of the 2-mill
capital outlay millage school boards are authorized to levy and providing
that said millage may be used for any educational purposes; amending s.
228.053, F.S.; revising provisions relating to funding for capital
improvements for developmental research schools; amending ss. 200.001,
200.065, 235.056, 235.435, and 236.081, F.S., to conform; providing an
effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Public Schools, Finance & Taxation and
Appropriations.

By Representative Silver-
HB 277-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to transportation;
amending s. 316.1001, F.S., relating to a prohibition against using a toll
facility without paying the toll; providing for the assessment of a fine
against any person who fails to pay a prescribed toll; providing for the
designation of "toll enforcement officers" and for their training and
qualifications; providing for the issuance of tickets by such officers and for
the contents of such tickets; providing that the owner of a vehicle used to
violate the section is liable for that violation; providing for the amount of
fines assessed for violations of the section and for the distribution of the

proceeds of such fines; authorizing the issuance of a uniform traffic citation
to a vehicle owner who does not respond; providing for the admissibility

June 1, 1992

for establishing rates and fees for guarantees; providing for the issuance of
revenue bonds; providing a specified maximum amount of such bonds;
providing for an annual audit; providing for a feasibility study; amending
s. 420.601, F.S.; revising the short title; amending s. 420.6015, F.S.; revising
the legislative findings; amending s. 420.606, F.S.; requiring the

E OF REPRESENTATIVES 27

into evidence of any film, videotape, or photograph produced by
photographic equipment employed to enforce the section; authorizing a
governmental entity to supply the department with a magnetically
encoded tape or cartridge listing persons with three or more outstanding
violations of the section; amending s. 316.2952, F.S.; authorizing an
additional windshield attachment; amending s. 316.660, F.S.; providing for
the collection and distribution of fines assessed pursuant to the section;
amending s. 318.14, F.S.; exempting a citation issued pursuant to the
section from having to be signed; amending ss. 318.18 and 320.03, F.S., to
conform; providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Transportation, Finance & Taxation and
Appropriations.

By Representatives Bo Johnson, Jamerson, Logan and Wallace-
HB 279-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to affordable housing;
providing a short title; amending s. 201.02, F.S.; increasing the excise tax
on deeds and other instruments relating to real property; amending s.
201.15, F.S.; revising the distribution of excise taxes on documents;
allocating a portion of the excise tax on documents to the State Housing
Trust Fund and to the Local Government Housing Trust Fund; providing
for the use of moneys deposited in those trust funds; amending ss. 201.05,
201.07, 201.08, F. S.; increasing the tax on certain stocks, bonds, and notes;
amending s. 240.5111, F.S.; requiring the Multidisciplinary Center for
Affordable Housing to establish a research agenda in cooperation with the
Department of Community Affairs; amending s. 420.0001, F.S.; revising the
short title of the State Housing Incentive Partnership Act of 1988;
amending s. 420.0002, F.S.; revising the legislative findings; amending s.
420.0005, F.S.; providing that funds from the State Housing Trust Fund
may be used to administer housing programs; amending s. 420.306, F.S.;
revising and providing definitions for the Housing Predevelopment and
Elderly Homeowner Rehabilitation Assistance Act; amending s. 420.307,
F.S.; revising provisions relating to administration of the Housing
Predevelopment Trust Fund and providing for availability of funds;
amending s. 420.308, F.S.; revising provisions relating to authorized loans
and grants made from the trust fund and activities eligible for support;
amending s. 420.309, F.S.; revising application procedures for receipt of
funds; requiring notice and establishment of a review committee and
scoring system; amending s. 420.31, F.S.; revising provisions relating to
rules and annual reports; amending s. 420.32, F.S.; revising provisions
relating to default on a loan; providing for deposit of funds; creating s.
420.36, F.S.; creating the Low-income Emergency Home Repair Program;
providing eligibility, allowable expenses, fund distribution, and
departmental powers; creating s. 420.37, F.S.; providing additional powers
of the Florida Housing Finance Agency; amending s. 420.503, F.S.;
providing additional definitions under the Florida Housing Finance
Agency Act; amending s. 420.507, F.S.; revising powers of the agency with
respect to loans under the Florida Homeownership Assistance Program
and the State Apartment Incentive Loan Program; amending s. 420.5087,
F.S., relating to the State Apartment Incentive Loan Program; amending
provisions relating to eligibility for loans; amending provisions relating to
allocation of loans; transferring certain duties of the Department of
Community Affairs to the Florida Housing Finance Agency; amending s.
420.5088, F.S.; amending provisions relating to the Florida
Homeownership Assistance Program; amending requirements with respect
to mortgage loans; providing requirements with respect to construction
loans; providing for allocation of program funds; providing for transfer of
moneys to the Florida Homeownership Assistance Trust Fund; creating s.
420.5089, F.S.; creating the HOME Partnership Program and establishing
a trust fund; providing for loans based on competitive selection; providing
for pilot programs; providing for eligible activities; providing for a review
committee; providing for approval and determination of loans; providing
agency powers; providing for the deposit of funds; creating s. 420.5091, F.S.;
providing for rules to implement the HOPE Program; providing for the
acquisition of property; creating s. 420.5092, F.S.; creating the Florida
Affordable Housing Guarantee Program and authorizing agency action;
providing purposes; providing definitions; providing for funding; providing

28 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE

Department of Community Affairs to provide technical support for the
implementation of the State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program;
amending s. 420.6075, F.S.; requiring the Department of Community
Affairs to participate in establishing an annual research agenda for the
Multidisciplinary Center for Affordable Housing; amending s. 420.609,
F.S.; requiring the Affordable Housing Study Commission to make
recommendations regarding an annual research agenda for the
Multidisciplinary Center for Affordable Housing; creating ss. 420.907,
420.9071, 420.9072, 420.9073, 420.9075, 420.9076, 420.9078, 420.9079, F.S.;
providing a short title; providing definitions relating to affordable housing;
establishing the State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program; providing
legislative findings and intent; providing for administration of the program
and for rules; providing approval procedures and requirements; providing
for the distribution and use of funds; providing criteria for the issuance of
revenue bonds by local governments; establishing criteria and
administrative procedures for local housing assistance programs adopted
by local governments; requiring a report; requiring reporting of violations
to the Office of the Governor and the Auditor General; requiring adoption
of affordable housing incentive plans; providing for affordable housing
advisory committees; providing for state administration of remaining local
housing distribution funds; providing for notice of the availability of funds;
creating the Local Government Housing Trust Fund; providing for the
distribution of moneys from the trust fund; transferring the program
functions of the Housing Predevelopment Trust Fund to the Florida
Housing Finance Agency; providing that each county that has
implemented ch. 83-220, Laws of Florida, as amended, shall not be subject
to section 2 of the act and shall be eligible for certain programs on a limited
basis; amending s. 1, ch. 83-220, Laws of Florida, as amended; providing
additional uses of the discretionary surtax on documents authorized
thereunder; providing appropriations from the Local Government Housing
Trust Fund and from the State Housing Trust Fund to fund housing
programs; repealing ss. 420.603, 420.604, 420.605, F.S., relating to the
Florida Affordable Housing Trust Fund, the Florida Affordable Housing
Demonstration Program, and the Affordable Housing Loan Program;
repealing ss. 420.801, 420.802, 420.803, 420.804, 420.805, 420.806, 420.808,
420.809, 420.810, 420.811, 420.812, 420.813, F.S., relating to the Pocket of
Poverty Programs; repealing ss. 420.901,420.902,420.903,420.904, 420.905,
420.906, F.S., the Maintenance of Housing for the Elderly Act of 1988;
providing a severability clause; providing effective dates.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Community Affairs, Finance & Taxation
and Appropriations.

By Representatives Silver, Mackenzie, Mortham, Chestnut and
Sanderson-
HB 281-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to bingo; amending s.
849.093, F.S.; revising provisions which regulate the conduct of bingo;
providing intent; providing definitions; providing that the Division of Pari-
mutuel Wagering shall supervise bingo activities and specifying powers and
duties of the division; authorizing the conduct of bingo by authorized
organizations; providing for use of bingo proceeds; providing requirements
and conditions for the conduct of bingo; requiring licensing or registration
of such organizations and distributors of bingo equipment and facilities;
providing exemptions; providing for special event licenses; providing for
fees; providing limitations on prizes; providing requirements regarding the
location of games and the lease of premises; providing requirements for
records and reports; providing exemptions; prohibiting certain activities in
connection with bingo; providing for revocation or denial of licenses and
registrations and administrative fines; providing criminal penalties;
providing for injunctions; providing for deposit of moneys collected in the
Pari-mutuel Wagering Trust Fund; providing that the regulation of bingo
is preempted to the state, with certain exceptions; providing an
appropriation and authorizing positions; providing a credit against first-
year license fees and refunds for license fees previously paid and not
refunded; repealing s. 3 of ch. 91-421, Laws of Florida, which provides for

review and repeal of s. 849.093, F.S.; providing effective dates.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Regulated Industries, Finance &
Taxation and Appropriations.

'

connection with a project; providing for the use of proceeds; amending s.
193.023, F.S.; requiring property appraisers to use sales data as the primary
measure of just valuation in specified circumstances; amending s. 193.085,
F.S.; providing venue for actions challenging assessed value of certain
railroad property; correcting a reference; amending s. 193.1142, F.S.;

E OF REPRESENTATIVES June 1, 1992

By Representative Huenink-
HJR 283-H-A joint resolution proposing an amendment to Section 6
of Article VII and the creation of Section 20 of Article XII of the State
Constitution relating to ad valorem taxation.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Finance & Taxation and Appropriations.

By Representative Arnold-
HJR 285-H-A joint resolution proposing an amendment to Section 4
of Article VII of the State Constitution, relating to assessment of
homestead property.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Finance & Taxation and Appropriations.

By Representative Davis-
HJR 287-H-A joint resolution proposing an amendment to Section 9
of Article XII of the State Constitution, relating to certain bonds, to
continue using gross receipts revenue for educational facilities for public
school districts, community college districts, and universities, to continue
using motor vehicle license revenues for capital outlay projects and other
educational needs of public school districts and community college
districts, and to remove interest and maturity restrictions on education
bond refunding.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Public Schools, Finance & Taxation and
Appropriations.

By Representative Roberts-
HB 289-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to operating a vessel
while intoxicated; amending s. 327.351, F.S.; providing that the offense of
operating a vessel while intoxicated is a third-degree felony if such
operation causes serious bodily injury; providing an effective date.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Graham-
HB 291-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to district school
boards; amending s. 230.202, F.S.; changing the method of compensating
district school board members; amending s. 145.131, F.S., relating to
compensation of county officials; deleting the setting of compensation
within salary ranges of district school board members by special or local
law; providing an effective date.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Safley-
HB 293-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to financial
institutions; providing priorities for unsecured claims for payment against
financial institutions; prohibiting the enforcement of certain judicial
actions; providing an effective date.
Placed in the Committee on Rules & Calendar, the Speaker having ruled
the measure was outside the purview of the Call.

By Representative Abrams-
HB 295-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to taxation; amending
s. 125.0104, F.S.; providing for the payment of interest on local option
tourist development taxes remitted to the Department of Revenue;
requiring state and local governmental entities administering specified
local option taxes to make certain reports regarding the amounts and
purposes for which moneys are withheld from tax proceeds; providing for
expiration; amending s. 154.235, F.S.; authorizing health facilities
authorities to refund any revenue bonds or debt obligations issued in

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

requiring the department to use sales data in determining if assessment the bill was re
rolls meet requirements of law; amending s. 195.096, F.S.; requiring the rules were wai
Division of Ad Valorem Tax to use sales data in conducting in-depth by title. On pa
reviews of assessment rolls; requiring property appraisers to report real
estate transfers to the division with specified information; requiring Yeas-107
property appraisers to submit information as to disqualified transactions The Chair
to the division; requiring the department to develop a methodology for Abrams
using sales data and a plan to implement such methodology; requiring Albright
recommendations to be included for the reallocation of resources; Arnall
amending s. 199.062, F.S.; revising certain reporting requirements for Arnold
security dealers and investment advisers in connection with intangible Bainter
personal property taxes; amending s. 199.282, F.S.; providing penalties for Banjanin
security dealers and investment advisers who do not timely file or who fail
to file required statements; creating s. 199.106, F.S.; providing credits Bloom
against the annual tax on certain intangible personal property in the Boyd
amount of any like tax paid on such property in another state or territory Brennan
or the District of Columbia; providing for retroactive application; creating Bronson
s. 199.303, F.S.; providing legislative intent regarding application of Burke
intangible personal property taxes and severability; amending s. 201.022, Chinoy
F.S.; requiring the clerk of the circuit court to execute and file the returns Clark
required as a condition precedent to recording any deed transferring an Clemons
interest in real property under certain circumstances; providing for Corr
compensation; amending s. 212.0515, F.S., relating to sales from vending Cosgrove
machines; revising notice requirements; revising reporting requirements Crady
for persons who sell food and beverages to vending machine operators; Davis
removing a requirement that dealers purchasing food or beverages for De Grandy
resale provide certain information to the dealer from whom such items are Deutsch
purchased; revising penalties and providing additional penalties; amending Diaz-Balart
s. 212.055, F.S.; deleting the repeal date for the indigent care surtax for Feeney
certain counties; repealing s. 3, ch. 91-81, Laws of Florida, which specifies Figg
the repeal date for said surtax, to conform; amending s. 213.053, F.S.; Flagg
authorizing the department to disclose certain confidential information to Fol
specified persons; creating s. 213.0535, F.S.; establishing the Registration Frole
Information Sharing and Exchange Program; requiring certain local ranked
governments and state agencies to share specified tax and licensing Nays-None
information; providing duties of the department; providing for application
of confidentiality and penalty provisions; providing for review and repeal; the bill p
restricting use of such information; amending s. 213.27, F.S.; authorizing
the department to contract with collection or auditing agencies to ascertain Admitted for
or collect taxes due; revising the taxpayer notice requirement; amending On motion b3
s. 216.262, F.S.; providing an additional condition under which an increase two-thirds vote
in the number of positions beyond those provided in the appropriations introduction, t
acts may be authorized; amending s. 624.5092, F.S.; providing for minimum purview of the
estimated insurance premium tax payments; providing for retroactive
effect; amending ss. 1, 2, and 3, ch. 67-930, Laws of Florida; revising Communic
provisions which authorize certain cities to levy a municipal resort tax, to
remove an exemption for beer and malt beverages; providing effective Governor L
dates. Legislature in
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committees on Finance & Taxation and Appropriations. Vetoed Bills

By Representative Burke-
HB 297-H-A bill to be entitled An act for the relief of Christopher
King, Christopher King, Jr., a minor, and David King, a minor, for injuries
they sustained through the failure of the Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services to provide appropriate services to the King family;
providing an appropriation; providing an effective date.
First reading by publication (Art. III, s. 7, Florida Constitution).
Referred to the Committee on Claims.
On motion by Rep. Bo Johnson-

By Representatives Kelly and Mortham-
HB 31-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to bingo; reenacting s.
849.093, F.S., as amended by section 1 of ch. 91-421, Laws of Florida,
relating to exemptions for charitable, nonprofit, or veterans' organizations;
reenacting s. 723.079(8), F.S., as amended by section 2 of ch. 91-421, Laws
of Florida, relating to conduct of bingo by mobile homeowners'
associations; amending section 3 of ch. 91-421, Laws of Florida, relating to
review and repeal of s. 849.093, F.S.; providing for contingent retroactivity;
providing an effective date.
-was taken up instanter and read the first time by title. On further
motion by Rep. Bo Johnson, the rules were waived by two-thirds vote and

29

ad the second time by title. On motion by Rep. Kelly, the
ved by two-thirds vote and the bill was read the third time
.ssage, the vote was:

Friedman
Garcia
Geller
Goode
Gordon
Graber
Graham
Grindle
Guber
Hafner
Hanson
Harden
Hargrett
Harris
Hawkes
Hawkins
Healey
Hill
Hoffmann
Holland
Holzendorf
Ireland
Irvine
Jamerson
Jennings
Johnson, Bo
Johnson, Buddy

Jones, C. F.
Jones, Daryl
Jones, Dennis
Kelly
King
Langton
Laurent
Lawson
Lewis
Liberti
Lippman
Logan
Lombard
Long
Mackenzie
Mackey
Martinez
McEwan
Mims
Mishkin
Mitchell
Morse
Mortham
Muscarella
Ostrau
Peeples
Press

Pruitt
Reddick
Ritchie
Roberts
Rojas
Rudd
Safley
Sanderson
Sansom
Sembler
Silver
Simon
Simone
Smith, C.
Smith, K.
Stafford
Starks
Stone
Thomas
Tobiassen
Tobin
Trammell
Valdes
Viscusi
Wise
Young

assed and was immediately certified to the Senate.

SIntroduction
y Rep. Bo Johnson, agreed to by the required constitutional
e, HRs 23-H, 89-H, 203-H and 215-H were admitted for
he Speaker having ruled the measures were outside the
Call.

nations
awton Chiles advised that he desired to address the
Joint Session today.

The following veto messages were received:
The Honorable T. K. Wetherell
Speaker of the House of Representatives

May 27, 1992

Dear Mr. Speaker:
In compliance with the provisions of Article III, Section 8(b) of the State
Constitution, I am transmitting to you for consideration of the House the
following 1992 vetoed bills, Regular Session. The Governor's objections are
attached thereto.
CS/CS/HB 337 An act relating to jurors
HB 827 An act relating to tax on sales, use, and other
transactions
HB 1231 An act relating to the Florida Evidence Code
HB 1301 An act relating to firefighters' pension trust funds
CS/HB 1419 An act for the relief of Mr. and Mrs. Darriel
Swindell
CS/HB 1753 An act relating to employment
CS/HB 1863 An act relating to the Water Quality Assurance
Trust Fund
Sincerely,
JIM SMITH
Secretary of State

June 1, 1992

30 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE

The Honorable T. K. Wetherell April 9, 1992
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Speaker:
By the authority vested in me as Governor of Florida, under the provisions
of Article III, Section 8, of the Constitution of the State of Florida, I do
hereby withhold my approval of and transmit my objections to Committee
Substitute for Committee Substitute for House Bill 337, enacted by the
Legislature during the 1992 Regular Session of the 94th Session of the
Legislature since Statehood in 1845, and entitled:
An act relating to jurors; amending s. 40.013, F.S.
Every Floridian has a civic duty and responsibility to their community to
sit on a jury. The right to trial by jury is a cornerstone to a free society. The
state and its citizens should equally share in the cost of performing this
necessary and fundamental function of democracy. House Bill 337 unfairly
and arbitrarily places the burden for jury duty on employers with more
than 25 employees.
The bill imposes the expense of the jury system on one select group. There
seems to be no sound reason why employers with more than "25 employees"
are the appropriate businesses to require payment of wages. And such
requirement may cause employers to actually discourage their employees
from serving as jurors. Most employers-out of a sense of civic obligation
and no matter how many employees they have-already pay the wages of
their employees. Our laws should continue to promote a jury system that
encourages-but not requires-all employers to continue this highly
commendable policy. But this bill-under the mandate of law-will have
one juror being paid $15 per day and the other juror being paid his full
day's wages. This inequity results only because of the arbitrary distinction
that one person is employed by a company with more than 25 employees
and the other person is perhaps unemployed, retired, a student, or
employed by a company with less than 25 employees.
House Bill 337 indeed contains many provisions that will improve the
state's jury system, including the increase in jury compensation. And I note
that the compensation and reimbursement aspects of the bill had an
effective date of July 1993. Perhaps in the next regular session the
Legislature can enact the provisions of the bill without the requirement of
payment by employers.
I do hereby withhold my approval of Committee Substitute for Committee
Substitute for House Bill 337 and veto it.
With kind regards, I am
Sincerely,
LAWTON CHILES
Governor
The Honorable T. K. Wetherell April 8, 1992
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Speaker:
By the authority vested in me as Governor of Florida, under the provisions
of Article III, Section 8, of the Constitution of the State of Florida, I do
hereby withhold my approval of and transmit to you my objections to
Committee Substitute for House Bill 827, enacted by the 94th Session of
the Legislature since statehood in 1885, during the Regular Session of 1992,
and entitled:
An act relating to tax on sales, use, and other transactions
Committee Substitute for House Bill 827 eliminates the requirement that
applications for refund be filed to recover taxes exempt from sales of
liquified petroleum gases used for agricultural purposes and revises the
calculation of the tax on certain beverages and revises the reporting
requirements for items sold in vending machines, as well as reducing the
rate of taxation for certain items sold in vending machines.
I am not convinced that a change in this regulatory statute is in the best
interest of the State of Florida.
For this reason, I am withholding my approval of Committee Substitute
for House Bill 827 and hereby veto the same.
With kind regards, I am

Sincerely,
LAWTON CHILES
Governor

IE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The Honorable T. K. Wetherell
Speaker of the House of Representatives

June 1, 1992

April 8, 1992

Dear Mr. Speaker:
By the authority vested in me as Governor of Florida, under the provisions
of Article III, Section 8, of the Constitution of the State of Florida, I do
hereby withhold my approval of and transmit my objections to House Bill
1231, enacted by the 94th Session of the Legislature since statehood in
1885, during the Regular Session of 1992, and entitled:
An act relating to the Florida Evidence Code
House Bill 1231 requires interpreters used in state judicial proceedings to
be certified or designated as otherwise qualified by the State Courts
Administrator in accordance with federal guidelines. There are obstacles
in this approach to providing qualified translators in judicial proceedings.
The Federal Certification of Court Interpreters Program currently
conducts performance examinations in only three languages-Spanish,
Creole/Haitian, and Navaho. The performance examinations for those
three languages are offered only biennially, in odd years, at locations not
readily accessible for individuals who would be required to have
certification to qualify as judicial interpreters.
A certification program adopted by the courts of this state, and not tied
to the criteria of the United States Courts, would appear to best meet the
requirements of the courts of this state.
The federal testing cycle of every other year may not be sufficient, and
Florida may have to take on additional costs in order to provide testing on
a more regular basis.
The Courts of Dade County, which most frequently depend upon the
services of a translator, have expressed their concerns over this Bill.
It is difficult to anticipate the cost to those translators who might seek
certification under this Bill and to forecast the State's funding
requirements for future years at this time.
I am, therefore, withholding my approval of House Bill 1231 and hereby
veto the same.
With kind regards, I am
Sincerely,
LAWTON CHILES
Governor

April 8, 1992

The Honorable T. K. Wetherell
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Speaker:

By the authority vested in me as Governor of Florida, under the
provisions of Article III, Section 8, of the Constitution of the State of
Florida, I do hereby withhold my approval of and transmit to you with my
objections, House Bill 1301, enacted by the 94th Session of the Legislature
since Statehood in 1845, during the Regular Session of 1992, and entitled:
An act relating to firefighters' pension trust funds
I have reviewed House Bill 1301, and feel compelled to report that the
provisions are inappropriate and do not serve the best interest of
Floridians. Permitting special fire control districts to establish firefighters'
pension plan trust funds using insurance premium tax revenues will result
in a significant loss to the State's General Revenue fund at a time when the
base should be expanded to invest in Florida's future.
For these reasons, I am withholding my approval of House Bill 1301, and
do hereby veto it.
With kind regards, I am
Sincerely,
LAWTON CHILES
Governor

April 8, 1992

The Honorable T. K. Wetherell
Speaker of the House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Speaker:
By the authority vested in me as Governor of Florida, under the provisions
of Article III, Section 8, of the Constitution of the State of Florida, I do
hereby withhold my approval of and transmit to you with my objections,
Committee Substitute for House Bill 1419, enacted by the 94th Session of
the Legislature since statehood in 1885, during the Regular Session of 1992,
and entitled:

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSI

An act for the relief of Mr. and Mrs. Darriel Swindell
Committee Substitute for House Bill 1419 is a claim bill to compensate Mr.
and Mrs. Darriel Swindell for loss of past and future economic and non-
economic damages sustained as the result of an accident between a vehicle
driven by Mr. Swindell and a vehicle driven by an employee of Prison
Rehabilitative Industries and Diversified Enterprises, Inc. (PRIDE),
which occurred on March 11, 1986.
Settlement demands of $100,000 to $150,000 were declined by the Attorney
General. The case went to trial and a jury found PRIDE to be 65%
negligent and Mr. Swindell 35% negligent, so that the total award to Mr.
and Mrs. Swindell was $572,741.00. Of this amount, $200,000 has been
paid, and Committee Substitute for House Bill 1419 provides for the
appropriation of $372,741 for damages in excess of the amounts paid under
the sovereign immunity statute, Section 768.28, Florida Statutes.
The Bill recites that $12,000.00 in medical expenses were incurred by Mr.
Swindell and there were conflicting medical opinions regarding the
physical impairment of Mr. Swindell. The claimants have received more
than demanded prior to trial.
I am, therefore, withholding my approval of Committee Substitute for
House Bill 1419 and hereby veto the same.
With kind regards, I am
Sincerely,
LAWTON CHILES
Governor

The Honorable T. K. Wetherell
Speaker of the House

April 10, 1992

Dear Mr. Speaker:
By the authority vested in me as Governor of Florida, under the provisions
of Article III, Section 8, of the Constitution of the State of Florida, I do
hereby withhold my approval of and transmit my objections to Committee
Substitute for House Bill 1753, enacted by the 94th Session of the
Legislature since Statehood in 1845, during the Regular Session of 1992,
and entitled:
An act relating to employment
Committee Substitute for House Bill 1753 purports to make it unlawful for
an employer to discriminate against an individual who is a user of "legal
agricultural products." Yet, there is not a scintilla of evidence that such
"discrimination" even remotely exists in the State of Florida. To my
knowledge, there is not one documented case in Florida that shows an
employee was terminated because he used "legal agricultural products"
while "off the premises of the workplace during nonworking hours."
Committee Substitute for House Bill 1753 is vague and imprecise. It fails
to provide any definition for "agricultural products." This could lead to the
protection of abusers of alcohol-a "legal agricultural product"-who
excessively drink off the job. And the Florida Statutes contain numerous
and inconsistent definitions for "agricultural products," which surely do
not demand the protection of antidiscrimination laws. For example,
Florida's general agricultural laws define "agricultural products" to mean
"The natural products of the farm, nursery, grove, orchard, vineyard,
garden and apiary (raw or manufactured); livestock; milk and milk
products; poultry and poultry products; and limes (meaning the fruit
Citrus aurantifolla, variety Persian, Tahiti, Bearss, or Florida Key limes)
produced in the state except tobacco, tropical foliage, sugarcane, and citrus
other than limes." Such vagueness will lead to significant employment
litigation that is wholly unnecessary.
Committee Substitute for House Bill 1753 raises the use of "legal
agricultural products" to the status of a protected civil right. Smokers and
other such users of these products would have the same or more rights than
those individuals who already confront invidious discrimination. Florida's
laws protect people from discrimination because of their race, age,
handicap or national origin-qualities that cannot be changed. Our laws
deter discrimination based on religion which go to the profoundly held
beliefs of our citizens. These antidiscrimination laws are rooted in the very
foundation of our society and are values deeply imbedded in the
constitutions of the United States and Florida. Committee Substitute for
House Bill 1753 protects a class of people based solely on what they
consume-cigarettes. We should not trivialize people's fundamanetal civil
rights with an unnecessary new class of "smokers." Quoting Montesquieu:
"useless laws weaken necessary ones."

June 1, 1992

The Honorable T. K. Wetherell
Speaker of the House

April 8, 1992

Dear Mr. Speaker:
By the authority vested in me as Governor of Florida, under the provisions
of Article III, Section 8, of the Constitution of the State of Florida, I do
hereby withhold my approval of and transmit my objections to Committee
Substitute for House Bill 1863, enacted by Legislature during the 1992
Regular Session of the 94th Session of the Legislature since Statehood in
1845, and entitled:
An act relating to the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund
Committee Substitute for House Bill 1863 mandates a $5 million loan to
the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund and requires the borrowed money
to be used for the replacement of private potable wells that may be
contaminated. This would be the fifth priority for the monies in the trust
fund. The Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund was established to provide
a source of funding to clean up hazardous and toxic waste sites, to provide
for emergency response operations for hazardous or toxic waste
contamination, and to rehabilitate contaminated drinking water systems.
The Legislature placed the use of the trust fund monies in order of priority.
The bill fails to provide any mechanism for the Water Quality Assurance
Trust Fund to repay the $5 million loan. The trust fund does not now have
sufficient monies for the currently mandated programs and cannot repay
the loan from existing revenues. Thus, the bill will yield one of two results
neither which is good public policy. Either the Water Quality Assurance
Trust Fund will not repay its loan to the Florida Coastal Protection Trust
Fund or the Department of Environmental Regulation will not have
adequate funds for the mandated activities that were statutorily
prioritized ahead of the replacement of the private potable wells that may
be contaminated.
Committee Substitute for House Bill 1863 certainly contains solid public
policy in that it attempts to restore or replace private potable wells or water
systems that risk contamination. But to the best of my knowledge no one
is now drinking contaminated water and when contaminated waters are
discovered by the Department of Environmental Regulation, it has
promptly responded to rectify the situation. My main concern-as chief
budget officer for the state-is that the bill is fiscally irresponsible. There
will be numerous areas that are contaminated and we must be is a fiscal
position to immediately address these environmental problems.
Should the Legislature decide to address the fiscal issues associated with
the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund, I will recommend that it
specifically include a provision in the law allowing additional funds to be
used for restoration or replacement of private potable wells or water
systems found by the Secretary of the Department of Environmental
Regulation to be at risk of contamination based upon ground water
contamination at nearby sites. Such a provision will insure that the
concerns raised by this legislation are addressed.
For these reasons, I do hereby withhold my approval of Committee
Substitute for House Bill 1863 and veto it.
With kind regards, I am
Sincerely,
LAWTON CHILES
Governor
-and vetoed bills CS/CS/HB 337; HBs 827, 1231, 1301; CS/HB 1419;
CS/HB 1753; CS/HB 1863 (1992 Regular Session), together with the
Governor's objections thereto, were referred to the Committee on Rules &
Calendar.

OF REPRESENTATIVES 31

I am quite mindful of an individual's right to privacy. My veto of this bill,
of course, does not affect existing laws that already prevent intrusion into
one's personal life. And I do not intend to tolerate the invasion of our
sacred right to privacy. But simply put, Committee Substitute for House
Bill 1753 is not needed as a protection of this right.
For these reasons, I am withholding my approval of Committee Substitute
for House Bill 1753 and do hereby veto it.
With kind regards, I am
Sincerely,
LAWTON CHILES
Governor

32 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE

Introduction of House Concurrent Resolution
On motion by Rep. Bo Johnson, the rules were waived for introduction
and consideration of a concurrent resolution.

By Representative Bo Johnson-
HCR 1H-Org.-A concurrent resolution providing that the House of
Representatives and Senate convene in joint session for the purpose of
receiving a message from the Governor.
WHEREAS, His Excellency, Governor Lawton Chiles, has expressed a
desire to address the Legislature in Joint Session; NOW, THEREFORE,
Be It Resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Florida, the
Senate Concurring:
That the House of Representatives and the Senate convene in Joint
Session in the chamber of the House of Representatives at 7:00 p.m. this
day, June 1, 1992, for the purpose of receiving the message of the Governor.
-was read the first time by title. On motion by Rep. Bo Johnson, the
rules were waived by two-thirds vote and the concurrent resolution was
read the second time by title.
On further motion by Rep. Bo Johnson, the concurrent resolution was
adopted and, under the rule, immediately certified to the Senate.

Resolutions and Memorials

By Representative Ostrau-
HR 23-H-A resolution honoring Father Gabriel O'Reilly and
proclaiming June 4, 1992, as Father Gabriel O'Reilly Day.
WHEREAS, Father Gabriel O'Reilly was ordained in Wexford, Ireland,
on June 4, 1967, and
WHEREAS, Father O'Reilly arrived in Davie, Florida, on June 4, 1974,
and founded Saint David Catholic Church and, in 1984, Saint David
Catholic School, and
WHEREAS, Saint David Catholic Church is the spiritual home of 12,200
parishioners of Saint David's Parish and Saint David Catholic School has
an enrollment of 600 children, and
WHEREAS, Father O'Reilly has been a powerful inspiration and leader
and a gentle spiritual guide for these parishioners and has provided a
school environment which is both loving, formative, and instructive, and
WHEREAS, the community of Saint David's Parish, under the
leadership of Father O'Reilly, has been a powerful force for good within the
Town of Davie, Florida, and has offered a true family-oriented and
spiritually based welcome to new citizens of the Town of Davie as the Town
of Davie grew dramatically during the past 17 years, NOW, THEREFORE,
Be It Resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Florida:
That the Florida House of Representatives hereby honors Father
Gabriel O'Reilly as the spiritual shepherd of Saint David Parish and
hereby proclaims June 4, 1992, as Father Gabriel O'Reilly Day in the Town
of Davie, Florida.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be
presented to Father Gabriel O'Reilly as a tangible token of the sentiments
expressed herein.
-was read the first time by title and the second time by title. On motion
by Rep. Ostrau, the resolution was adopted.

By Representative Stafford--
HR 89-H-A resolution designating the week of June 1 through June
7, 1992, as "Post-Polio Syndrome Awareness Week."
WHEREAS, many survivors of polio reside in Florida, and
WHEREAS, polio can still be contracted despite vaccinations, and
WHEREAS, one consequence of polio is post-polio syndrome which
causes degenerative results 10 to 40 years after contraction, and
WHEREAS, the effects of post-polio syndrome are recently becoming

known among polio survivors, and
WHEREAS, as recently as 5 years ago, post-polio syndrome was still not
widely understood, NOW, THEREFORE,
Be It Resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Florida:

]

Be It Resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Florida:
That the Florida House of Representatives hereby recognizes the
members, coaches, and staff of the West Nassau Lady Warriors softball
team and applauds its distinction as 1992 Class AA State Softball
Champion.

E OF REPRESENTATIVES June 1, 1992

That the week of June 1 through June 7, 1992, is designated as "Post-
Polio Syndrome Awareness Week" in the State of Florida.
-was read the first time by title and the second time by title. On motion
by Rep. Stafford, the resolution was adopted.

By Representatives Lawson and Rudd-
HR 203-H-A resolution commending the Rickards High School
Redskins Basketball Team for winning the 1991-1992 State Class AAA
Basketball Championship.
WHEREAS, the Rickards High School Redskins Basketball Team
finished the 1991-1992 season with a 34-1 record, holding the No. 1 ranking
all season in the State of Florida and finishing with the No. 22 ranking in
the nation by USA Today, and
WHEREAS, on March 14, 1992, the Rickards High School Redskins
Basketball Team won the 1991-1992 State Class AAA Basketball
Championship by defeating the Cocoa High School Tigers Basketball
Team 74-53 at the state tournament held in the Tallahassee-Leon County
Civic Center, and
WHEREAS, the Rickards High School Redskins Basketball Team was
superbly coached by Jackie Pons, who was making his first appearance in
the state tournament, and
WHEREAS, the Rickards High School Redskins Basketball Team and
Coach Pons have brought honor to their school and community and
exemplify the competitive team spirit to which all athletic programs in
Florida's schools aspire, NOW, THEREFORE,
Be It Resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Florida:
That the Florida House of Representatives hereby commends the
Rickards High School Redskins Basketball Team for their
accomplishments in winning the 1991-1992 State Class AAA Basketball
Championship.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be
presented to Coach Pons and each member of the Rickards High School
Redskins Basketball Team as a tangible token of the sentiments expressed
herein.
-was read the first time by title and the second time by title. On motion
by Rep. Lawson, the resolution was adopted.

By Representative Crady-
HR 215-H-A resolution recognizing the members, coaches, and staff
of the West Nassau Lady Warriors softball team and applauding its
distinction as 1992 Class AA State Softball Champion.
WHEREAS, the 1991-1992 West Nassau Lady Warriors softball team
brought outstanding recognition to itself and to West Nassau High School
in Callahan, Florida, by winning the 1992 Class AA State Softball
Championship, and
WHEREAS, members of the West Nassau Lady Warriors team, Mandy
Anderson, Erin Braddock, Suzi Carter, Michelle Devevo, Jenny
Higginbotham, Candy Lloyd, Dana Luce, Amelia Oxendine, Julie Pittman,
Kim Reynolds, Amanda Smith, Shelly Smith, and Kendi Tanner, and Bat
Girl, Blake Braddock, Bat Boy, Bish Braddock, Equipment Manager, Mac
Wooten, and Coaches, Dale Braddock, Mike Nye, and Keith Price, brought
West Nassau its eighth state title, and
WHEREAS, after a 3-2 start, the West Nassau Lady Warriors recovered
to win the next 21 games in a row and, after having been state champion
seven times and runner-up three times in the last 16 years, once again
showed the rest of Florida what a team from Callahan could accomplish
with just the right amount of skill and the right amount of heart, and
WHEREAS, the West Nassau Lady Warriors beat their semi-final
opponent 12-2, winning by the 10-run rule in the fifth inning, and beat
their final opponent with a good, solid defensive game, winning the state
championship by a score of 3-0, and
WHEREAS, the West Nassau Lady Warriors, the coaches, and the staff
of this championship team exemplify the highest standards of team unity,
character, and leadership in the face of adversity, NOW, THEREFORE,

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

-was read the first time by title and the second time by title. On motion
by Rep. Crady, the resolution was adopted.

Recessed
On motion by Rep. Bo Johnson, the House stood in recess at 10:38 a.m.,
to reconvene at 6:45 p.m. today.

Reconvened
The House was called to order by the Speaker at 6:45 p.m. A quorum was
present.

Messages from the Senate

The Honorable T. K. Wetherell, Speaker
I am directed to inform the House of Representatives that the Senate has
adopted HCR 1H-Org.
Joe Brown, Secretary

The above concurrent resolution was ordered enrolled.

The Honorable T. K. Wetherell, Speaker
I am directed to inform the House of Representatives that the Senate has
passed SB 150-H and requests the concurrence of the House.
Joe Brown, Secretary

By the Committee on Commerce-
SB 150-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to bingo; creating s.
849.0931, F.S.; authorizing the conduct of bingo games by specified
organizations and prescribing conditions for the conduct of such games;
providing penalties; amending s. 718.114, 723.079, 849.09, 849.094, F.S.;
correcting cross-references; providing an effective date.
-was read the first time by title. On motion by Rep. Kelly, the rules
were waived by two-thirds vote and the bill was read the second time by
title.

Sansom
Saunders
Sembler
Silver
Simon
Nays-6

Simone
Smith, C.
Smith, K.
Stafford
Starks

33

Stone
Thomas
Tobin
Trammell
Valdes

Irvine Mims Ritchie
Langton Pruitt
Votes after roll call:
Yeas-Albright, Arnall, Goode, Rush
Nays-Hanson, Tobiassen
Yeas to Nays-Flagg, Buddy Johnson

Wise
Young

Viscusi

So the bill passed, as amended, and was immediately certified to the
Senate after engrossment.

Recessed
On motion by Rep. Bo Johnson, the House stood in recess at 6:48 p.m.,
to reconvene at 1:30 p.m. Thursday, June 4.

Reconvened
The House was called to order by the Speaker at 6:58 p.m.
JOINT SESSION
Pursuant to HCR 1H-Org., the members of the Senate, escorted by the
Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, were seated in the Chamber. The
President and President pro tempore joined the Speaker and the Speaker
pro tempore at the rostrum. The Secretary joined the Clerk at the front
desk.
The Speaker presented the gavel to Gwen Margolis, President of the
Senate, asking her to preside over the Joint Session.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE PRESIDING

Presentation of Governor

Representatives Kelly, Mortham, King, Ostrau, Bo Johnson, Silver, President Margolis presented the Honorable Lawton Chiles, Governor,
ReprHeale y and Mackenzie offered the following, Ostrau, Bo Jowho addressed the Joint Session as follows:
Healey and Mackenzie offered the following amendment:

Amendment 1-On page 10, between lines 17 and 18, insert:
Section 6. This act is repealed July 1, 1993, and shall be reviewed by
the Legislature prior to that date.
(and renumber subsequent section)
and the title is amended as follows:
On page 1, line 8, after the semicolon insert: providing for review and
repeal;

Governor's Address
FAIR SHARE PLAN
Seventeen months ago Buddy MacKay and I began our quest.
Because we limited our campaign contributions to $100 and thousands
of people helped us win, we have been free of any commitments or ties to
the special interests. Every day of these past 17 months, our goal has been
to strive with all our might to keep our campaign promise to give Florida
back to the people.

Rep. Kelly moved the adoption of the amendment, which was adopted. How are we doing?

On motion by Reps. Bo Johnson, Kelly and King, the rules were waived
by the required two-thirds vote and SB 150-H, as amended, was read the
third time by title. On passage, the vote was:
Yeas-93

Hoffmann
Holland
Holzendorf
Ireland
Jamerson
Jennings
Johnson, Bo
Johnson, Buddy
Jones, C. F.
Jones, Daryl
Jones, Dennis
Kelly
King
Laurent
Lewis
Liberti
Lippman
Logan
Lombard

Long
Mackenzie
Mackey
Martinez
McEwan
Mishkin
Mitchell
Morse
Mortham
Muscarella
Ostrau
Peeples
Press
Rayson
Reddick
Roberts
Rojas
Rudd
Safley

With your help, we've approved the nation's strongest reforms on
campaign finance, ethics and open government.
We've changed the way our schools and human services agency serve the
people of this state-we're giving them back to the communities; We're
empowering teachers, parents and other citizens to decide how best to meet
community needs for education, health and other services.
We've consolidated two of Florida's administrative agencies into one and
empowered all of our departments to cut waste and duplicition, and
reward their employees for making government work better for the people.
We've taken major steps toward reducing medical costs and making
health care available to all our citizens.
We've moved boldly to save the Everglades, and funded the second year
of Florida's crucial Preservation 2000 land acquisition program.
And, in the area of civil rights, we've enacted a law that could well
become a national standard for protecting minorities and women against
discrimination.
These are important steps in giving Florida back to the people.
Now we face an even bigger challenge.
We all know cost of state government has doubled in the last 10 years.
But why? Most of it's in just four areas: Medicaid increased 350 percent;

June 1, 1992

The Chair
Abrams
Arnold
Ascherl
Bainter
Banjanin
Bloom
Boyd
Brennan
Bronson
Burke
Chestnut
Chinoy
Clark
Clemons
Corr
Cosgrove
Crady
Davis

Feeney
Flagg
Foley
Frankel
Friedman
Geller
Gordon
Graber
Graham
Grindle
Guber
Hafner
Harden
Hargrett
Harris
Hawkes
Hawkins
Healey
Hill

34 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE

Aid to Families with Dependent Children 150 percent; Prisons and
Corrections 150 percent; Education 56 percent. All the rest of state
government increased less than five percent.
Those figures show that we've been spending our money in the wrong
places. Paying to try to fix a problem after it occurs, rather than prevent
it in the first place.
Any business that suffered the number of failures and rejects we've
experienced would shut down the factory, go back and redesign the
assembly line and retrain the workers.
And they would act as quickly as they could. They wouldn't wait for a
better time.
That's what we must do. We can't shut down the factory, so we must
continue trying to repair or imprison our failures while also retooling,
redesigning and retraining in order to minimize and prevent future
failures.
Today we deal with dropouts with expensive programs to try to get a 16-
year-old back in school.
Wrong.
That approach seldom works.
The answer is to try to start with a healthy baby.
If they're disadvantaged, provide them with developmental day care-
pre-kindergarten-Head Start. Then they start the first grade physically
and mentally healthy, ready to learn. Then we must give them a curriculum
that's meaningful and challenging, and it must be taught by motivated
teachers.
Every dollar we spend at the beginning saves five or ten dollars down the
road.
This is the strategy of investing.
Spending wisely on prevention and correction at the earliest time is the
only way to stop the runaway cost of state government.
You helped us start down this path with Healthy Start, making Florida
the first state in the nation to give pre-natal and infant health care to every
woman and child. This program will enable us to deliver healthy babies and
build healthy children at a fraction of the cost we are now paying.
This is the smart, hardnosed, money-wise thing to do. You agreed. You
passed it into law. Why would you now propose to cut the heart out of the
funding on July 1, leaving another broken promise?
Why would you not act now in all these crucial areas, before the federal
courts take over a half dozen of our social services programs and force our
costs even higher?
The budget you passed and I vetoed would have provided no money to
start preventing failures and cost overruns. It would have crippled our
efforts to guide juvenile delinquents away from crime and toward
productive lives, kept us from opening new prisons that are sitting empty,
forced elder Floridians into nursing homes, closed the doors of our
community colleges and universities to qualified students, laid off teachers
and forced other drastic cuts in education.
None of these actions save money. They all add to future costs. They are
all very bad public policy.
We know we have been in the grip of a national recession that's forced
us to cut two billion dollars from our state budget.
We know the special interests are not paying their fair share, when 94
percent of Florida's businesses pay no corporate income tax.
We know our sales tax is lopsided and unfair, when our poorest families
pay five times more of their income than do our richest households. The
special interests with their high-paid lobbyists have gotten so many
loopholes that we have been taxing the same people over and over again.
Buddy and I are proposing a Fair Share Plan to abolish loopholes and
call on more interests and people who have not been paying their fair share.
With this broader tax base we can give some relief to average taxpayers who

have been paying too much-by rolling the sales tax back from six cents
to five cents on the dollar.
And we propose to cut in half the school property taxes paid by the
owners of homes valued under $150,000. That's tax relief on 97 percent of
all the homesteads in Florida.

1]

* More than 1,000 delinquents responsible for violent crimes would
remain free to strike again because we'd have nowhere to put them.
* 8,200 more elder Floridians will go on our waiting list for desperately
needed services;

E OF REPRESENTATIVES June 1, 1992

Under our Fair Share Plan the average taxpayer would pay less than
now. The special interests will pay their fair share.
Will it be easy? No.
Will it be risky? Yes.
But those are the wrong questions.
Do you believe it is the right thing to do? That's the question.
What about the march on the Capitol, and all those tea bags they
brought me? Well, I was a little worried, but guess what?
I found the tea factory. It's right down the street, within a block from
where I live. It's a FOUR MILLION DOLLAR edifice that makes the
Governor's Mansion look like a backwoods privy. And the owners boasted
to me that it's all paid for-all FOUR MILLION DOLLARS of it. They
paid for it out of cash they had on hand.
It's got a board room table that's so long you can't see from one end to
the other. And around it sits the high chiefs of the railroads, the electric
and gas companies, the telephone companies, the insurance companies, the
sugar industry, the grocery and merchandise giants, the road contractors-
You know, all those small business guys toughing it out and trying to make
a payroll.
The hypocrisy of the big business lobby using the Boston Tea Party as
its symbol! The American patriots were saying, "No taxation without
representation." Have these powerful interests not been represented? Look
at their campaign contributions. Look at their tax breaks.
For shame, Van Poole, Chairman of the Florida Republican Party-for
climbing in bed with the lobbyists and trying to make political hay out of
the plight and future of Florida's children. Van, do you speak for the Party
of Lincoln? Or does Jim Smith, the Republican Party's highest elected
official-or Alex Courtelis, Mr. Republican, Co-chair of the George Bush
Re-Election Committee-both of whom say more revenue is needed and
this should not become a partisan issue.
I agree with them. This should not be a partisan issue.
Senator Ander Crenshaw-As the Senate's Republican leader, you will
shortly be speaking to the people of Florida. Tell them your plan for
dealing with the exploding costs of health care, social services, prisons.
Speak to the 6,000 teachers we're firing and the 20,000 high school
graduates we'll deny enrollment in our colleges this year.
But please don't tell them this is not the time, or that there's plenty of
money if we just spend it better. Compare your plan and its details with
my five-year plan for better, more efficient and responsive government.
Tell them what you intend to do about the lottery fraud. How would you
give that money back to the teachers, parents and school kids?
And tell Florida's homeowners whether or not you want to give them
some relief on their property taxes. Tell Florida's small businesses whether
or not you want to give them some relief on their excessive worker's comp
costs.
Let's get real. People are tired of being patronized, lied to, and misled.
They want straight talk, commitment and follow through.
People want change.
That's what the Ross Perot phenomenon is all about. People perceive
him as the ultimate agent of change.
Many of you have been asking me what do I really want?
What can we settle this thing for? Why do I stubbornly insist on $1.3
billion?
There is no magic in the number. It's simply the amount it takes to fund
some of the worst cuts we've had to make-and start-just start our new
strategy to prevent unnecessary suffering and costs. To spend smart.
I've heard the cloakroom talk that I could get $500 million if I'd claim
victory and let you go home and campaign. In the old days maybe that's
a good deal, but I'm hoisted on my promise to tax fairly and spend wisely.
To do $500 million would only allow us to bring education to last year's
level.
"* Thousands more children will be abused and neglected;

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE]

"* Murderers and rapists will be among the criminals freed early because
our prisons are too crowded.
The list of consequences goes on and on. We could not fund juvenile
justice. You passed the program just two years ago. If you're not going to
fund it, repeal it.
We could not give teachers and parents the lottery money promised
them. We could not start preventing problems before they occur. We could
not reduce those extra school property taxes that the Legislature never
should have required in the first place.
I will insist on buying back the lottery so that money will go for real
school enhancements, as the voters were promised. I will insist on starting
our prevention programs now, so we can save money later. And I will insist
on giving Florida's homeowners the property tax relief they deserve.
New revenue must be fairly raised and not unfairly placed on those who
already are paying more than their fair share.
You have the constitutional right to override my decision. So you may
take my sword from me, but I shall never surrender it.
If you do that, then in the words of a Scottish bard: "I shall lay me doone
and lick me wounds and rise to fight again another day."
Look, I know this is hard.
I know many people are saying now is not the right time to raise taxes.
But many of them are already paying too much, and our plan would give
them a break for a change. It never will be the right time to raise taxes. But
it's always the right time to do what is right and what is fair.
Many people are saying we haven't finished cleaning up the waste-
rightsizing-and they are so right. But when they say, Lawton, finish the
cleanup and then come talk to me about taxes, they're wrong. Because you
never finish. Rightsizing is a state of mind. You must work at it every day.
But you and I know we've made a heckuva start, and we're committed
to continue as hard as we can. You find additional ways to help us save,
and see if I don't put them into play.
I've been all over this state talking about Fair Share and spending smart.
I met a lot of initial hostility based on the lies people were told in the past
and promises that weren't kept. But when the people listened to our plan,
they were not against closing tax loopholes.
They agreed we must responsibly address the root cause of our problems.
They passionately believe in quality education for our kids and affordable
health care for all our people.
They know we must deal with children at risk. They know we need
affordable housing. They want to preserve our environment for their
children and grandchildren. And they are sick-sick to death-of the
campaign money buying special favors.
They will even listen to things they don't want to hear if they believe you
are telling the truth.
They want us to stand for something. To have the courage and faith to
be willing to take a risk for what's right.
General Douglas MacArthur, winner of our nation's highest military
honors, spoke of moral courage this way: "It's the age-old struggle-the
roar of the crowd on one side and the voice of your conscience on the other."
I know that I have not been the delightful bearer of glad tidings. And
many people would like to kill the messenger. But I have never felt as good
in my whole life. I think it's because I'm doing exactly what I know is
right-with no reservations.
Time is short.
My door is always open. Call me day or night. I'll meet with you anytime,
anywhere.
I appeal to you not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Floridians-the
people's servants.
Whether you agree or not, do what you feel in your hearts is right-and
do it with all your might-and I will respect you.
If you do less, I will understand-for I have been there. But I'll feel sorry
for what you and the people will miss.
Daniel was a prophet of the Lord who could interpret signs and visions.

Belshazzar, King of Babylon, made a great feast for a thousand of his
Lords. During the feast, fingers of a hand wrote on the wall of the hall. The

June 1, 1992

amended; which is engaged in charitable, civic, community, benevolent,
religious, or scholastic works or other similar activities; and which has been
in existence and active for a period of 3 years or more.
(d) "Objects" means a set of 75 balls or other precision shapes that are
imprinted with letters and numbers in such a way that numbers 1 through

E OF REPRESENTATIVES 35

King was terrified and called on all his wise men to interpret, but they
couldn't. The Queen remembered Daniel and he was called to interpret the
writing.
Daniel pointed out to the King that, despite all the blessings he had
received, he was using Temple vessels to drink in praise of the Gods of gold
and silver. Daniel said the writing was: "MENE, MENE, TEKEL,
UPHARSIN.". ."You have been weighed in the balances, and found
wanting."
You and I are the people's elected representatives. We are the people's
designated rulers.
Who do we pay homage to? When our feast is over, will the fingers write,
"You have been weighed in the balances, and found wanting?"
Or will they write, "Well done good and faithful servants."
On motion by Senator Thomas, the Joint Session was dissolved at
7:24 p.m. and the Senators were escorted from the Chamber by the
Sergeant at Arms of the Senate.

Reconvened
The House was called to order by the Speaker at 7:27 p.m. A quorum was
present.

Messages from the Senate

The Honorable T. K. Wetherell, Speaker
I am directed to inform the House of Representatives that the Senate has
passed HB 31-H, with amendment, and requests the concurrence of the
House.
Joe Brown, Secretary

HB 31-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to bingo; reenacting s.
849.093, F.S., as amended by section 1 of ch. 91-421, Laws of Florida,
relating to exemptions for charitable, nonprofit, or veterans' organizations;
reenacting s. 723.079(8), F.S., as amended by section 2 of ch. 91-421, Laws
of Florida, relating to conduct of bingo by mobile homeowners'
associations; amending section 3 of ch. 91-421, Laws of Florida, relating to
review and repeal of s. 849.093, F.S.; providing for contingent retroactivity;
providing an effective date.

Senate Amendment 1-Strike everything after the enacting clause
and insert:
Section 1. Section 849.0931, Florida Statutes, is created to read:
849.0931 Charitable, nonprofit, or veterans' organizations; certain
endeavors permitted.-
(1) As used in this section:
(a) "Bingo game" means and refers to the activity, commonly known as
"bingo," in which participants pay a sum of money for the use of one or
more bingo cards. When the game commences, numbers are drawn by
chance, one by one, and announced. The players cover or mark those
numbers on the bingo cards which they have purchased until a player
receives a given order of numbers in sequence that has been preannounced
for that particular game. This player calls out "bingo" and is declared the
winner of a predetermined prize. More than one game may be played upon
a bingo card, and numbers called for one game may be used for a succeeding
game or games.
(b) "Bingo card" means and refers to the flat piece of paper or thin
pasteboard employed by players engaged in the game of bingo. The bingo
card shall have not fewer than 24 playing numbers printed on it. These
playing numbers shall range from 1 through 75, inclusive. More than one
set of bingo numbers may be printed on any single piece of paper.
(c) "Charitable, nonprofit, or veterans' organization" means an
organization which has qualified for exemption from federal income tax as
an exempt organization under the provisions of s. 501(c) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954 or s. 528 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as

36 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE

15 are marked with the letter "B," numbers 16 through 30 are marked with
the letter "I," numbers 31 through 45 are marked with the letter "N,"
numbers 46 through 60 are marked with the letter "G," and numbers 61
through 75 are marked with the letter "O."
(e) "Rack" means the container in which the objects are placed after
being drawn and announced.
(f) "Receptacle" means the container from which the objects are drawn
or ejected.
(g) "Session" means a designated set of games played in a day or part
of a day.
(2)(a) None of the provisions of this chapter shall be construed to
prohibit or prevent charitable, nonprofit, or veterans' organizations
engaged in charitable, civic, community, benevolent, religious, or scholastic
works or other similar endeavors, which organizations have been in
existence and active for a period of 3 years or more, from conducting bingo
games, provided the entire proceeds derived from the conduct of such
games, less actual business expenses for articles designed for and essential
to the operation, conduct, and playing of bingo, are donated by such
organizations to the endeavors mentioned above. In no case may the net
proceeds from the conduct of such games be used for any other purpose
whatsoever. The proceeds derived from the conduct of bingo games shall
not be considered solicitation of public donations.
(b) It is the express intent of the Legislature that no charitable,
nonprofit, or veterans' organization serve as a sponsor of a bingo game
conducted by another, but such organization may only be directly involved
in the conduct of such a game as provided in this act.
(3) If an organization is not engaged in efforts of the type set out above,
its right to conduct bingo games hereunder is conditioned upon the return
of all the proceeds from such games to the players in the form of prizes.
If at the conclusion of play on any day during which a bingo game is allowed
to be played under this section there remain proceeds which have not been
paid out as prizes, the organization conducting the game shall at the next
scheduled day of play conduct bingo games without any charge to the
players and shall continue to do so until the proceeds carried over from the
previous days played have been exhausted. This provision in no way
extends the limitation on the number of prize or jackpot games allowed in
1 day as provided for in subsection (5).
(4) The right of a condominium association, a mobile home owners'
association, or a group of residents of a mobile home park as defined in
chapter 723 to conduct bingo is conditioned upon the return of the net
proceeds from such games to players in the form of prizes after having
deducted the actual business expenses for such games for articles designed
for and essential to the operation, conduct, and playing of bingo. Any net
proceeds remaining after paying prizes may be donated by the association
to a charitable, nonprofit, or veterans' organization which is exempt from
federal income tax under the provisions of s. 501(c) of the Internal Revenue
Code to be used in such recipient organization's charitable, civic,
community, benevolent, religious, or scholastic works or similar activities
or, in the alternative, such remaining proceeds shall be used as specified
in subsection (3).
(5) No jackpot shall exceed the value of $250 in actual money or its
equivalent, and there shall be no more than three jackpots in any one
session of bingo.
(6) The number of days per week during which organizations
authorized hereunder may conduct bingo may not exceed 2.
(7) There shall be no more than three jackpots on any one day of play.
All other game prizes shall not exceed $50.
(8) Each person involved in the conduct of any bingo game must be a
resident of the community where the organization is located and a bona
fide member of the organization sponsoring such game and may not be
compensated in any way for operation of such bingo game. When bingo
games are conducted by a charitable, nonprofit, or veterans' organization,
the organization conducting the bingo games shall be required to designate
up to three members of that organization to be in charge of the games, one
of whom shall be present during the entire session at which the bingo games

are conducted. The organization conducting the bingo games is responsible
for posting a notice, which notice states the name of the organization and
the designated member or members, in a conspicuous place on the premises
at which the session is held. In no event may a caller in a bingo game be
a participant in that bingo game.

]

verified in the presence of another player. Any player shall be entitled at
the time the winner is determined to call for a verification of numbers
drawn. The verification shall be in the presence of the member designated
to be in charge of the occasion or, if such person is also the caller, in the
presence of an officer of the licensee.

E OF REPRESENTATIVES June 1, 1992

(9) Every charitable, nonprofit, or veterans' organization involved in
the conduct of a bingo game must be located in the county, or within a 15-
mile radius of, where the bingo game is located.
(10)(a) No one under 18 years of age shall be allowed to play any bingo
game or be involved in the conduct of a bingo game in any way.
(b) Any organization conducting bingo open to the public may refuse
entry to any person who is objectionable or undesirable to the sponsoring
organization, but such refusal of entry shall not be on the basis of race,
creed, color, religion, sex, national origin, marital status, or physical
handicap.
(11) Bingo games may be held only on the following premises:
(a) Property owned by the charitable, nonprofit, or veterans'
organization.
(b) Property owned by the charitable, nonprofit, or veterans'
organization that will benefit by the proceeds.
(c) Property leased for a period of not less than 1 year by a charitable,
nonprofit, or veterans' organization, providing the lease or rental
agreement does not provide for the payment of a percentage of the
proceeds generated at such premises to the lessor or any other party and
providing the rental rate for such premises does not exceed the rental rates
charged for similar premises in the same locale.
(d) Property owned by a municipality or a county when the governing
authority has, by appropriate ordinance or resolution, specifically
authorized the use of such property for the conduct of such games.
(e) With respect to bingo games conducted by a condominium
association, a mobile home owners' association, or a group of residents of
a mobile home park as defined in chapter 723, property owned by the
association, property owned by the residents of the mobile home park, or
property which is a common area located within the condominium or
mobile home park.
(12) Each bingo game shall be conducted in accordance with the
following rules:
(a) The objects, whether drawn or ejected, shall be essentially equal as
to size, shape, weight, and balance and as to all other characteristics that
may control their selection from the receptacle. The caller shall cancel any
game if, during the course of a game, the mechanism used in the drawing
or ejection of objects becomes jammed in such a manner as to interfere with
the accurate determination of the next number to be announced or if the
caller determines that more than one object is labeled with the same
number or that there is a number to be drawn without a corresponding
object. Any player in a game canceled pursuant to this paragraph shall be
permitted to play the next game free of charge.
(b) Prior to commencement of any bingo session, the member in charge
shall cause a verification to be made of all objects to be placed in the
receptacle and shall inspect the objects in the presence of a disinterested
person to ensure that all objects are present and that there are no
duplications or omissions of numbers on the objects. Any player shall be
entitled to call for a verification of numbers before, during, and after a
session.
(c) The card or sheet on which the game is played shall be part of a
deck, group, or series, no two of which may be alike in any given game.
(d) All numbers shall be visibly displayed after being drawn and before
being placed in the rack.
(e) A bona fide bingo shall consist of a predesignated arrangement of
numbers on a card or sheet that correspond with the numbers on the
objects drawn from the receptacle and announced. Errors in numbers
announced or misplaced in the rack may not be recognized as a bingo.
(f) When a caller has started to vocally announce a number, he shall
complete the call. If any player has obtained a bingo on a previous number,
such player will share the prize with the player who gained bingo on the
last number called.
(g) Numbers on the winning cards or sheets shall be announced and

(h) Upon determining a winner, the caller shall ask, "Are there any
other winners?" If no one replies, the caller shall declare the game closed.
No other player is entitled to share the prize unless he has declared a bingo
prior to this announcement.
(i) Seats may not be held or reserved by an organization or person
involved in the conduct of any bingo game for players not present, nor may
any cards be set aside, held, or reserved from one session to another for any
player.
(13) Any organization or other person who willfully and knowingly
violates any provision of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first
degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. For a second or
subsequent offense, the organization or other person is guilty of a felony
of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s.
775.084.
Section 2. Section 718.114, Florida Statutes, is amended to read:
718.114 Association powers.-An association has the power to enter
into agreements, to acquire leaseholds, memberships, and other possessory
or use interests in lands or facilities such as country clubs, golf courses,
marinas, and other recreational facilities. It has this power whether or not
the lands or facilities are contiguous to the lands of the condominium, if
they are intended to provide enjoyment, recreation, or other use or benefit
to the unit owners. All of these leaseholds, memberships, and other
possessory or use interests existing or created at the time of recording the
declaration must be stated and fully described in the declaration.
Subsequent to the recording of the declaration, the association may not
acquire or enter into agreements acquiring these leaseholds, memberships,
or other possessory or use interests except as authorized by the declaration.
The declaration may provide that the rental, membership fees, operations,
replacements, and other expenses are common expenses and may impose
covenants and restrictions concerning their use and may contain other
provisions not inconsistent with this chapter. A condominium association
may conduct bingo games as provided in s. 849.0931 s. 849.093.
Section 3. Subsection (8) of section 723.079, Florida Statutes, as
amended by section 15 of chapter 92-148, Laws of Florida, is amended to
read:
723.079 Powers and duties of homeowners' association.-
(8) Any mobile home owners' association or group of residents of a
mobile home park as defined in this chapter may conduct bingo games as
provided in s. 849.0931 -. 849.093.
Section 4. Subsection (3) of section 849.09, Florida Statutes, is
amended to read:
849.09 Lottery prohibited; exceptions.-
(3) Any person who is convicted of violating any of the provisions of
paragraph (e), paragraph (f), paragraph (g), paragraph (i), or paragraph (k)
of subsection (1) is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable
as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. Any person who, having been
convicted of violating any provision thereof, thereafter violates any
provision thereof is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as
provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. The provisions of this
section do not apply to bingo as provided for in s. 849.0931 s. 849.093.

37

Section 5. Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 849.094, Florida
Statutes, is amended to read:
849.094 Game promotion in connection with sale of consumer products
or services.-
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) "Game promotion" means, but is not limited to, a contest, game of
chance, or gift enterprise, conducted within or throughout the state and
other states in connection with the sale of consumer products or services,
and in which the elements of chance and prize are present. However, "game
promotion" shall not be construed to apply to bingo games conducted
pursuant to s. 849.0931 s5.849.093.
Section 6. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law.
And the title is amended as follows:
In title, strike everything before the enacting clause and insert:
A bill to be entitled An act relating to bingo; creating s. 849.0931, F.S.;
authorizing the conduct of bingo games by specified organizations and
prescribing conditions for the conduct of such games; providing penalties;
amending s. 718.114, 723.079, 849.09, 849.094, F.S.; correcting cross-
references; providing an effective date.
WHEREAS, the activity known as "bingo" provides recreation for the
citizens of this state and eases the tax burden on the state by generating
funds for charity, and
WHEREAS, violations of the criminal laws regulating the conduct of
bingo undermine charitable endeavors and harm the public, and
WHEREAS, a violation of the laws regulating bingo activities demands
immediate action by law enforcement, NOW, THEREFORE,
On motion by Rep. Bo Johnson, the House refused to concur in Senate
Amendment 1 and requested the Senate to recede therefrom. The action,
together with the bill and amendment thereto, was immediately certified
to the Senate.

Motion to Recess
Rep. Bo Johnson moved that the House stand in recess for the purpose
of holding committee meetings and conducting other House business, to
reconvene at 1:30 p.m., Thursday, June 4. The motion was agreed to.

Recorded Votes
Rep. Chestnut:
Yea-HB 31-H
Rep. Rayson:
Yea-HB 31-H
Rep. Rush:
Yea-HB 31-H

Recessed
Pursuant to the motion previously agreed to, the House recessed at
7:28 p.m., to reconvene at 1:30 p.m., Thursday, June 4.

June 1, 1992

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SThe JournalOFTHE

House of Representatives

EIGHTH SPECIAL SESSION-"H" of 1990-1992

The House was called to order by the Speaker at 1:30 p.m.

Prayer
The following prayer was offered by the Reverend Hal Marchman,
Central Baptist Church, Daytona Beach.
Dear Lord and Father of all mankind, forgive our foolish ways. Take
from our souls the strain and the stress and let our ordered lives confess
the beauty of Thy peace. Grant us wisdom, grant us courage for the living
of these days. Shalom and Amen.
The following Members were recorded present:

The Chair
Abrams
Albright
Arnall
Arnold
Ascherl
Bainter
Banjanin
Boyd
Brennan
Bronson
Brown
Burke
Chestnut
Chinoy
Clemons
Corr
Cosgrove
Crady
Davis
De Grandy
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Feeney
Figg
Flagg
Foley
Frankel
Friedman

Garcia
Geller
Glickman
Goode
Gordon
Graber
Graham
Guber
Gutman
Hafner
Hanson
Harden
Hargrett
Harris
Hawkes
Hawkins
Healey
Hill
Hoffmann
Holland
Holzendorf
Huenink
Ireland
Irvine
Jamerson
Jennings
Johnson, Bo
Johnson, Buddy
Jones, C. F.

Jones, Daryl
Jones, Dennis
King
Langton
Laurent
Lawson
Lewis
Liberti
Lippman
Logan
Lombard
Long
Mackenzie
Mackey
Martinez
McEwan
Mims
Mishkin
Mitchell
Morse
Muscarella
Ostrau
Peeples
Press
Pruitt
Rayson
Reaves
Reddick
Ritchie

Roberts
Rojas
Rudd
Rush
Safley
Sanderson
Sansom
Saunders
Sembler
Silver
Simon
Simone
Smith, C.
Smith, K.
Stafford
Starks
Stone
Thomas
Tobiassen
Tobin
Trammell
Valdes
Viscusi
Wallace
Webster
Wise
Young

Excused: Rep. Bloom, to attend son's graduation in Boston; Rep. Clark,
due to prior district commitments; Rep. Grindle, due to business
commitment; Rep. Kelly, to attend the Tenth Annual Leaders Advanced
Management Program presented by the State Legislative Leaders
Foundation and Boston University; Rep. Mortham, to attend son's
graduation from high school; Rep. Sindler, due to serving on mandatory
tour of duty in Honduras as a Captain in the U.S. Army Reserves.
A quorum was present.

Pledge
The Members, led by Ms. Lorian Miles and Mrs. Linda Miles, pledged
allegiance to the Flag. They served at the invitation of Rep. Logan. Ms.
Lorian Miles attends Ruediger Elementary School in Tallahassee.

The Journal
The Journal of June 1 was corrected and approved as follows: On page
12, column 2, lines 9 and 10 from the top, delete said lines and insert:
Referred to the Committees on Insurance and Appropriations.

Messages from the Senate

The Honorable T. K. Wetherell, Speaker
I am directed to inform the House of Representatives that the Senate has
passed SBs 16-H, 44-H, 104-H and requests the concurrence of the House.
Joe Brown, Secretary

By Senator Thurman-
SB 16-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to Citrus County,
Homosassa Special Water District; amending section 2 of chapter 59-1177,
Laws of Florida, as amended; increasing the membership of the board of
commissioners of the district from three to five; providing for an election
for the additional members; decreasing the maximum amount of
compensation that may be provided to the members of the board;
providing for an increase in such compensation upon approval by the
electors of the district; providing for a referendum; providing an effective
date.

Proof of publication of the required notice was attached.
-was read the first time by title and placed on the Calendar without
reference.

By Senator Johnson-
SB 44-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to the offense of witness
tampering; amending s. 914.22, F.S.; prohibiting causing or inducing a
person to testify untruthfully in an official investigation or proceeding, for
which criminal penalties are provided; reenacting ss. 914.24(1)(a), (2)(a),
772.102(1)(a), and 895.02(1)(a), F.S., relating to civil actions to restrain
harassment of a victim or witness, civil remedies for criminal practices, and
racketeering offenses, to incorporate the amendment in references thereto;
providing an effective date.
-was read the first time by title and placed on the Calendar without
reference.

By Senator Grant-
SB 104-H-A bill to be entitled An act relating to Hillsborough
County; repealing ch. 84-449, Laws of Florida, relating to the Northdale
Maintenance District; abolishing the present district, transferring its
assets and obligations to the county or to a successor district created by

38

Number 2

Thursday, June 4, 1992

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ordinance, and providing for assumption of the present district's
obligations and liabilities by the county or the successor district; providing
an effective date.

Proof of publication of the required notice was attached.
-was read the first time by title and placed on the Calendar without
reference.

Admitted for Introduction
On motion by Rep. Bo Johnson, agreed to by the required constitutional
two-thirds vote, HRs 51, 127, 303, 311 and 345 were admitted for
introduction, the Speaker having ruled the measures were outside the
purview of the Call.

Reports of the Committee on Rules & Calendar
Special and Continuing Order Calendar

June 3, 1992

The Honorable T. K. Wetherell
Speaker, House of Representatives

Sir:
Your Committee on Rules & Calendar herewith submits as the Special
and Continuing Order Calendar under Rule 8.15, beginning on Thursday,
June 4, 1992.
I. Consideration of the following bills: (Pending Committee Action)
HB 49-H-Offense of Witness Tampering
HB 171-H-Natural Gas Transmission Pipelines
HB 55-H-Financial Institutions/Sunset
CS/HB 67-H-Adult Foster Homes/Licensure
HB 107-H-Natural Resources Dept./Fuel Revenue
HB 99-H-Public Libraries/Grants
HB 157-H-Unemployment Compensation Benefits
HB 187-H-Private Activity Bonds
CS/HB 241-H-Agric. & Consumer Services Dept.
CS/HB 11-H-Delinquent Children
CS/HB 57-H-Fiscal Matters
CS/HBs 197-H, 19-H & 131-H-State Correctional System
HB 327-H-Solid Waste Management Act
II. Consideration of the following Claims Bills:
HB 225-H-Relief/Mr. & Mrs. Darriel Swindell
CS/HB 257-H-Relief/Mary, Brian & Amy Boyle
HB 159-H-Relief/Cecil S. Head
(Pending committee report)
HB 297-H-Relief/The King Family
III. Consideration of the following Local Bills:
HB 13-H-City of Jacksonville/Charter
HB 69-H-Northdale Maintenance District
HB 81-H-Acme Improvement District
(Pending committee withdrawal)
HB 137-H-Citrus Co./Homosassa Water District
HB 153-H-City of Jacksonville/Town of Baldwin

Members may either file amendments directly with the Clerk or, for those
members desiring drafting assistance, amendments may be filed with the
Committee on Appropriations.
Amendments filed directly with the Clerk will be received in the
House Chamber.
Amendments prepared by the Committee on Appropriations, in
response to a request made by members prior to the cut-off time, will
be considered timely filed.
All amendments shall be in compliance with House Rule 11.13 and must
be technically correct.
A quorum of the Committee was present in person, and a majority of those
present agreed to the above Report.
Respectfully submitted,
Bolley L. Johnson, Chairman
On motion by Rep. Bo Johnson, the rules were waived and the above
report was adopted.
Report Relating to Remarks to be Spread upon the Journal

June 4, 1992

The Honorable T. K. Wetherell
Speaker, House of Representatives

Sir:
Your Committee on Rules & Calendar recommends that the attached
remarks relating to reapportionment from Wednesday, March 4,
Thursday, March 5, Friday, March 6, Friday, March 13, Wednesday,
March 25, Thursday, April 2, Friday, April 3, Saturday, April 4, Thursday,
April 9, and Friday, April 10, 1992 be spread upon the next House Journal.
A quorum of the Committee was present in person, and a majority of those
present agreed to the above Report.
Respectfully submitted,
Bolley L. Johnson, Chairman
On motion by Rep. Bo Johnson, the rules were waived and the above
report was adopted.

Remarks from March 4, 1992 on HJR 2491
Speaker Wetherell: OK. Mr. Wallace, are you ready? Where are
you? All right, let's take up the Special Order Calendar. Now, before I
recognize Mr. Wallace, Members, it is very important that the sound
system be able to pick up the remarks of each person relative to their
comments on this bill. It would be most appreciated if you would take your
conversations somewhere other than around the blue chairs. It really does
help. It helps Mr. Phelps, and it helps save us money, as we have to have
transcribers do all this, because I'm sure they're going to want it on the
records. So please, give the Members your attention that are debating and
discussing the issues and take them somewhere outside the Chamber. Dr.
Thomas.
Rep. Thomas: For purposes of a motion, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker Wetherell: Yes, sir.

A quorum of the Committee was present in person, and a majority of Rep. Thomas: I move you, Sir, that the remarks of all the Members
those present agreed to the above Report. concerning reapportionment be spread upon the Journal.

Respectfully submitted,
Bolley L. Johnson, Chairman
On motion by Rep. Bo Johnson, the above report was adopted.
Floor Amendment Procedure For Appropriations Bills

The Honorable T. K. Wetherell June 4, 1992
Speaker, House of Representatives
Sir:
Your Committee on Rules & Calendar respectfully submits the following
report which outlines a procedure for floor action on the general
appropriations and appropriations implementing bills.
The official cut-off time for transmitting all floor amendments to the Clerk
for HB 251H and HB 253H for consideration, shall be Tuesday, June 9,
1992 at 5:00 p.m.

Speaker Wetherell: OK. Without objection, that's referred to
Rules, and we'll deal with it.
Rep. Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker Wetherell: OK. Take up and read the first bill on the
Special Order Calendar.
Reading Clerk: By the Committee on Reapportionment and
Representative Wallace and others, HJR 2491, a joint resolution of
apportionment; providing for the apportionment of the House of
Representatives and the Senate; adopting the federal-
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Wallace.
Rep. Wallace: Mr. Speaker, I would ask permission to approach the
well.
Speaker Wetherell: Mr. Wallace, you are recognized to approach
the well.

June 4, 1992

39

40 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE

Rep. Wallace: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My introductory remarks
today are going to be brief. We are on HJR 2491. This joint resolution is
a House joint resolution which contains redistricting plans for both the
Florida House and the Florida Senate. The Senate plan contains 40 single-
member districts. The House plan contains 120 single-member districts.
Back on the 19th of September, we started our 32 public hearings around
the state on the subject of redistricting. Those public hearings continued
into early December. Upon the conclusion of those public hearings,
Representatives Mackey and Burke, respectively, the Chairs of the House
and Senate subcommittees of our reapportionment committee, began work
on the proposed committee bills. Those bills, proposed committee bills,
were presented. We had a three-hour teleconference proceeding and
received input and comment from the public around the state on those
proposals. Those proposals were taken to the full committee on
reapportionment and each of them was passed without amendment in the
full committee one week ago today. The Members have had an opportunity
to draw statewide amendments which will be considered on the floor today.
It is our intention, Mr. Speaker, that we take up the Senate amendments
first, the amendments to the Senate portion of the plan, and work through
those, and then we take up the amendments to the House portion of the
joint resolution. Then we will have completed our work on the joint
resolution and it will be available for third reading.
I would like to extend the opportunity for Representative Burke and
Representative Mackey to give a brief overview of the respective portions
of the House joint resolution which is before us today. Mr. Speaker, it
would be my recommendation that we first recognize Representative
Burke to approach the well and present the Senate plan from HJR 2491.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Burke is recognized to
approach the well and make comments on the Senate reapportionment
plan.
Rep. Burke: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Chairman,
Members of the House, I am pleased at this time to be able to bring you
the plan for reapportionment of the Florida Senate. It represents a great
deal of work by a great deal of people. What I hope that we can do is
manage to see the plan represented by these amendments as they are, and
not necessarily how we want them to be. Let me just say this, that one thing
the Speaker decided early on is that the House has an obligation to the
people of Florida to pass a completed reapportionment plan. It is not our
intention to simply let the House do the House plan and the Senate do the
Senate plan. It is our constitutional obligation to do a whole plan. We've
attempted to do this, and we've attempted to do this in a manner that is
in accord with the Florida Constitution, the United States [Constitution]
and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended in 1982.
We have also attempted to do it in the spirit as well as in the letter of
the law. The question before the House today is not how many districts
have a given level of minority population. This is not an attempt to give
a proportionate representation to minorities or any group in Florida.
However, the real test that we have here today in accord with the letter and
the spirit of the Voting Rights Act is whether we will create districts that
give minorities an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their own
choice. A major factor in how you do these districts, and we looked at them,
is how they performed as minority districts. There were several factors that
worked into the answer to that question-one was how the district had
voted in the past.
In order to understand how we approach minority districts and how they
performed, you have to look at Florida on a regional basis. Over the years,
we've seen that African-American candidates need a stronger black voting-
age population in North and Central Florida than they did in South
Florida. So, ordinarily what happens is that, in North Florida, we have
fewer ethnic crossover votes than in South Florida. So, ordinarily what
happens is that, you have North Florida districts that need to have a 45
to 50 percent black, non-hispanic voting-age population to be effective,
while South Florida districts need a much smaller percentage.

We also can see that hispanic districts generally need more than 55
percent hispanic population before they started electing hispanic
candidates. We saw that in 1982, when we first went to single-member
districts, we saw that occur. In fact, not until 1984 did we get a significant
number of hispanic candidates elected in districts that were less than 65

]

E OF REPRESENTATIVES June 4, 1992

percent hispanic voting-age population. Another factor is how manageable
"a district is, and obviously, a district that runs hundreds of miles through
"a third of the counties in the state and through a half dozen media markets
is not necessarily winnable for a candidate without a great deal of money
to expend.
Finally, Mr. Speaker and Members, we have tried to look at the
communities of interest in this state and tried not to split a trickle in a
natural minority community. These are some of the things that we have
to explore as we take up the plan.
Now, to talk about the plan of the Senate by the House. Mr. Speaker,
what we have here is a plan that keeps all of the promises of the spirit and
the letter of the Voting Rights Act, of the Florida Constitution and the
United States Constitution. We have here from the House a plan that has
four Senate districts that will elect black candidates. There are three
Senate districts that will just as surely elect hispanic candidates. So, we
would expect that we will have seven minority districts where we'll have
black senators next year in the Florida Senate. I think you will find that
this is as large as any other plan that is being presented and having seven
real districts.
The districts that we have here have consistently supported black
candidates. We looked at the Alcee Hastings races, we looked at the
Leander Shaw race, and we looked at the Jesse Jackson presidential
primary. In the four black districts that we have, District 7, which is based
in Jacksonville, is one which Mr. Shaw and Mr. Hastings won handily in
1990. And Reverend Jackson, in the presidential primary, won it two to one
in 1988. And District 35, which is in Broward County and goes up to Palm
Beach County, Mr. Hastings and Shaw won three to one. Reverend Jackson
won it two to one. In District 37, Hastings won four to one, Mr. Shaw won
three to one and Reverend Jackson won it two to one. And finally, in
District 39 in South Florida Mr. Hastings won it seven to one, Mr. Shaw
won it three to one, and Mr. Jackson won it four to one. And of the three
hispanic districts that we have, Bob Martinez won a distinct victory in each
one of them in 1990.
The average hispanic voting-age population is well over 65 percent,
which would assure that hispanics would represent those districts. So
Members, today, what we've seen are plans that trade off equal
opportunities for minority representation in return for compact districts
that keep communities together.-We've seen plans in the past that torture
geography, usually without achieving much more than minimum minority
influence, if that. This, I assure, is the plan that puts it all together. There
are strong minority compact districts with united community and there is
strong minority participation. I urge of you to support this
reapportionment plan and with that, Mr. Speaker, we can go into the
amendatory process.
Speaker Wetherell: OK. Let me recognize Mr. Mackey to speak
about the House reapportionment plan. Mr. Mackey, you are recognized
to approach the well to make comments regarding the reapportionment
plan relative to the House.
Rep. Mackey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Chairman and
Members of the House. The bill and the amendments that you have before
you represent countless hours and dedication, of work-more work than
most of us would dream would be necessary or even possible when we
started this journey several months ago. I want to take this time to say how
proud I am of the Reapportionment Committee and the staff, because they
have shown dedication above and beyond what I would consider the call
of duty in getting us to this juncture.
This process has been very open. From the beginning, as the Chairman
said earlier, from the beginning with our meetings that we held around the
state of Florida, input from community leaders, input from elected
officials, from cities and counties and the Members of this Chamber, it has
been one where we have had the equipment and staff available, sometimes,
around the clock to ensure accessibility for everyone in this process, and
also making sure that everyone can participate in this process.

This has not been merely a reapportionment session, but one of public
education, not only for myself, but, I believe, many Members as well. When
the input starts, and it starts coming in, it is at that time that, many times,
we find ourselves at conflict. What one Member wants to do has a direct
effect and bearing on another Member. What one community wants to do

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE]

has a direct effect and bearing on another community. It is in these times
of conflict that we must pull together and work together to ensure fairness
in what we do.
The most important task that we are about is ensuring representation
by minority population. In the plan for the House that you have before you
today, there are 15 African-American districts with significant population
and influence. There are 11 hispanic districts with enough population in
these districts for significant influence as well. And in this process, I think
it is important because you will see other maps and plans before you
throughout the day. It is not just merely important enough to create those
districts, but will they perform? Can these citizens, these minority citizens,
elect the candidates of their choice?
Mr. Speaker and Members of this body, as we start forward now, I just
ask for your patience as we make sure that we answer not only the Voting
Rights Act but the constitutional requirements that are bound upon this
body as well.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Wallace, you wish to make any
closing remarks?
Rep. Wallace: Mr. Speaker, I believe we are ready to take up the first
amendment.
Speaker Wetherell: OK. You want to call the previous question on
the bill and all amendments? Just kidding, just kidding. Well we've got to
have a fight, you see, to work it all out. That's part of the plan. Read
amendment 202 by Irvine.
Reading Clerk: Representative Irvine offered the following
amendment: Strike descriptions for District 1, District 2, District 3,
District 4, District 5, District 6, District 7-
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Irvine.
Rep. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, permission to approach the well. Mr.
Speaker, permission to approach the well.
Speaker Wetherell: Yes ma'am. Come on up. You have permission
to approach the well and explain your amendment.
Rep. Irvine: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, Members, the amendment I'm
going to present today is the one, generally, it has had a few changes, that
the Republicans approved in the Senate. This amendment was based on
the same approach that we have taken in the House in maximizing
minority districts. I want to say when I attended the 32 hearings that you
all keep talking about, a lot of people thought I was crazy and needed to
be shipped to an insane asylum somewhere because I went to all 32, or was
even willing to attend all 32. The reason I did was I thought it was very
important to have continuity on the Members so that we had an overall
picture of this diverse state. And the other reason was that I felt that we
truly needed to listen to the people who were coming to those hearings
because 10 years prior to that time I was one of the people in the audience
asking for single-member districts, and I knew how they were treated. As
a result of that, we have amendment 202. It has a 65.4 percent black
district, a 44.3 percent black district, a 46 percent black district, a 70
percent hispanic district, 66.9 percent hispanic district, a 61.74 hispanic
district, and one 57.3. When you talk about viability, all but one of these
was taken in the primary by Reverend Jackson.
Speaker Wetherell: You finished? Representative Wallace.
Rep. Wallace: Mr. Speaker, we're just having a little trouble hearing
Representative Irvine. She needs a little more attention from the House.
Speaker Wetherell: OK. Let me do this. Members, it really is
important. I know you want to look at the maps and all that kind of stuff.
There are copies back in the lounge. Please, please give the people speaking
your attention, and please keep your conversations to a minimum on the
floor since it is imperative that we have all the records accurately
transcribed. OK, Mrs. Irvine, have you concluded?
Rep. Irvine: Just a little bit more, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker Wetherell: All right, go right ahead.
Rep. Irvine: Representative Burke said that we should look at how
the voters voted in the past. He said it would take at least a 45 to 50 percent

vote in the north to elect a black member to the Florida Senate. But I think
44.3 is pretty close to that 45. I have never run with more than 40 percent

June 4, 1992

the number of hispanic seats to four and improved performance in three
of the black seats. The only reason the plan isn't with you today is because
of time constraints this week. The organization is proud of both plans and
is happy to continue working with Members during the conference
committee process. Thank you.

E OF REPRESENTATIVES 41

Republican vote, so I'd take that any day of the week. Community of
interest: I think we have preserved those as closely as possible and we have
definitely strived and, I think, met the letter in the spirit of the law. Thank
you, Mr. Speaker. I'll be glad to take any questions.
Speaker Wetherell: Are there questions? Representative Deutsch,
you are recognized.
Rep. Deutsch: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For a series of questions.
Speaker Wetherell: To Mrs. Irvine, I assume. She yields.
Rep. Deutsch: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mrs. Irvine, I want to really
ask the same series of questions that I asked in full committee, and it really
is focusing very specifically on the black community in Broward County.
If you look at your map, and again I think the maps and the numbers speak
for themselves, if you look at the map, your map, OK, we can all look at
it and in Broward County, District 30, District 31, and District 29 each have
part of the black community in Broward County in them. You split the
black community in Broward County. It is a factual thing. You split it. I
told you you split it. You knew you split it when we talked about it in full
committee, and I am asking you why did you split the black community in
Broward County?
Rep. Irvine: It was not intentional, and the only reason that that part
of the map was not corrected was because of the time factor. We'd be glad
to go to the table in conference and work that out.
Rep. Deutsch: Mr. Speaker.
Speaker Wetherell: Mr. Deutsch.
Rep. Deutsch: We met more than a week ago. I know the machines
work slow but do they really work that slow?
Rep. Irvine: Mr. Deutsch, when you are a Republican, they work a
whole lot slower than when you are a Democrat.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Brown says that's not true.
Representative Brown.
Rep. Brown: Sir, that's not true. They work slow if you're not Mr.
Deutsch.
Speaker Wetherell: All right. Are there further comments on the
Irvine amendment? Representative Irvine, to close on your amendment.
Rep. Irvine: I ask for a favorable consideration of amendment 202.
Speaker Wetherell: So, the question recurs on the Irvine
amendment. All those in favor say "Yea," opposed "Nay." Amemdment is
not adopted. Read the next amendment.
Reading Clerk: Representative Simone offered the following
amendment: Strike descriptions for District 1, District 2, District-
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Simone.
Rep. Simone: Mr. Speaker, I'd like permission to approach the well.
Speaker Wetherell: Yes ma'am, you are recognized to approach the
well to explain your amendment.
Rep. Simone: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members of the House. I am
proud to present the Common Cause plan on their behalf.
If you will look at the Common Cause plan, it's very unique in one way.
It has been prepared to a standard deviation of zero. There is no population
deviation in this plan among seats. Every seat has 323,448 people, and in
addition, Mr. Jones has managed in his plan to-no, no, this is Mr. Bill
Jones, not the Joneses here in the House-Mr. Bill Jones, of Common
Cause, has managed to keep 41 county boundaries intact. No other map
does that. And, of course, it has 40 single-member districts. His plan has
one black majority seat of 66.2 percent. It has three black-influence seats,
which range from 40 percent to 45.1 percent. It has one, two majority
hispanic seats. That is the basis of the plan, and he has prepared an
amendment for the Senate's consideration-a Senate plan which increases

42

Speaker Wetherell: Are there questions of Mrs. Simone on the
Common Cause plan? Are there questions to Mrs. Simone on the Common
Cause plan? Representative Burke.
Rep. Burke: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mrs. Simone, as you
indicated, the Common Cause plan, as it is now, has one black majority
district, and you indicate they are working on some other amendments.
Would those amendments create any more black majority districts, and if
so, how many and where?
Rep. Simone: No, he's going to improve the performance in three of
the black seats is what he intends to do, but it would not create any more
majority blacks seats, but would improve the performance in them.
Rep. Burke: Thank you very much.
Speaker Wetherell: Are there further questions of Mrs. Simone?
Further questions of Mrs. Simone? Representative Simone, to close on
your amendment.
Rep. Simone: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think I've explained the
plan as it stands.
Speaker Wetherell: On the Simone amendment, the question
recurs. All those in favor, say "Yea," opposed, "Nay." The amendment is
not adopted. Read the next amendment.
Reading Clerk: Representative Brown and others offered the
following amendment: Strike descriptions for District 1, District 2, District
3, District 4, District 5, District 6, District 7-
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Brown.

June 4, 1992

wanted to import a plan from the Senate. Obviously, it was four days past
the submission deadline. Our policy says we will not process any
amendments beyond that deadline, and in fact, there was correspondence
to Representatives Brown and Reaves hand-delivered to them a week ago,
making that abundantly clear just in case. I don't necessarily need to read
that letter, Mr. Speaker, but I do think since there is a question being
raised, I suggest we may need to place it into the record of the proceedings.
Speaker Wetherell: You are recognized to read the letter or
portions thereof.
Rep. Wallace: This is the letter which was addressed to
Representative Corrine Brown, dated February 26, and hand-delivered to
her on the floor at 2:30 p.m. on February 26, and it is from Representative
Jim Burke. It reads as follows:
Dear Corrine: In order to assist you in completing the task of preparing
a full Senate plan for introduction by Friday's deadline, committee staff
and I are available to confer and work with you. While Calvin is also
working on other amendments, we can arrange for him to work with you
at specific times chosen by you. Because time is of the essence, please
consult with me at your convenience to arrange staff time for you. If your
work is not performed on the system in our Reapportionment Committee
suite, your amendment must be electronically transferred by 9:00 p.m.,
Friday. The staff and computer hardware require 24 hours to load in your
program to review and to correct any technical corrections. This will also
allow you time to review your plan. The time deadlines, as you know, are
being strictly adhered to as a result of the debate during the congressional
plan. Let me know how I can help you. Sincerely, Jimmy (Representative
Burke).

Rep. Brown: Yes, Mr. Speaker, permission to approach the well with Speaker Wetherell: Ms. Brown and Mr. Reaves, I am advised by the
Representative Reaves. Clerk there is no amendment to 204.

Speaker Wetherell: You are recognized to approach the well and
Representative Reaves to approach the well to explain your amendments.
This is amendment 204 you are on.
Rep. Brown: Mr. Speaker, the title of our plan is rhythm and blues,
and I can tell you, I have the blues trying to work with these computers.
They are not only slow, but it is certainly have been a major challenge. I
think everyone has the proposed plan that is not correct on your desk.
When the Senate plan is correct, it will have seven seats, predominately
black seats. Two of them over 60 percent black, three over 50 percent black
and two over 40 percent black. The hispanic seats, there are four-that's
over 60 percent hispanic.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Reaves.
Rep. Reaves: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, because of
transmittal time and inability to complete our plan by amendment
deadlines, we are going to withdraw our amendment 204 and request that
the rules be waived and we be allowed to introduce our corrected version
of 204.
Speaker Wetherell: OK. Now, do you want to withdraw that first,
or how do you want to do this?
Rep. Reaves: Well, what we want to do is waive the rules to be able
to submit our corrected version of 204-the amendment we really want.
This is just a safe-gap in case transmittal time did not occur, and as it
would happen, transmittal time went past the 9:00 p.m. cut-off time.
Speaker Wetherell: What you are proposing is you would really like
amendment 205?
Rep. Reaves: No, not 205.
Speaker Wetherell: You've got another one that is not on the list.
Rep. Reaves: We have another one that is upstairs being put into the
work. We attempted to have it done last night, but there were some
difficulties and this morning it was approved to go through. We do not have
it at this time, but we would like to waive the rules and have ability to bring
that before the floor.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Wallace.
Rep. Wallace: Well, Mr. Speaker, Representatives Brown and
Reaves have two amendments which were timely submitted and, therefore,
timely filed. Now, it is my understanding that at 10:00 p.m. last night, they

Rep. Reaves: We got that letter and it is absolutely correct, but you
must understand we were in the process of trying to create 160 districts-
120 in the House and 40 in the Senate. We had our plan, as corrected, ready
to go for transmittal. It took eight hours on Friday for it to be transmitted.
We did not make it by the deadline. Curiously, in the Senate, it only took
30 minutes to transfer to the Senate computer. That is why we brought this
one over. What we are trying to move to waive the rules is not to introduce
another amendment, but simply bring over the corrected 204 that we now
have.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Burke.
Rep. Burke: Mr. Chairman, I am kind of torn because, on the one
hand, you obviously want to bring as much as you can to the process. In
our staff, our intention was to-the staff informed me-was that on last
night about 10:00 p. m., the staff received a call and that Bill Lawson from
the Republican office indicated that he was importing a plan for
Representative Reaves and Representative Brown from the Senate, not to
prepare any kind of amendment, but for Mr. Webster to look at and do
reports on. As a result, we don't have any indication that there is an
amendment or something pending; and the reason I am kind of torn is
because in the past, by not having a plan to deal with general concepts,
we've been able to have numbers thrown out that just don't appear to be
what our population shows. So, I don't know what we can do. If there is a
plan that is going to be available, I would prefer that what they do is to
prepare the plan that I assume is available-has a data that we have on
these other plans available for the Members to look at-but at that time,
there may be a time to move to waive the rules, although I'm just not sure
what it is. I would rather have the plan itself so we can look at it with the
data that we need on it.
Speaker Wetherell: Mr. Thomas.
Rep. Thomas: Thank you. If I may, Mr. Speaker, several questions
of Ms. Brown and Mr. Reaves, if I may, on their motion.
Speaker Wetherell: One or the other will respond.
Rep. Thomas: Thank you. From what you said, Mr. Reaves, is it my
understanding that you took the disk or diskette or the computer device
to the Senate, and that took a half hour, and then predicated on that you
took that same disk or diskette or computer device to the House expecting
a similar kind of time frame on Friday, and that because of a delay, be it
mechanical, computer, something like that, that you are now out of date.
Is that correct? That's my first question. I have several others.

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE

Rep. Reaves: I will just answer that real briefly. You are absolutely
correct. The thing is, our corrected plan was completed hours before the
deadline. The reason we do not have it is simply because the transmittal
time went beyond the deadline.
Rep. Thomas: And so, that we will understand your motion and the
ramifications of your motion a little better, we, in the House, either
mechanically, electronically, computer-wise or something, couldn't get this
together, and that this motion that you want us to entertain has to do with
specific corrections in the plan we are seeing now. It is not basically an
entirely new plan. Is that correct?
Rep. Reaves: You are absolutely correct, and I must say this, that
when we are talking about amendments here and reapportionment, we are
not talking about written amendments that you write out. We are talking
about computers that take time to go from districts and numbers
computing through. There were 10 other Members who were attempting
to put forth amendments, who also ran into difficulty and just gave up.
Rep. Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Reaves and Ms. Brown.
Speaker Wetherell: All right, Mr. Wallace.
Rep. Wallace: Well there's some inaccuracies being made on the floor
today, Mr. Speaker, and I am going to have to correct this. Let me ask a
question as a follow-up to what Dr. Thomas says and Representative
Reaves' answer. Are you saying that an amendment that was in your
possession and ready for submission to our committee on Friday afternoon
was not accepted by our committee?
Rep. Brown: No, no, it was not complete.
Rep. Reaves: Let me make that very clear to you, Mr. Wallace, and
not to play on words or get into verbal gymnastics. What I am saying, very
simply and very clearly, is that we had a plan ready and that during the
transmission, we presented it prior to the 9:00 p.m. deadline, but because
of the eight to nine hours, it did not make it by deadline time.
Speaker Wetherell: Why don't we do this folks? We are just kind
of yanking and jerking around here, not accomplishing a whole heck of a
lot. Why don't we take up Ms. Brown and Mr. Reaves' motion that we
waive the rules and introduce a plan, which we don't have at this moment
in time, in the Clerk's possession, to be offered. If that passes, then we will
figure out how to deal with all of this. If it doesn't pass, then they obviously
have the option to take up 204 or 205, and we won't spend a whole lot of
time wasting people's time. How about that?
All right. On the motion to waive the rules and introduce the yet-to-be-
received plan-Mr. Wallace, do you need to say something before I do
this? You look scared.
Rep. Wallace: Let me ask a question, and maybe it's a question that
the Rules Chairman is going to have to address and maybe it needs to be
in the form of a point of order. Can we, within the Rules of the House, waive
the rules and accept an amendment which does not exist in our possession
on the floor?
Speaker Wetherell: Well, why don't we find out if we are willing to
do that first. If we are not, that will all be moot. Mrs. Figg.
Rep. Figg: Mr. Speaker, I would speak to that point also. To waive the
rules to take up a not yet or not quite existent plan is very unfair to those
of us who have worked hard to get our plans in in a timely manner. I really
think we are setting a very poor precedent here by even considering it.
Speaker Wetherell: Mr. De Grandy.
Rep. De Grandy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To speak in support of
the motion to waive the rules.
Ladies and gentlemen, the bottom line is that we have two Members here
that are trying to do a map that maximizes minority participation-two
Members that weren't fortunate enough to serve on the Reapportionment
Committee, and we know that that does put them at a disadvantage. Any
Member that hasn't participated in the Reapportionment Committee and
is taking up a reapportionment task comes in with a handicap, just like if
they would go to conference committee they'd go in with a handicap. But
they are trying the best they can to do the right thing in their mind for their
community and for the people of the state of Florida. And we have already
seen different parliamentary moves to try to block those type of plans. We

saw them in congressional, and now we're seeing it again in the state and
House, and that's just simply wrong.

June 4, 1992

Members of the House from my viewpoint what happened. There were two
diskettes. Those two diskettes were delivered to two separate bodies that
have reapportionment committees: the House and the Senate. One of those
was placed into the House computer and when it came out, it came out as
amendment 205, and the deviations were 170,000 people, up and down. It

E OF REPRESENTATIVES 43

Ladies and gentlemen, when we had a computer glitch and the
majority-the leadership plans-weren't totally in order and had little
polygons, etc., we didn't hesitate to delay the vote for two weeks to make
sure that those leadership plans were fixed, were taken care of and were
heard on the floor. And now these two individuals want the same right that
we've given other people. Now, either let them hear the plan now or let's
delay the vote, give them the opportunity to file a plan, and present it to
make those policy decisions for the people of the state of Florida. Thank
you.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Burke.
Rep. Burke: Thank you very much. On the point, Mr. Speaker. But
let me just indicate because I-we don't need to get in-we don't need to
have any accuracy-there's been time enough for everybody to do
everything they wanted, whether you were on the committee or not. This
is not new. I mean, the whole process is not new-and so I guess the whole
thing about saying there's not enough time; however, I think this House
should not be put in the position of appearing to take a parliamentary move
to prevent what is indicated to us is a maximized plan. I would urge what
I urged before: that we not take the motion, that we wait until Miss Reaves
and Ms. Brown have an amendment. We're going to be-
Rep. Reaves: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I'm not a "Miss" Reaves.
Rep. Burke: Mr. Speaker, we're going to be, we're going to be in this
process and we're going to have one vote on the joint resolution at the end
of-to dealing with the Senate and the House. So there's enough time to
go and for them to do what they need to do. They're going to bring an
amendment, bring an amendment, and we can have the data and then we
can entertain a motion at that time. Other than that, I think we will be in
the posture of appearing to take a parliamentary move to start what is, you
know, indicated to be maximized plan. So, I would urge that we just not
take the amendment that, if they want to withdraw that amendment, they
can withdraw this amendment and at such time as we're in this debate,
before the end of the day, they got something they could present to the
House, they could present it and then we could deal with it at that time.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Johnson.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, of course the motion is
nondebatable, and in the interest of fairness, I think it's appropriate that
we've heard from some of the Members and particularly from our
chairman, meaning of Senate apportionment, we're being asked to consider
an amendment that's neither in our possession nor in existence. And it
would not be technically correct, and in the matter of apportionment, we
have to meet legal standards. It's a very exact process, one that's most
precise, and I don't see any way to get to what's being asked for here. Now,
we have made every effort to be fair, to give time, to have all the Members
of the House adhere to the same time frames, and when we got into the
same question in their congressional apportionment, we delayed the
process in order to try to allow time. And then Members started
complaining that it was being delayed too much, and where we're facing
the time frame now is that we have this week and one more to finish
apportionment and all the other issues. And it would be my
recommendation to the Chair that the motion would be denied, that we do
not have an amendment that would be technically correct or available to
the House in that regard.
Speaker Wetherell: OK. Representative Brown, would you like to
go ahead and go forward on 204 or 205?
Rep. Brown: No, Sir, Mr. Speaker. What I will do is withdraw both
of those amendments. I will have the amendment corrected, introduced in
the Senate, and have it available for conference, but I do not want a plan
that is not correct to go forward.
Speaker Wetherell: OK. Show amendment 205-Mr. Reaves,
you're on both of those, I assume you concur. Show 204 and 205 withdrawn.
Now, Mr. Webster.
Rep. Webster: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd just like to explain to the

44

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

was all over the place. The same two diskettes-and it took eight hours to
do that transfer-the same two diskettes were taken to the Senate because
Senator Diaz-Balart is going to offer it there. It took one-half hour, and
when the plan came out it was perfect. Now, both-I think the point to
make is-now, what was attempted to do-you're saying that it doesn't
exist. Yes, it exists on the Senate computer correctly; it exists on the House
computer with wide deviation as amendment 205. What was being asked
is: could we take, which is the same exact plan, the Senate plan and have
it transferred onto the House computer? They're the same disk, they're the
same bits of information, they're the same everything. I don't understand
why a computer that costs three times as much takes eight times as long,
or 16 times longer. I don't know why, but it did. And it didn't get in on time.
And when it got done it was flawed. The other computer in the Senate was
not flawed. It was perfect. I don't know why that happened either, but it
did. And I think the point is, there was a legitimate, concerted effort to
have the plan done on time and to have it in on time; to have Senator Diaz-
Balart to offer it in the Senate, to have Representatives Brown and Reaves
offer it in the House. And that's the story. And that's the truth. And again,
I think that they ought to be given an opportunity.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Wallace, and then we'll get on
to your amendment.
Rep. Wallace: Well, Mr. Speaker, we know that there have been
problems importing amendments that were drawn on the Republican
Party system. That is why Representative Brown's and Representative
Reaves' amendment had some problems in the phase of being imported
into the House system. That is why, on Wednesday afternoon, both
Representative Brown and Representative Reaves were hand-delivered a
letter which I read into the record earlier, pointing out that our hardware
may require as much as 24 hours to load in their program. I find it
extremely hard to believe that it could be a surprise to them that it would
take some time to import their program when the letter which was
delivered said 24 hours. I find it extremely hard to believe that this
amendment, which is so ready for consideration on the floor today has
never been put into our House system, and there was no request to put it
in our House system until 10:00 p.m. last night.
But I just want to reiterate, we unanimously adopted a policy on the floor
of this House for consideration of amendments today. It made clear there
was a submission deadline at 9:00 p.m. on Friday, February 28. It made
clear that no amendments would be processed for consideration on this
floor after that deadline. No one can be surprised by that. No one is being
treated unfairly in light of the unanimously adopted policy of this House
with respect to those amendments.
And let me make one more point. I had a meeting yesterday with
Representatives Mortham and Webster. They had encountered some
problems. There were some things they wanted to do on their amendments,
which I had to tell them that they could no longer do because the deadline
has passed. And I cannot stand on the floor today, Mr. Speaker, and
advocate that we allow an amendment by Democratic Representatives to
be treated any differently than the treatment that I afforded to
Representative Webster and Representative Mortham yesterday. That's
what has been requested, and I believe we do have to deny that.
Speaker Wetherell: OK. I think we've about beat this horse to
death. Is anybody just absolutely compelled? Mr. Reaves, quickly.
Rep. Reaves: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it's very important
that we read into the record, very briefly, what the corrected plan would
have done for the black Senate seats, and that would have been for District
number 32, 64.4 percent black; District 36, 63.5 percent black; District
number 3, 50.5 percent black; District number 7, 52.2 percent black;
District 28, 52.9 percent black; District 17, 46 percent black; District 23,
43.5 percent black. For the hispanic seats in the plan, Mr. Speaker, District
33, 65.6 percent black; District 34, 64.6 percent black; District 35, 68.3
percent-I'm sorry, those are hispanic districts-and District 40, 64.3
percent hispanic. That was seven black Senate seats and four hispanic
Senate seats. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker Wetherell: Mr. Diaz-Balart, quickly. Then Mr. Burke, and
then we're going to take up Mr. Wallace's amendment.

June 4, 1992

I may, Mr. Speaker, for the reasons that have been discussed here today.
Representative Burke said that this is nothing new, that late amendments
are nothing new; that's true. But, when there are other late amendments
before that were done by the majority of this House-the majority party-
the process stalled, and those amendments were heard. So, all we're asking
for now on this minority-created amendment is to allow us an amendment
that is here, it's not a mystery amendment, to allow us to debate that
amendment. We need to be able to debate that amendment. It is of no fault
of the sponsors that that amendment is not timely; it is the fault of that
computer that took longer than anybody expected. There is a move again
to waive the rules-which is done here all the time-to waive the rules to
accept a late-filed amendment, not a mystery amendment. Mr. Reaves just
read what the amendment is. And, Mr. Chairman, again, I refuse to
concede, and I move to waive the rules so that we can debate, and hopefully
adopt, the Reaves-Brown amendment.
Speaker Wetherell: OK. Mr. Burke, to respond. Then we're going
to take Mr. Wallace's amendment.
Rep. Burke: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Let me just say that
I think Mr. Wallace has a good point. If we haven't allowed for others, we
shouldn't allow it. If there is a plan to be presented, it can be presented
later. The problem I have is that we've not seen an amendment and I
remember when we had our, our full committee meetings, at that time I
think Mr. Reaves and Ms. Brown came before us with a sheet that said they
had "x" number of black districts and then presented these plans that fell
far short of what was indicated to us in the committee. And so, I say that
because when we talk about something that's there, that's not there, we
ought to be very careful. I think there's an amendment-we'll see it later.
This is a process, not an event. We'll see it in conference. But I just need
to make sure, Mr. Speaker, that we don't have an amendment and, why it
may be a good rhythm and blues amendment, I just want to make sure it's
not one the Republicans get the rhythm and black folks get the blues. I just
hope that what we'll do here is to just let them present it later, if they have
it.
Speaker Wetherell: OK. Now Mr. Diaz-Balart. You have actually
made a motion. The problem is your motion is out of order because there
is no amendment to deal with. We do not have it in the possession of the
Clerk. Therefore, your amendment, your motion is out of order. Mr.
Wallace is now going to offer amendment 201. OK?
Read the Wallace amendment. Let me get the Wallace amendment, then
I'll come back to you. It'll give you some time.
Reading Clerk: Representatives Burke and Wallace offered the
following amendment: Strike descriptions for District 1, District 2-
Speaker Wetherell: Mr. Wallace, to explain yours.
Rep. Wallace: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have Representative
Burke do the explanation of this amendment.
Speaker Wetherell: OK. Mr. Burke.
Rep. Burke: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. What this
amendment does is to simply make our plan better. It does that by
particularly trying some deviations in the Jacksonville district. As you
know, Jacksonville now has a black Senator that had a district that was
about 48 percent when he won. What we did was do a deviations and try
to get that up, back up to 48 percent. We also changed the numbering
scheme so that-we had some numbers that were way out of whack-so we
perfected that. Other than that, I don't think the attempts dealing with the
minority districts, so that their amounts were above, we didn't make any
substantial changes in this particular plan. So, I urge its adoption so we can
take it to conference and, you know, we're open to Senate to see what we
can add to always reflect all of this.
Now then, I'll take questions, if there are any.
Speaker Wetherell: OK. Are there questions of Mr. Burke? Mr.
Hill.
Rep. Hill: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Burke, if I read the plan
correctly, the amendment that you're proposing has three seats that have
black populations between 53.1 and 56.2 percent and one seat that has a
black population of 47.6 percent. It also has two hispanic districts with

populations of 76.6 and 72.1 percent, and one with 66 percent. Is that the
amendment we're on, Mr. Burke?

Rep. Diaz-Balart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a co-sponsor of the
amendment, I refuse to concede on the withdrawal of that amendment, if

Rep. Burke: That's correct.
Rep. Hill: Thank you. And that is essentially the same as the bill that
is before us that you are seeking to amend, is that correct?
Rep. Burke: That's correct.
Rep. Hill: And Mr. Burke, is it your representation that this is the best
we can do for minorities?
Rep. Burke: It is my representation that this is the best that we can
do for minorities; in fact, you would note, as it relates to the hispanic, that
there are two others that attempted to do the four seats. We looked at that.
The problem is, if you understand Dade County, the hispanic community
and the black community are close to each other and in doing the second
black district, it was as difficult to do another hispanic district. We may
try to do what we can, but that was what we could wind up. Now what may
happen is that there may be some possibilities of trying to come
underneath some districts, and we can look at that in conference to try to
create perhaps another hispanic district. I don't know if it can be done
physically, but we'll look at that. But this is the best we could do. For the
minority districts, what we wanted was real districts. We didn't want these
districts where people are saying 46 percent were the black district unless
there was proof that it had been done. We looked at ours and thought it
needed to be improved above 46 percent, and that's why we went to where
it is now, almost 47.9, almost 48 percent. The answer to your question is,
yes, this is the best that we can do. The minorities-you note, out of all the
plans, including the Republican plan, the Common Cause plan, every plan
that has been presented that is a real plan, we have more black districts
than all of them. So yes, this is the best that's been done to date by anybody
so far with real districts.
I believe we have another question, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker Wetherell: OK. I'll tell you what I think we can do, and
solve a whole bunch of people's problems real quick. Why don't we
temporarily pass this amendment 201? Now, what Mr. Diaz-Balart is going
to suggest, that while Ms. Brown and Ms. Reaves chose to-Ms. Brown and
Mr. Reaves-chose to withdraw their amendment, Mr. Diaz-Balart was on
that amendment-was also a co-sponsor of that amendment. In order to
give him his day in court, so to speak, we should give him the option to
either offer, as well as any other co-sponsor of that amendment, to
withdraw that amendment. If they choose to, then we will be off 204. If not,
we would then take up 204, even though, by everybody's admission, it is
technically flawed. So, now, let's take up and read 204.
Reading Clerk: Representative Brown and others offered the
following amendment: Strike-
Speaker Wetherell: Now, Ms. Brown and Mr. Reaves have asked to
withdraw it. Mr. Diaz-Balart, you are a co-sponsor on the amendment. Do
you wish to withdraw it also, or not?
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Speaker, my motion is as
follows: to waive the rules, to be able to hear the amendment, debate the
amendment that is technically correct which is in the Senate and is also
in the House computer.
Speaker Wetherell: All right, Mr. Diaz-Balart, that motion is out of
order because I do not have an amendment to 204.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker Wetherell: Now, do you wish to withdraw it, or not?
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Mr. Speaker, could we temporarily pass it until
we have-since it is in the computer-until we have the corrected version,
and again, as Mr. Burke said before, this is nothing new, this has happened
before, give us the time, since it is in the computer, since it is in the Senate,
since it is not a mystical amendment, give us the time to then to be able
to introduce that corrected amendment on to the floor, and we do need a
waiver of the rules to do that, I understand, and that is my motion, Sir.
Speaker Wetherell: Mr. Burke.
Rep. Burke: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What I might suggest, since
this is in the Senate computer, the Senate has not yet taken up its
amendments. I would suggest that perhaps what they may want to do is

introduce and have it debated in the Senate, and if it passes, we will have
it there for conference. Other than that, I'm just not sure that we ought to

45

do it until we've actually seen it. I think you're on the point of, whether
or not you want to withdraw these-and we may actually be able to by
amend-Mr. Speaker, I suggest maybe if we debate these two amendments
that are already there, during that discussion, you may bring out how it can
be bettered, and that may be something you want to better later on. At the
present point, I just don't have an amendment that I look at that we can
talk about.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Johnson.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I'm advised by our staff, we have no
such amendment ready in our computer. Now, we have a process that's
designed to allow the Members of the House, the public of the state of
Florida, all the citizens who have an interest in reapportionment, to be
fairly advised of what's coming forth, so the Members have adequate notice
to prepare their answer to be for or against the amendatory process as it
evolves-to know with proper notice how it would affect their respective
districts, to know how it would affect population shifts, demographics,
minority voting rights. None of that is going to be available if we try to
jump-start the process now and chase after an amendment that's not in the
computer, according to our own staff. So, the process doesn't allow for it.
It obviously was not a timely effort on the part of anyone, and it would fly
in the face of the effort to keep the citizens and the Members informed and
involved in this open process.
So, I think our choices are rather simple. We can either vote the
amendment 204 up or down, or it can be withdrawn. We can then move to
205, vote it up or down or it can be withdrawn. And then we have the final
amendment. The process is designed to give fair and open participation
and not to allow for chasing after phantom issues.
Speaker Wetherell: OK. Mr. Diaz-Balart, and Mr. Webster, it's
going to take a two-thirds vote.
Rep. Webster: Well, Mr. Speaker, if I could maybe make a motion
that at least would be correct and then we could proceed from there, if that
would be all right with you.
Speaker Wetherell: Well, why don't you give it a whirl.
Rep. Webster: All right, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move that we
waive the adopted policy of the House regarding point "A" and "B" under
paragraph 6, which would allow for-we do allow for, we allow for
amendments to be offered after this time, but they have to be within a
thousand people. The problem is not with S204. It's with S205. The
deviations are greater than what would be allowed. So my motion would
be to allow-if adopted, Senate 205 were adopted-we would allow to have
a technical amendment made that would be larger than the rules would
allow.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Wallace, on the motion.
Rep. Wallace: Mr. Speaker, I think I understand where
Representative Webster's going to get to, and let me just give a little
background here. We do have a policy-the policy addresses deviations.
The amendment that is referred to, 205, has deviations that are greater
than what could be fixed with a technical amendment under our policy.
Where that is the case, the amendment itself is subject to a point of order
on the floor, but it was not my intention or the intention of any other
Member of this House to call that point on Representatives Brown's and
Reaves' amendment. We wanted that amendment to be offered, to be
presented, to be discussed, to be fully debated here today, notwithstanding
the technical problems with it. I have no problem with taking up 205,
allowing it to be debated, and acknowledging up front that if it were to pass
that we could fix it, from a technical standpoint, with an amendment that
exceeds our technical amendment guidelines. I have no problem with that.
As long as the sponsors of the amendment, and the other Members who
have risen to say that the rules that are being followed here are somehow
being handled unfairly will acknowledge that we're doing this in an
abundance of fairness, we're having a full and fair debate, and that we go
ahead and debate this 205 up and down on its merits. I'm perfectly willing
to support Representative Webster's amendment on those-his motion on
those conditions: that we move to it in an orderly process and, if it passes,

we'll do technical corrections that are technical but beyond our definition
of technical in that policy. That's fine.

June 4, 1992

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

46 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE

Speaker Wetherell: OK. Mr. Johnson.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I just want to make sure that
we know the motion before us. Now we heard a recommendation-was it
a motion by Webster-and we heard some request on the part of
Representative Wallace with regard to clarification to that. If we could
have a response from Representative Webster as to whether that is going
to accomplish his goal.
Speaker Wetherell: Mr. Webster?
Rep. Webster: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, let me make perfectly
clear what I would be proposing. The technical amendment that we would
want to have happen would be, as I explained before, it is the exact same
data, it just got a little bit jumbled up. But it is the same data. It's the same
data that's on the Senate and House computers. It just got jumbled. So,
if the motion were to pass and if the amendment were to be adopted, what
I'm asking is the corrected 205 would be allowed to be placed over the
existing, incorrect 205. That's what I would be asking.
Speaker Wetherell: OK. Let me solve this for you. Ya'll aren't
looking real sharp to the world out there, right now, and you know it.
You're playing games and they don't appreciate it-the public. We're going
to let Mr. De Grandy, if he agrees, to withdraw 204 and everybody else,
without objection. Then we're going to take up 205. If it passes, we'll
temporarily pass the bill and bring it back, because Members would be, in
essence, voting on something that we don't even have before us-a
technically correct version that probably wouldn't stand anybody's court
challenge. But that way nobody can think they didn't get a fair shot. Now,
that seems to me to be the fairest thing to do, and we can get on with the
program. If anybody feels compelled to challenge that, then let me know.
Mr. Wallace?
Rep. Wallace: Just for the purposes of the record, Mr. Speaker. To
acknowledge that-ask Representative Webster to acknowledge that he
understands that the impact of his motion as you have interpreted it could
result in the delay of this process, and that it is his motion and it would
be a delay which therefore would result in the passage of his-the adoption
of his motion by this House so that if there is a delay that the responsibility
for that is apportioned appropriately.
Speaker Wetherell: I think that's all understood by everybody.
That we would be adopting, if 205 passes, a technically incorrect
amendment, and an amendment that I would assume the Members would
want to, at some point in time, look at in terms of those technical
corrections because, as Mr. Webster said, there is at least 170,000 possibly
in some areas. Now, that will get us on to where we need to be. Mr.
De Grandy? Does anybody object to the withdrawal of 204? Without
objection, 204 is withdrawn. Now, read 205.
Reading Clerk: Representatives Brown and Reaves offered the
following amendment: Strike descriptions for District-
Speaker Wetherell: All right, Ms. Brown. You're recognized.
Rep. Brown: I just have one question of Representative Wallace
because I want to make sure I understand where we are.
Speaker Wetherell: He yields.
Rep. Brown: Representative Wallace, if this amendment passes, or
will we be able to introduce the corrected amendment with my corrected
figures that I personally went in the room upstairs after 9:00 and could not
get it on the computer corrected. I'm not a computer person. The map I
did over here is my area of expertise, and it took hours and it still was not
corrected at the end of the day.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Wallace.
Rep. Wallace: Mr. Speaker, many of us have spent those hours on the
computer. And I'm sympathetic for that reason. Let me understand what
the Speaker said and that is that if this amendment 205 passes, then the
joint resolution will be temporarily passed until such time, as the corrected
version of 205 is available for consideration by the House, and at that time
the corrected version of 205 will be voted up or down on its merits,

depending on what's in it-which none of us on the floor, very few on the
floor, know at this time. So, if this 205 passes, the House joint resolution
will be temporarily passed as a result of Representative Webster's motion,
and at that time we'll have the opportunity to bring forward a corrected
version of 205 for consideration as an amendment on second reading.

]

county, and you specifically mentioned that you felt that number was not
significant enough, that you wanted a 65 percent population. I'm looking
at the numbers that are presented in the amendment that you're offering
today, and two of those hispanic districts do not meet the standard that
you suggested on the floor when we discussed congressional

E OF REPRESENTATIVES June 4, 1992

Speaker Wetherell: Representative Reaves.
Rep. Reaves: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At this time, I would just like
to appeal to each Member to vote up on this amendment, 205, to allow for
a corrected version to come forward that you could look at and see how it
affects your people in your district. At that time, if you do not think it is
the best for the people of this state, then you can vote it down. Thank you.
Speaker Wetherell: Further debate? Representative Burke, in
opposition.
Rep. Burke: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would oppose this motion, and this
amendment. I have a copy of what was given out by Mr. Reaves and Ms.
Brown at the February 25th committee meeting. At that time, they
indicated that there would be at least one district that will go across the
top of Florida, hit Jacksonville, Daytona, and then have one central district
which, based upon the map they had at the time, that basically went across
the state. They also had one district which they have in this plan, which
did an odd thing. It was a Broward-Dade district but it took most of-it
split the City of Opa-locka, Florida and some of the areas which are some
of the mainstays in Dade County, and put them into a Broward County
district at the same time that we were arguing and debating about whether
or not we wanted to have Broward and Dade in the district, where perhaps
some of the Members did not want to be. Beyond that, when we got this
on the 25th, you know, I think we all waited patiently to see the plan, and
the plan that we got simply did not live up to the billing.
So, I suggest that we can't vote on mysterious things that may sound
good, but when we look at them, that's not what they are. If they've got
something, we're going to have a conference committee. I think if
somebody brings it there, we're going to have it. But I would just say this:
we spent a lot of hours, and some of these numbers are just not-I mean,
these are not real numbers. I understand that they're saying they've got a
plan that does it, but what they had to do on one plan, on this plan that
we already have, is actually skip over a whole county, and they skipped over
the whole county because that county would, Jefferson County, goes all the
way down to the Gulf of Mexico. And what happened is that a plan that
skipped over the county is something you can't do because of contiguity.
There are other things in here that are simply just-you just can't do. I
think what this plan does, is just goes through, takes out blacks from where
you can find them, and then finds another place where you can find a
number of black people and then put them together and call it a district.
This is not a district.
I would just urge of you to vote "No" on this amendment, and let's go
about doing something that's real and not illusionary. Don't try to fool the
people. And don't try to fool black people into something that sounds good
for you but it is not good for them and not good for this state. I urge you
to vote "No" on this amendment.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Silver.
Rep. Silver: Mr. Speaker, I see a lot of people rise. I'm going to move
the previous question on the motion. We've been discussing this for 45
minutes now. I think everybody knows where they are.
Speaker Wetherell: All right, why don't I do this? Mr. Deutsch,
then Mr. Wallace, then let Ms. Brown and Mr. Reaves close on your
amendment. I think everybody kind of knows where they are. Do you
disagree, Mr. Reaves?
Rep. Reaves: Just for a question.
Speaker Wetherell: All right, let me go ahead. Mr. Deutsch, we'll
go on that plan. Mr. Deutsch.
Rep. Deutsch: Mr. Speaker. It's for the purpose of a question of
Representative De Grandy, if he would yield.
Speaker Wetherell: He yields.
Rep. Deutsch: Representative De Grandy, when we debated the
congressional reapportionment plan, as you recall, the plan that was
adopted provided for two 65 percent VAP hispanic seats centered in Dade

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE

reapportionment. Would you say that the two districts that are below 55
percent in your plan, that you're a sponsor of, do not meet the requirements
of a majority minority hispanic seat?
Speaker Wetherell: Mr. De Grandy to respond.
Rep. De Grandy: Yes Sir, I'd be glad to respond to that. As co-
sponsor of this plan, of course Representative Brown and Representative
Reaves have had the primary input in this plan. I rise to co-sponsor this
plan, to support the plan, because relative to what you have, this is good
for hispanics. This is a boon for hispanics relative to the plan that it's
amending. Now, to the extent that you have a 64.6 percent district and
we're 0.4 percent away, when we get the corrected version, 0.4 percent away
from the 65 percent district, and the second one that falls below is 64.3
percent, 0.7 percent away. And seeing that in the Senate, we have
performance data that shows that Senator Javier Souto wins in a 59-point-
some percent hispanic district, I would feel, Mr. Deutsch, very much more
comfortable with respect to whether the interests of the hispanic
community are protected under the Brown-Reaves plan than under the
Burke plan. The bottom line is the Burke plan does not have a fourth
district. The other thing, sir, is that we have to look at a 10-year plan, not
a snapshot of reality today. This 10-year plan, this Brown-Reaves plan will
guarantee you four hispanic Senate districts. The plan that it is amending,
the Burke plan, will guarantee you only three hispanic districts. So, if you
look at it in terms of: one, that we're tenths away from the 65 percent
number; two, that in conference committee if you establish the same policy
that you have with black districts, that is to deviate down, you can clearly
bring them to 65 percent, and the fact that we are improving the plan that
we are amending, i.e. the Mackey plan, yes sir, I have full faith in the
Brown-Reaves plan.
Speaker Wetherell: OK. Mr. Wallace, then Ms. Brown, and Mr.
Reaves. And we're going to vote.
Rep. Wallace: Mr. Speaker. Not to take much more time of the
House, but to just make one point. When you look at this amendment, and
at the black percentages in some of these districts that are called black
districts, what you see is a very sophisticated way of fragmenting the
impact of black voters in Senate races around the state, because what will
happen in many of these districts is the following: the Democratic nominee
will be a black, but he or she will be running in a district where there is
racially-polarized voting. The performance of the district will be
Republican and the election will be that of a white Republican in a district
which has a heavy black percentage. That's sophisticated, but it's
fragmentation, it hurts the black community, it is not fair to the black
community, it is wrong, wrong, wrong. We need to vote this amendment
down.
Speaker Wetherell: All right, Ms. Brown.
Rep. Brown: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House.
Just very briefly, if you look at the plan, we have five seats over 50 percent,
and I'm going to vote for the Burke plan. It has four seats. I think his plan
is good, but I want to be clear that it can be better. And you talk about
fragmenting-the Senate plan is a real fragmented plan where they only
have one black seat. Monday evening, I tried to get a copy of my plan. It
was not ready when I left the capitol at 7:00 p.m. The next morning I had
a meeting at 7:00 a.m. Burke had the complete analysis of all of the plans.
You talk about a process that is fair and open, let me tell you, it's not fair
and it has not been open. I was here Friday night till 9:00 p.m. and we could
not get the plan completed. You talked about the lady singing the blues,
yes, I'm singing the blues because I have worked hard on these plans and
I would like an opportunity for the black people in this state to have as
many black representation as they can.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Reaves, to close.
Rep. Reaves: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I'll be extremely brief. I think
if we just look at the numbers of what a corrected version would be if we
allow for this amendment to pass, to be temporarily passed, and then
brought in the corrected version which I understand was put into the
House computers at 8:00 a.m. this morning and is still whirling around on
that very slow moving machine upstairs. Now, if we looked at the corrected
version of Burke, I mean Brown and Reaves, we have two seats over 60

percent. If we look at what the House is presenting with Mr. Burke, zero.
If we look at what Burke, Brown and Reaves are presenting, from 50 to 59

June 4, 1992

1 which in terms of numbers may be about 30 people that we're talking
about. And frankly, what we're trying to do, I think, to improve,
particularly the black district in Dade County-it just so happens that-
you know that we go through an area called Wynwood which has black
hispanics there. There are Puerto Ricans, so I assume when we went down

E OF REPRESENTATIVES 47

percent, we find three. If we look at the House and Mr. Burke, we find
three. If we look at what Mr. Brown, I'm sorry, Ms. Brown, and Miss
Reaves, I'm sorry, Mr. Reaves, are presenting-
Speaker Wetherell: That's all right, I'm getting confused too, Mr.
Reaves.
Rep. Reaves: -we find two in the 40 to 49 percent, and with the
House and Mr. Burke we find one. If Mr. Burke is correct in his argument
against our amendment 205, I would say he is correct. I would say that
Brown and Reaves attempted to take black voters from other areas and
bring them together to create black seats. It's interesting, it's interesting.
But I would agree that Brown and Reaves attempted to bring black votes
that had been fragmented into other districts together to create minority
majority seats so that somehow in the Senate, the black people would have
a stronger voice. Interesting. Thank you.
Speaker Wetherell: OK. So, Mr. Reaves having closed. Mr. Kelly
suggests the absence of a quorum. The Clerk will unlock the machine. The
Members will record their presence. Quorum call. Quorum call. The Clerk
will lock the machine and announce the presence of a quorum.
Reading Clerk: 113 Members voting. A quorum is present, Mr.
Speaker.
Speaker Wetherell: All right. So, Mr. Reaves having closed, the
question recurs on the passage of Amendment number 5, number 205. All
those people in favor will say "Yea," opposed "Nay." It is not adopted. Five
hands. The Clerk will unlock the machine. Have all Members voted? Have
all Members voted? The Clerk will lock the machine and announce the
vote.
Reading Clerk: 49 "Yeas," 66 "Nays," Mr. Speaker.
Speaker Wetherell: Not adopted. Now, we temporarily passed
amendment 201, by Wallace. Go back and take up amendment 201.
Reading Clerk: Representatives Burke and others offered the
following amendment: Strike descriptions for District 1, District 2, District
3, District 4-
Speaker Wetherell: Let's see. Mr.-wait a minute-Mr. Morse?
Rep. Morse: Question to Mr. Burke.
Speaker Wetherell: You're recognized. Let Mr. Burke explain it,
then we'll get back to it. Mr. Burke, do you wish to make any explanations?
Rep. Burke: It's basically what I made before. We perfected a district
so that we have actually four districts, particularly in Jacksonville where
we tried to put as close to the 48 percent it was 10 years ago. I think we
did that so that we have four good districts which are not illusionary and
will elect African-Americans, not only in the primary, but also will elect
them in the general elections.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Morse, you're recognized. He
yields.
Rep. Morse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Burke, when you started,
way before the explanation of your 201 amendment, you said that this was
the best you could draw as far as minorities. Again, I have a question
because the numbers that I see on the HJR 2491, I see that a hispanic
district is number 34 with 74.2 and yet this new one, 201, only has 72.1. On
HJR 2491, Senate seat number 40 has got 66.3 as far as the hispanics and
on Senate 201, which is this new amendment that you are presenting, has
only got 66.0. So, as far as the numbers that I am seeing, this amendment
actually reduces the number of hispanics in two of your three Senate
districts. So, I would want you to explain to me why you are saying that
this is the best you can do for hispanics, when you are actually not
improving but making worse what was already into HJR 2491, which you
were also a sponsor of.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Burke, to respond.
Rep. Burke: Mr. Speaker, thank you. What we're talking about, one
district losing three-tenths of 1 and another one also losing three-tenths of

48 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE

there we might have either put them in another district, but I just don't
see one-tenth of one percent or three-tenths of one percent as being the
determining factor between whether or not you can elect a hispanic. I think
what's more important is the numbers in front of that, there is still 66
percent, 72 percent and 76 percent.

REPRESENTATIVE SILVER IN THE CHAIR
Rep. Silver: Representative Hill, for what purpose?
Rep. Hill: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To speak briefly against the
amendment, if I could.
Rep. Silver: There may be some questions. Could we take the
questions first?
Rep. Hill: Yes.
Rep. Silver: Representative Morse.
Rep. Morse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Burke, I'm not debating
the amount. What I am debating is your statements for the record, on the
floor-on this floor of the House of Representatives, when you said that
this amendment was the best you could do for minorities. What I am
contending is that is not absolutely correct-not correct unless you don't
want to consider hispanics minorities. Unless you are now saying, you
know, that hispanics do not deserve to be treated in an equitable way, and
therefore we are not minorities, and therefore are reducing from your
original plan to this new amendment is really not having an impact on
minorities. I would like some clarification because, as far as I'm concerned,
on the numbers that I am seeing on your amendment, you are reducing the
percentage of hispanics in two of the three Senate seats and you are saying
this is the best you can do for minorities, whereas your other plan had
better representation for minorities.
Rep. Silver: Representative Burke, you are recognized.
Rep. Burke: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I tell you what I was talking
about going to that Wynwood-let me tell you what we tried to do. We took
out some Democrats so the area would be more Republican-hence more
apt to elect Republicans who are going to be hispanic. We actually thought
we were trying to help you guys out so you can at least get something. But
if you like, we can put more Democrats in there, but what we did was took
out the Democrats so we can improve the performance of hispanic
candidates.
Rep. Silver: Representative Diaz-Balart. Is this for the purpose of a
question?
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Yes, Sir. A couple of questions, if I may, Mr.
Speaker.
Rep. Silver: You're recognized.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Mr. Burke, looking in the numbers in
amendment 201, you have, I believe, four black seats ranging from 56.2
percent to 47.6 percent. So, I guess what you are basically saying is that,
in that range, those are African-American seats. Correct?
Rep. Burke: We're saying they are African-American seats based also
on performance, and you have situations like in the 37th-you have a
situation where actually African-American registered voters are even
higher than the voting-age population. That's the area, they're from Dade
County, you know, around the Joe Robbie Stadium and Opa-locka, where
they actually come out and vote higher Republican, and just to make sure
there is an African-American seat we did that. And we also did it in the Fort
Lauderdale area and also that was why we did it.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: If you were to be shown seats that have those
numbers, and then, I imagine that you would want to see that they don't
perform, that they're not African-American seats, or they should be drawn,
if not, correct? In other words, if those numbers are available elsewhere,
similar to those numbers, you would think that unless you're shown that
they cannot perform, that they could be African-American seats, right,

especially if they do perform?
Rep. Burke: Absolutely, no matter where they are in the state, if you
can get those numbers to show a performance then we should have done
them and my plan should be improved. But we shouldn't have to go 200
miles to get those numbers. Because also one real question here was, we

]1

E OF REPRESENTATIVES June 4, 1992

didn't want to go to a lot of market medias and all that which you don't
have to do with this group that is relatively compact. But, if you see it
anywhere else in the state, absolutely.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, if I may.
Rep. Silver: Follow-up question.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Thank you, Sir. Mr. Burke, you would agree that
today as we stand here there are three hispanic-American members of the
Florida Senate, correct?
Rep. Burke: Correct.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: So there is no argument there, obviously.
Rep Burke: Absolutely.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: There is also a district that is 55 percent hispanic-
American where there is not a hispanic-American elected, but it is
currently 55 percent hispanic-American. Would you not agree, sir, that if
you have basically, right now, at least three and a strong access, or arguably
even four hispanic-American seats, that if you have less than that all of a
sudden that would constitute a regression? Or if not, what would constitute
a regression?
Rep. Burke: Let me clear up, I think, what you're talking about is
Senator Jack Gordon's district which as it presently is would be 55 percent
hispanic, but with also about 80,000 people under it; once you do that it
would be less than 50 percent, once you put 80,000 people in there, unless
you would have got 80,000 hispanics. The problem is, and it's a
geographical problem that we have in Dade County, when we started out
trying to do a minority district and started out trying to do what we could
for the black districts, and it just so happens we had a geographical
boundary we're touching-that after we redid the district then we started
to do the hispanic districts and we just didn't have those numbers, plus we
couldn't because of contiguity, couldn't jump across boundaries. But I
would agree with you, that if we tried to do it the way the Senate did it,
in which they didn't do either one, I think they would be stuck with having
to do one or the other.
Rep. Silver: Representative Valdes.
Rep. Valdes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Burke, I too disagree that
this is the best you can do. In your opening remarks, you said that you were
complying with the letter and the spirit of the law. In order to do that, you
need to maximize minority representation because that is what the law
says. Now, there's been many spurious and uneducated arguments that the
hispanic community in Dade County should not be considered a minority
under the Voting Rights Act because we constitute 50 percent of the
population in Dade County. First, it is clear that the Voting Rights Act
protects voting minorities. The voting hispanic population in Dade County
is very well under 50 percent. However, when you speak of state
redistricting we must take a statewide outlook in this approach. Hispanics
comprise only 12.3 percent of the population of Dade County. So, we are
clearly a minority as per the Voting Rights Act. So, I submit to you again
that this is not the best that you can do. I submit to you again that this
plan that is being proposed does not comply with the letter and the spirit
of the law.
Rep. Silver: Representative Burke, there are others who have a
question, so let me go to Representative De Grandy, and then you can
respond any way you want. Representative De Grandy, for purpose of a
question.
Rep. De Grandy: Yes, I have several questions, Mr. Speaker. Thank
you.
Rep. Silver: OK.
Rep. De Grandy: One, Mr. Burke, let's look at the statement that you
made that you wanted to do the best possible for the minority
communities. And in accepting the fact that both blacks and hispanics are
minority communities, let me give you some numbers and then give you
some "would you belive" questions.

Rep. Burke: OK.
Rep. De Grandy: Would you believe, expanding on Representative
Morse's comment, that in your plan not only did you go down in
percentages on two of the three hispanic districts, but you went up on the

four black districts which shows a conscious attempt to maximize the
existing African-American districts in your plan, and a conscious attempt
to minimize on party grounds which is illegal because it's against the law
to minimize hispanic representation. And also, sir, so you can answer some
of them all at the same time since you're taking notes, that the only way
you were able to do that with the African-American districts was because
you had an incredible deviation per district. And I will read them out to
you: District 7, 10,418 under the ideal population; District 35, 8,500 under
ideal population; District 37, 9,476 under ideal population and District 39,
9,241 under ideal population. And the reason you did that, of course, was
to up the black percentage in the districts. But would you believe, sir, that
what you did with the hispanic districts was totally inconsistent, and you
upped the number, the ideal population, in order to pack more hispanics,
i.e. District 33, 4,000 over; District 34, 456 over; and only one, District 40,
did you do the deviation down. Would you believe, sir, that that shows a
clear conscious and convincing attempt to maximize, as best you can, and
understand the black districts while at the same time minimizing, as much
as you can, the hispanic districts?
Rep. Silver: Representative Burke.
Rep. Burke: Thank you very much. Let me just say as relates to
deviations, and as relates to hispanics and the black populations, one of the
arguments that I have heard, particularly when we were dealing with
congressional reapportionment, was that there was a need to have a larger
percentage of hispanics in a district because of the large number of
hispanics who were not yet citizens. Since we wanted to consider citizenry,
make sure we also had those who were registered to vote, voting-age
population. For that reason we wanted to make sure to increase, as much
as we could, the deviation, increase the number of people in the state
districts to that assure that you account for those who may not be residents
or may not be citizens, and assure that you could do that.
I looked at one other plan, one of the programs in the Brown-Reaves plan
that we dealt with, that we noted, at least I noted something, that in some
performances that hispanics are not doing well for some hispanic
candidates particularly, frankly, the Governor. And one of the things I
wanted to do, even without even having to get to that, was to make sure
that hispanic meant hispanic that you wanted. We simply did not have that
difficulty when it came to the black population. With the black population
you had to have, as I've said before, a situation where the registered voters
in town were higher even than the voting-age population. After some
thought that maybe we needed to go beyond and try to create another one,
but what we heard as we went around the state, we clearly heard from the
black community they wanted to have as high as they could to have a real
district. So we are attempting to do that. Other than that it was, again, just
geography that could prevent it. However, let me tell you that, as I said,
this is a process, not an event. My plan has been out there, and I'm always
open to someone who can come up with a suggestion about to how to make
it better.
Rep. Silver: Representative De Grandy, a follow-up to this.
Rep. De Grandy: Sir, with all due respect. You haven't answered my
question. Because my question is basically, why have you taken an
inconsistent strategy with two groups? You have deviated down immensely
on all the black districts, you have deviated up on the hispanic districts.
If you wanted to increase the hispanic representation and ensure that in
those hispanic districts a hispanic will get elected, you would have done the
same that you did with the black districts. You would have deviated down
in population so that the percentage of hispanics was higher in those
districts. That's what you did to up your percentage numbers in the black
districts. You did the opposite in the hispanic districts. My question is, why
are you taking an inconsistent strategy with two hispanic groups, unless it
is of course to divest those hispanic groups of their voting strength?
Rep. Burke: OK, let me just say, Mr. De Grandy, that hispanic and
black votes are not the same. We all may be minorities, we all, and I believe
that hispanics are language minorities under the Voting Rights Act. I
mean, as to whether or not you're entitled to the same remedy, that
depends on-that's when you go into performance and what the act says.
In this case there are a number of reasons, even historical reasons, why it
is we tried to work on the black residents and a different history when it

comes to hispanics. So the reason why I treated them differently was
because they are different. I mean, we vote different. There are other

49

things, the Jesse Jackson performance, you can see a real difference there.
I mean, you look at the Martinez performance you see a difference. So that
the answer to your question is that we treated them differently because
they are differently. The African-American did not have the difficulty with
having the number of people over who are actually not citizens as much as
we have, particularly in South Florida, with the hispanics. We want to
account for that, that's why we will go up.
In terms of the deviations, I would suggest to you the deviations are not
greatly significant. We tried to stay within a three point, a three percentage
point deviation having heard Common Cause and some others suggest that,
and we tried to stay within that, even though the law would allow for 10
percent or 5 percent either way. So the answer is that no, the deviations
are really not that significantly different, and secondly, we treated the two
communities differently because they are different.
Rep. Silver: Representative Thomas, for what purpose?
Rep. Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker Silver, a series of questions
to Mr. Burke, if I may? Nice tie, Sir.
Rep. Silver: Sure. You're recognized.
Rep. Thomas: Thank you. Mr. Burke, you're going to have to help me
with some of the things that you've said. You specifically said to Mr. Morse,
and I think the record will reflect this, that in the three districts that he
is talking about you had to put more Republicans in them. I would be
interested in knowing what other districts you felt you had to place more,
either Republicans or Democrats, throughout the state.
Rep. Burke: First, I really didn't say that.
Rep. Thomas: Then could you clear up exactly what you said when
you talked to Mr. Morse about the partisan aspects of it?
Rep. Burke: OK. What I said is that we attempted, as much as we
could, to increase the ability of the hispanics to select their own candidates.
In Dade County, the hispanics generally are Republicans, vote Republican.
Actually, all we did was look at the numbers that said what's favorable to
hispanics, and to get to that number, in and of itself, what you do is
generally, you increase the Republican rate and you decrease the
Democratic rate. You don't have to go looking for Democrats and
Republicans. To do that, all you want to do is make the conscious decision,
as we did, that we wanted to increase the ability of the hispanics to select
their own candidates.
Rep. Thomas: So, in order to do that, and I think the words you used
to Mr. Morse were that, "we had to put more Republicans in." I believe
those are your exact words. Now, I would be interested in what other areas
of the state you felt you had to either increase Republicans or increase
Democrats or things like that.
Rep. Burke: Well, thank you for asking me and I will answer again,
the record as you said, will speak for itself. I would just suggest to you that
if you had a number of hispanics in your area that have the same voting
pattern and the same registration pattern that they do in Dade County, in
one, we're going to have to try to increase the ability of those hispanics to
elect their own candidates. More likely than not it would be increasing the
Republican aspect of that district. It doesn't have to be a conscious attempt
to do that on a partisan basis. Instead what you do is you do it on a basis
of people and by virtue of how overwhelmingly they are. Same thing for
Democrats, you don't have to go looking for Democrats. You go after trying
to increase black votes and put more black people in a district. What you'll
wind up doing is increasing the Democratic registration in that district.
You don't have to do it on a partisan basis, you just do it on the basis of
trying to enhance that particular area.
Rep. Thomas: OK, so you don't perceive putting more Republicans
in an area or more Democrats in an area as partisan gerrymandering?
Rep. Burke: No. No, especially if you find out that what happens is
that the area like some of these black districts were 76, one was almost 81
percent Democrat. I mean, if you put more black people in there it is going
to increase that percentage. I mean, it doesn't help any Republican trying
to run in that district, whether you're 81 percent or 84 percent Democrat.
So, you don't go around looking for Democrats or Republicans, you just try
to enhance that particular minority and if you do it, you would do it. I
mean, one thing follows the other, it is not an attempt to do it on a partisan

basis, it is an attempt to do it on an ethnic or racial basis, and that just
carries with it some baggage.

June 4, 1992

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

50 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE

Rep. Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Burke.
Rep. Silver: Representative Lewis, for what purpose?
Rep. Lewis: For a question, Mr. Silver.
Rep. Silver: Yes, you're recognized.
Rep. Lewis: When you were speaking with Mr. De Grandy or Mr.
Valdes, you said that in certain districts there were more registered voters
than there were voting-age population. Would you tell me how that could
happen?
Rep. Burke: Absolutely. The reason that happens in black areas is
because of what we call the undercount. As you know, when people are
going to census, if they go to some areas-there are some areas they don't
want to go in. We usually get kind of middle-class white people to do some
of these census reports. Well, actually, you've got middle-class black people
to do them; there are some areas they may not want to go in and there are
some areas they make assumptions for even if they ought to go in those
areas. So, we have an undercount in black areas, probably because people
don't count them. So, when they don't count them, what happens, they can
still go out to register to vote. So, it may be higher than even the statistics
have shown that there is a voting-age population.
Rep. Lewis: Do we have evidence of this, where there are actually
more registered voters than there are voting-age population within a
district?
Rep. Burke: Absolutely, we have it. I think if you look at the District
37 that we have, you would find that pattern.
Rep. Lewis: That's interesting. Thank you.
Rep. Silver: Representative Hill, for what purpose?
Rep. Hill: Is it time to debate against the amendment yet, Mr.
Speaker?
Rep. Silver: Let me just see, are there any further questions for
Representative Burke on the amendment? OK, we are now on debate.
Representative Hill, to speak against the amendment. You're recognized.
Rep. Hill: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members. A long time ago I asked
Mr. Burke if he represented this amendment as being the very best that
could be done for minorities and Mr. Burke answered "conditionally, yes."
But, let me point out to you that the amendment that we defeated a few
moments ago, in its corrected form, would have provided five African-
American districts with populations over 50.5 percent. The amendment
that Mr. Burke offers, produces three with populations above 53.1 percent.
Further, the amendment that was just defeated offered two more districts
where African-American population was 43.5 percent and 46 percent, and
the amendment that we are now considering offers one more at 47.6
percent. Further, the amendment that we just defeated, in its corrected
form, offered four hispanic districts with populations ranging from 64.3
percent to 68.3 percent. The amendment that we are now considering offers
two hispanic seats with percentages 72.1 percent and 76.6 percent and one
at 66 percent even. So, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would tell you
that the amendment being considered now is not and does not do the best
that it can do for minority participation in the Florida Senate. And I heard
Mr. Burke say, in one instance they went to a neighborhood that included
some people who were hispanics, but who were Democrats. I didn't know
that the protected minority was Republican hispanics. I thought the
protected minority was hispanic. I don't think the protected minority is
Democrat African-Americans. I think it is African-Americans. Ladies and
gentlemen, I would suggest to you it would be irresponsible to adopt this
amendment when we know that we can do better for minority participation
in the Florida Senate-when we know that we are going to be required to
do better than this amendment does. Therefore, I would suggest its defeat.
Rep. Silver: Representative Logan, for what purpose? With a
question?
Rep. Logan: Yes. Mr. Hill.

Rep. Silver: Wait a minute. Representative Hill, you take the floor
and yield to a question?
Rep. Logan: Would you characterize the amendment as being a
better minority plan than the present PCB that is before us?

E OF REPRESENTATIVES

June 4, 1992

Rep. Hill: The question, I believe, is if I would characterize it being
better than the bill that's before us, this amendment is better? In an
extremely marginal sense, Mr. Logan, yes.
Rep. Silver: Representative Cosgrove, for what purpose?
Rep. Cosgrove: To speak in favor of the amendment.
Rep. Silver: You're recognized.
Rep. Cosgrove: Mr. Speaker, I think that what we should really be
doing at this time is complimenting Representative Burke and the
subcommittee and the people that have worked very diligently on this
amendment. Now, some in this Chamber would prefer that we have a quota
plan that takes the Voting Rights Act to the outer limits, but that's not the
requirements of the law. And not only is it not the requirement of the law,
but it doesn't serve the people of Florida. All the people of Florida want
representation. This plan provides not only fair representation but legal
representation for all Floridians. Representative Burke, you have met the
requirements of the Voinovich Case, which is the most recent Federal
Court Case that says that the minority districts that you have created are
within the bounds of the Voting Rights Act, and they are fair and they also
afford representation to all other Floridians. So this plan meets the test
and should make us proud to bring Florida into the next decade. It handles
all of the concerns. It represents a fair representation for all of the people
of Florida. We ought to be very proud to vote for the Burke plan that will
bring the Florida Senate, hopefully, into the 1990s.
Rep. Silver: OK, is there any further debate? Representative Burke
to close on the amendment.
Rep. Burke: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I can be brief because
we discussed that, and let me just indicate to those who have asked
questions that I understand that we are all making a record. So, I really
don't take it personally. And let me also say this, that when one says the
plan is good or not, while I ask the question, compared to what? Now, all
of the plans that are on the table, if we looked at them, even a plan that
is the Senate plan, that passed out of the Senate committee, had one black
district and has three hispanic districts. The plan presented by Common
Cause had one black district, and two hispanic districts. The plan that was
recommended by Ms. Irvine, had one black district, and has three hispanic
districts-I'm sorry, has four hispanic districts. The plan that was
recommended, which we haven't totally seen, by Ms. Figg and Ms. Brown,
that talks about having five black districts-actually one of those, if you
have copies of this you will see, we have a district that goes from Escambia
County all the way over, touches on Leon County, goes all the way over,
gets to Baker County, goes a little up to Naussau County, comes down a
little into Duval County, then goes to Alachua County and then goes all the
way down to Volusia County. And if I were to do that, I could come up with
a 80 percent black district, if I had that latitude. Also, what I want to do
is come up with districts that are real districts. We only have to give people
the right to try to elect people of their own choice. Understand, black folks
don't want a quota. The foreign history of this state and the history of this
nation our quota was zero. We don't want a quota. James Brown once said
"Don't give me nothing, just open the door and I'll get it myself." Well,
that's what we're trying to do with this plan, to create the opportunity for
people to come up and have the opportunity to elect their own
representatives. Mr. Hill had indicated that I think he thought he could
do better, and I look forward to a Hill amendment that's going to do better.
I really look forward to it.
But all in all, I would just suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, when you look
at these plans and you compare them as they are, no plan recommends the
number of black districts, that are real, that we do. The only plans that
have the four hispanic districts are the Reaves plan, and one of the other
Republican plans. So, yet, neither one of those actually have two black
districts in Dade County. So, you can only have a choice, as I said, of
geography. In Dade County you have that. So I would just recommend that
you look at the plans that are side by side. We've done better, and if we
can do better, we urge you to tell us. But we've done better. And I'd like
to end, Mr. Speaker, by thanking particularly Mr. Kevin Neal who was our
staff person that worked on this. Mr. Neal became known as the midnight
person, because he worked during the day, went home, got lunch, then
came back, worked till midnight, ordered pizza then worked on until 5:00

in the morning. And to those people who talk about-and I think Ms.
Brown alluded to why I had a plan that we didn't have on Monday at about

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE]

6:00 and I had it at 7:00 in the morning-it's because Mr. Neal and I were
here at 2:00 and 3:00, in the morning doing it up. And so, I just suggested
that anybody that worked hard and worked long on this will come up with
this, this is the best product you can get. I think you ought to be proud to
show the Senate and to show the people of Florida that we can really live
in accord to the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution of the United
States of America. I urge a positive vote.

THE SPEAKER IN THE CHAIR
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Mackenzie.
Rep. Mackenzie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the
absence of a quorum.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Mackenzie suggests the
absence of a quorum. The Clerk will unlock the machine; the Members will
record their presence. Have all Members recorded their presence? Have all
Members recorded their presence? The Clerk will lock the machine and
announce the presence of a quorum.
Reading Clerk: 109 Members voting, a quorum is present, Mr.
Speaker.
Speaker Wetherell: OK, so Representative Burke having closed,
the question recurs on Amendment number 4, amendment 201 to the
Senate plan. The Clerk will unlock the machine and the Members will
proceed to vote. Have all Members voted? Have all Members voted? The
Clerk will lock the machine and announce the vote.
Reading Clerk: 68 "Yeas," 45 "Nays," Mr. Speaker.
Speaker Wetherell: By your vote, the amendment passes.
(HR 803 adopted)
Speaker Wetherell: Mr. Mackey-take up and read-well, Mr.
Mackey do you want to make some comments on the House
reapportionment plan first?
Rep. Mackey: Mr. Speaker, I believe in opening remarks, we covered
that adequately, and I think, in recognition of the time, we can move right
on into the amendatory process.
Speaker Wetherell: All right. Let's take up and read the
Mortham-De Grandy-Diaz-Balart House amendment 204.
Reading Clerk: Representatives Mortham and others offered the
following amendment: Strike descriptions for District 1, District 2, District
3, District 4, District 5, District-
Speaker Wetherell: Ms. Mortham.
Rep. Mortham: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Permission to approach the
well?
Speaker Wetherell: You're recognized to approach the well to
explain the amendment.
Rep. Mortham: Thank you, Members of the House. If
Representatives Webster and De Grandy would approach the well, as well,
they will have some comments on this particular plan.
Speaker Wetherell: Representatives De Grandy and Webster
recognized to approach the well.
Rep. Mortham: Thank you. Members of the House, on this particular
plan I'd like to just give some very brief opening remarks, and then if there
are questions. We're not going to prolong the process here, but, as we have
consistently stated from the very beginning of this redistricting process,
when we draw our plans, we first drew the minority majority districts, then
the minority influence or accessing, following that we drew the remaining
districts according to the criteria we had publicly stated and asked the
committee to adopt. This plan is fully in keeping with those criteria and
those objectives. As you will notice, this plan is the closest to achieving the
constitutional one-person, one-vote mandate by keeping the district
populations to an equal number. As Mr. Deutsch repeatedly stated during
the congressional process, we have time to make a technical amendment
at the end of the process, should this amendment be adopted, to get all
districts to a zero deviation which is our goal and intent. The purpose of

this amendment is to allow candidates of first choice for all the citizens of
the state of Florida. I would like to indicate to you, that on the computer

June 4, 1992

this plan exists only if you take a myopic point of view, and look only at
Dade County as if you were redistricting the Dade County Commission.
And if the Democratic Party had remained faithful to that analysis, the
Democrats would have drawn their House districts within Dade County so
that they could say: look this is what ours did, but you guys are being

E OF REPRESENTATIVES 51

that this plan was drawn on, we did not have access to all Members' homes,
we did not have the icons for the houses of our various Members. In District
23, which is the minority access district and Representative Chestnut is in
that seat, we have increased the minority population there to 47 percent.
However, we found, in the valuation of the plan just last evening, that she
has been paired with Representative Flagg. We intend to change that,
because we know that under the Voting Rights Act that would not be
permissible. And anyone else that has changes that they would like to make
to this plan which, even if it does not pass today, we will be presenting in
the conference committee so that it will go to Justice. If you have changes
that you would like to make, because again we did not have access to where
people lived, please be in touch with us. At this time, I would like to turn
it over to Representative Webster who will explain some of the minority
districts.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Webster.
Rep. Webster: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members. I know for
those of you that aren't on the committee it is very difficult to go through
all these numbers and even difficult for us to explain, as we begin talking;
because I'm sure it's a matter of debate whether or not a certain district
performs, a certain district is or is not a majority minority district. So, what
I chose to do was to take the congressional amendment that was offered
by the Black Caucus and use those numbers. There was a representation
made that those districts did perform. There were four districts there. So
I took those numbers and I compared them to each of the two: the PCB
that we have before us, the bill we have before us; and with the amendment
that we are offering to the House at present. In looking at those, as we go
through each of the ones, we could say that with the House plan, as it
stands now, there were 14 seats that Jesse Jackson received the majority
of the votes. In our plan, there were 17. But what I chose to do was to
compare the performance of these districts to the performance of the
congressional plan offered by the Black Caucus. And in comparing that,
there were 11 seats in the present House plan that performed better than
that congressional plan. In the amendment you have before you, there are
17 House seats that are minority seats that performed better than the
congressional plan. And therefore, we would like to say that this is a plan
that would come closer to meeting the needs expressed by the Voting
Rights Act. We believe it complies. It doesn't go on one edge, it doesn't go
on the other. It is a way that I can guarantee, I believe, that this plan would
be accepted by the Justice Department. However, on the other hand, I
would say we are too far within the limits to-on the existing bill-I think
it does miss the mark in this particular area. And I believe, because of that,
this amendment would be far superior. Now Representative De Grandy,
Mr. Speaker, if that would be all right.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative De Grandy.
Rep. De Grandy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of
the House, let me touch upon the hispanic districts in this plan, as Mr.
Webster has touched on some of the African-American districts. And we
would open for any questions on those districts. The plan that is before you
today is hands-down better than the plan that has been passed out of
committee. Representative Deutsch said today on the floor, that the map
and the numbers that we're considering should speak for themselves. I
think this one screams out for you to support it. This map does have 11
hispanic districts. Representative Mackey said in his initial presentation,
that his map has 11, quote, hispanic districts-seven that were majority,
five that were influence. Well, if 11 is the magic number, this is the plan
that you should vote for, because this has 11 majority hispanic districts.
And everywhere in the case law it tells you very clearly that majority
minority districts are preferable to draw than influenced districts. If you
can get the whole pie, basically, why should you only give a piece of the pie
to that community. And that's the whole policy question behind this plan.
There have been arguments made that these districts are too much; it
is not, quote: fair to have 11 districts in Dade County because the hispanic
community is only 50 percent hispanic in Dade County and if-therefore
this plan, as far as the hispanic districts are concerned, is greedy. Let me
address that point because it needs to be addressed. That argument against

52 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE

greedy because you asked for more than 50 percent of that county. Thank
God that Representative Mackey's new plan has just made our argument
for us, and destroyed the Democratic Party's argument. Because, you see,
in Representative Mackey's plan the seats that are based in Dade go out
to Collier, Lee County, Broward County and Monroe County-clearly
indicating that Representative Mackey truly believes that you should take
a statewide outlook to redistricting and not a myopic countywide outlook.
Taking Mr. Mackey's statewide outlook to the plan, we can see that
hispanics constitute 12.2 percent of the population of the state of Florida.
The districts that we have drawn are all performing hispanic districts.
They are already, in terms of performance, in the record. There have been
Miami Herald articles, reporting that Steve Cody, an expert in
reapportionment in Dade County, analyzed those 11 districts. They
perform on key hispanic versus Anglo races. We have introduced that into
the record in public hearings. We have introduced that into the record in
committee hearings. Which leads us to ask, the policy question: is this the
right thing to do for the state of Florida?
Ladies and gentlemen, if you have a community that has been
historically discriminated and amounts to 12.2 percent of the population
of the state of Florida, and a map is drawn that at best would be 11 majority
districts and an influence district which-Representative Martinez today
sits in-would amount to 12 seats, 10 percent of the House of
Representatives. The question is not should you over-maximize, because
you're not even over-maximizing, you're doing 10 percent of the seats for
12.2 percent of the population. But the question seems to become, really,
are you going to be fair? That is the policy question that this plan presents
to you. Are you going to be fair and are you going to do the right thing?
And I submit to you that this plan, as far as the voting rights minorities
are concerned, is the right thing to do. Thank you.
Speaker Wetherell: Is there debate on the De Grandy amendment?
Is there debate? Representative Garcia.
Rep. Garcia: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to state what
happened to me last Thursday, and I think it's relevant to this amendment
and to this process that we are going through. At 3:45 p.m. last Thursday,
I had a friend that was from South Florida visiting us in Tallahassee. The
person is very much involved in the reapportionment issue, and I asked
him to join me on the eighth floor to the redistricting suite, the
reapportionment suite-and I was denied access when I got there. I was
received at the reception desk and then was not allowed in. Then I started
to ask for one of the Members that was in the suite, and the only way that
I was able to speak to them was that they paged the person. And I was never
allowed through the door to go talk to this person directly.
At this point, you have a plan before you that truly maximizes minority
representation. While Justice Department may not be obligated to
scrutinize non-Section 5 counties, it has scrutinized such counties before.
In 1991 redistricting plan of North Carolina, which was submitted to
Justice Department and rejected, the department noted, I quote, "While
we were aware of the Mecklenburg was not a county subject to the
preclearance requirements of Section 5, information regarding the choices
of boundary line changes in the county is relevant to our review and
concern to that purposeful choices were made throughout the redistricting
process that adversely impact minority voting strength." And you have to
relate to a letter dated on the 18th of December, 1991, from John R. Dunne,
Assistant Attorney General, to the Special Deputy Attorney General of the
State of North Carolina. On page four it says, "Therefore, keep in mind
although not mandatory, the Justice Department will review the entire
plan." Actions taken to date, delaying votes, parliamentary moves, to fail
to hear plans, etc., will clearly demonstrate that purposeful choices were
made throughout the redistricting process that adversely impact minority
voting strength. The North Carolina rejection at page five also clearly
establishes that Justice Department considers the state's failure to
implement a plan that maximizes majority minority districts suspect where
alternative plans presenting a greater number of majority minority were
previously presented during the state redistricting process and rejected.
Mr. Speaker, I think that I would very clearly state for the record that
the Members of this House have to consider this amendment and have to

vote favorable for this amendment because this truly maximizes minority
representation in the state of Florida, in the House and in the Senate.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Diaz-Balart.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: For purpose of a question, Mr. Speaker.

/

minority communities, and that's probably the problem that has to be
fixed for that computer.
Speaker Wetherell: Well, that's spicing it up. Representative
Logan.

E OF REPRESENTATIVES June 4, 1992

Speaker Wetherell: Pardon?
Rep. Diaz-Balart: For the purpose of a question, if I may?
Speaker Wetherell: You are recognized. He yields.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Thank you. Mr. De Grandy, if you can, explain to
me what drove this plan? What was the reason for doing these districts?
Was it to protect certain incumbents? Was it to provide minority districts?
What was the real intent? What was your driving force?
Rep. De Grandy: What drove this plan was basically the guidelines
that we have adopted as a Republican Caucus. The driving force within
those guidelines were to draw minority seats first. When you do that, and
privately, even the people in the majority party will concede to you that
that is really the only way to maximize minority participation. Now, even
within that: one, there was no attempt to protect incumbents; two, there
was not even an attempt to help significantly minority incumbents.
Because as you know, Representative Diaz-Balart, it is much easier for you
as a hispanic-American to run in an 85 percent hispanic district than it will
be for you to run in 64 or 65 percent hispanic district. So, even to that
extent, there was no attempt to help the minority incumbents in terms of
incumbent protection from a narrow perspective. Now, we did, however,
create seats that a hispanic-American incumbent or challenger would have
a significant opportunity to win, which is devoting what the Voting Rights
Act tells you-that you have to provide the opportunity for that
community to elect a candidate of its choice. And in that respect, if the
incumbent minority member is a candidate of choice, he does have a
significant opportunity to be elected. But that is what drove the plan.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Mr. De Grandy, I see that your plan, as far as the
minority districts, looks like you took great effort in not fragmenting
minorities or also not packing minorities. Do you believe that packing
minorities is something that should not be done or is illegal in your opinion?
Rep. De Grandy: Oh yes, absolutely. Packing minority districts:
there are several opinions on that, and I believe one Supreme Court opinion
that speaks to whether it is packing or diluting. The difference between
this plan and the Mackey plan is that this plan tries to concentrate the
strength of minority groups in majority minority districts, while at the
same time not going overboard and over-utilizing that population to the
point where you would not have that population available to draw other
seats. You could see that glaring difference in the two plans on that level,
specifically in the hispanic community in Dade County. You have seats
that are 30, 35 percent hispanic adjoining one to the other that, clearly, if
they would have been drawn together would have been a majority seat. And
now those populations are basically, under the Voting Rights Act,
disenfranchised by throwing them into two districts where they really
cannot affect the outcome.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: If I may follow up, Mr. Speaker? You were able
to create those districts, those minority districts, without packing the
districts, without splitting the minorities into districts that could be viewed
as there to protect non-minority incumbents? You were able to do that, Mr.
De Grandy? Suppose though, that you're not a computer whiz or an expert.
And as far as I know, you haven't had the privilege of having practice on
that-on how-on the computer for a lengthy period of time; but, yet, you
were able to do that? I'm trying to ascertain why, if you were able to do
that, why, maybe, others were not able to do that.
Rep. De Grandy: Well, Mr. Diaz-Balart, when you see the Common
Cause plan, for example, that without any further input, created at least
nine hispanic districts, the answer to that is simple. If you want to do it,
all you have to do is make a conscious attempt to try to maximize and you
will come out with clearly more than the Mackey plan has right now. Our
districts, for example, have from 63.7 percent hispanic to a maximum of
75 percent hispanic with only two districts that are over 70 percent
hispanic. So, clearly, it is very easy to do. All you have to do is make a
conscious attempt to maximize the participation of the hispanic
community. I have the same problems, Representative Diaz-Balart, that
you have with the House computer upstairs. I think it has a sexual
dysfunction and has the ability to want to make love, in other words, to

Rep. Logan: To speak against the amendment.
Speaker Wetherell: You are recognized.
Rep. Logan: It seems to me, Members, that we are back to rhythm
and blues, particularly in Dade County where it seems that the hispanic
community has the rhythm and the black community has the blues. And
let me explain to you what I mean by that. In Opa-locka, a city that's only
comprised of 15,000 people of which 80 percent is black-all five elected
officials are black-are divided into three House districts, two of which are
majority hispanic-Republican. Now, I say there is a city, one of three cities
in this entire state, that has an all black commission-that's
overwhelmingly black-deserves to be put in two Republican districts
when they are presently in a Democratic district, and presently being
served by a black Member and can continue to be served by that. The
communities of Little River and Liberty City are divided. These are
communities that are in one district now, and they are separated into a
hispanic district and a black district. I say to you Members, is that fair?
This plan that's supposed to help all minorities, simply in Dade County,
helps the hispanics and disenfranchises cohesive communities-cohesive
black communities in Dade County.
I would also like to add that Mr. De Grandy spoke of a statewide plan.
Yes, we're doing a statewide plan, and when it's necessary to cross the
county border, then maybe to your north, to your south or to your east or
west, to make up the 111,000 population that we're attempting to do, we
should do that. But I say to you, it is wrong to try to make up for the
hispanics that may be in Central and North Florida by creating 11 districts
that represent the percentage of population that all hispanics across the
state, representing the state of Florida, by disenfranchising the
opportunity for other people in Dade County to have representation in
order to try to make up a relative percentage of hispanics in the state of
Florida by giving them representation only in Dade County. I think that's
wrong.
In addition to that, Members, I will say to you, that as a black Member
of this Legislature, the plan that's been offered by Mr. Mackey is the best
plan for the black community. It's a fair plan for this House of
Representatives and I urge you to vote against the De Grandy plan.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Rudd.
Rep. Rudd: Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken on the subject of
reapportionment since we have been considering it. I have been reasonably
satisfied with the efforts of everyone that has been done. This plan here,
that these good people are offering, is the worst plan that I could imagine
for the North Florida area. I would call it "the-get-Rudd-out-of-the-
Legislature" because I would just absolutely would not run if I had to run
in that form of a configuration. You have a county of almost 200,000 people
which can certainly support a single district in itself for commonality and
has always been the room for another base to go into surrounding counties.
But if you will look at that, the Leon County would run from-the people
who represent Leon County would represent from the very end of Franklin
County to the end of Hamilton County-a 200 mile distance that two
people would have to do. You might notice that Mr. Lawson is in a minority
district, and has been very successful for 10 years in being reelected in that.
His district is rezoned to where he is 30 percent. Mr. Trammell is in a
majority district. He's been pretty successful in getting himself reflected,
but he's in a minority district. There's no sensibility to it. It would
eliminate completely the district, or Mr. Boyd and others would have to
be in there. So, there's just no commonality to this district. I would just
hope that we could really vote this one down with a resounding "No."

REPRESENTATIVE REDDICK IN THE CHAIR
Rep. Reddick: Representative Mackey, you are recognized.
Rep. Mackey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. How did that sound? Thank
you, Mr. Speaker, how did that sound?
Rep. Reddick: A little louder, Representative Mackey, just the right
intonation.
Rep. Mackey: I want to point out something that Representative
Logan did so well earlier. The hispanic seats in this plan are created at the

expense of the black community. But even to that point, while creating
hispanic seats, they themselves have fallen, I think, very short in what

53

they're trying to show. Remember in our opening remarks this morning, we
pointed something out. We said be careful of those who show districts that
have numbers but do not truly perform.
In 1982, seven hispanic seats were created. Two of them had percentages
higher than 80 percent. The rest were between 55 and 65 percent. In the
ensuing election, only three hispanic Members were elected-the two from
the 80 percent or greater districts. One from the district was the fastest
growing hispanic area of Dade County. I think it becomes very obvious that
within their own plan, they have not carefully thought out the process of
who votes, what districts perform. And they're willing to do so at the
expense of the black community in Dade County. Once again, it's not just
that you draw the numbers; it's do they perform, Members? This
amendment, we need to vote down.
Rep. Reddick: Representative Mario Diaz-Balart, you are
recognized.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just need
to comment on that last comment that was made. The statement that the
hispanic districts in this amendment dilute, take away from the black
districts in this amendment-that is totally false, totally erroneous and
false. And I think that my good friend, Mr. Mackey, knows that that is true.
Look at the numbers. The numbers don't lie. There are at least five
African-American districts, House districts, in this plan. Mr. Mackey has
not shown any plan that has more African-American districts, not one.
Furthermore, this plan has much more African-American districts in the
rest of the state than Mr. Mackey's. I think it's important to point out, as
Mr. Burke said before and others have said, that there is clearly a line in
Dade County where you can separate hispanic areas and African-American
areas. This amendment provides five African-American districts in Dade
County, 11 hispanic-American districts in Dade County.
I challenge Mr. Mackey, or I challenge anybody else on this floor to come
up with more African-American seats, and I will support them. But do not
do that at the expense of the hispanics. Do it fairly like this plan does it,
and if there's a plan out there that has more African-American seats, I will
support it. I challenge Mr. Mackey right now, my good friend, to support
a plan that has more African-American seats than this one, that has more
hispanic-American seats clearer than the one you've drawn, Mr. Mackey.
Because again, those statements are erroneous. They are not true. They are
not factual. This plan maximizes hispanics and blacks much more than the
one that we are trying to amend.
Rep. Reddick: All right, Members, let me tell you where I think we
are. We are going to recognize Mr. Wallace, Mr. Lombard and then Mr.
De Grandy to close. I believe that's-Mr. Wallace.
Rep. Wallace: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We've had a lot of talk about
the Voting Rights Act but there is one point that we have to come back to.
The point is this: you do not create minority districts unless you have
created effective minority districts; unless you have created districts in
which the minority community will have the opportunity to elect the
candidate of its choice. And I believe the learned trial lawyer,
Representative De Grandy, will agree with me completely on that point.
What you have in this plan, in the hispanic districts-the so-called 11
hispanic districts, are a number of districts more than half that are right
at the margin between what might be considered effective and what might
not be considered effective. And I believe Representative De Grandy will
agree again that if you create a set of districts and claim that they are
minority districts, but in fact, they are not effective minority districts, then
you have violated the Voting Rights Act. Now, we can argue back and forth
as to whether 64 percent, 63 percent hispanic population is or is not an
effective hispanic district. We have heard Representative De Grandy say
today that he believes that those 11 districts are effective hispanic districts.
But there is a lot of room for argument about whether or not that is a
correct assessment of the facts with respect to these 11 districts. And if you
need to be left with any reasonable doubt about whether those are the facts
or not, here is some reason for your reasonable doubt. When we stood on
the floor several weeks ago and we debated about congressional districts,
Representative De Grandy made very clear in his debate that 65 percent
hispanic population was not sufficient to create effective hispanic districts.
Sixty-five percent was not effective because those were the-65 percent

VAP were the numbers that we had in the House congressional plan. So,
the issue is this: we have six districts of the 11 which are below 65 percent

June 4, 1992

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

54 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE

population, and yet, some of them are around 65 percent, slightly above or
slightly below VAP. But the fact is this: they are within a range that leaves
significant room for doubt as to whether they are 11 hispanic districts. So,
before you go out and accept on face value that there are 11 effective
hispanic districts, you need to understand that there is a lot of uncertainty
whether you've reached that threshold with respect to these 11 districts.
And I suggest to you, if you haven't, if you cut it close to the edge, if you're
wrong about two or three, then you have violated the Voting Rights Act by
falling short of the creation of hispanic districts. And in fact, what you've
done is fractured and fragmented the hispanic districts, hispanic
community, into different districts. I urge a "No" vote on the amendment.
Rep. Reddick: Mr. Lombard, you're recognized.
Rep. Lombard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted Mr. Rudd-
Mr. Rudd. Mr. Rudd, I just thought that you're concerned about the
fragmentation of Leon County in this amendment. If you should look at
Mr. Mackey's amendment, I'm sure you won't want to vote for that either
because it fragments Leon County more. Additionally, Mr. Wallace, I
appreciate your comments, and I know that Mr. De Grandy is ready to
reply, but I have certainly relied on the knowledge of our hispanic
delegation in telling us the necessary percentages that they feel they need
to have. Thank you.
Rep. Reddick: Thank you, Mr. Lombard. Representative Rudd, for
what purpose?
Rep. Rudd: To speak to Mr. Lombard-
Rep. Reddick: You're recognized.
Rep. Rudd: To reply to his question. He's a much better fisherman
than he is a viewer of maps. If you will look at Tallahassee, Leon County,
under the Mackey plan, there are two districts: one of them exclusively
representing Leon; the other is a base for the adjoining counties. This gives
Leon County nothing. It is divided and moves from one side, the center of
Leon County, to Hamilton County one way; and the center of Leon County
to the end of Franklin County on the other. You do much better fishing.
Rep. Reddick: Thank you, Mr. Rudd.
Rep. Lombard: We'll get to that, sir, when that plan comes up. I'll
be glad to do it with you then, thank you.
Rep. Reddick: Thank you. Representative Reaves, for what purpose?
Rep. Reaves: For an observation, Mr. Speaker.
Rep. Reddick: Representative Reaves, you're recognized.
Rep. Reaves: I think that we now have proof, Mr. Speaker, that there
is indeed a hole in the ozone layer, for it has shriveled up your hair and
darkened your skin. Thank you.
Rep. Reddick: All right, Representative Reaves. Now ladies and
gentlemen, we are on the closing. We're going to recognize Representative
De Grandy, Representative Webster, and for final comments,
Representative Mortham. Representative De Grandy, you're recognized.
Rep. De Grandy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me, in my closing--
Rep. Reddick: Members, the Speaker has indicated to you that this
is very important that you hear it and, more importantly, that our
electronic devices hear it. So, Members, please give Mr. De Grandy and the
process the respect that it deserves. So, I'm going to ask you to please take
your conversation in the bubble or outside. Representative De Grandy, you
are recognized.
Rep. De Grandy: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Let me, if I
can, respond to some of the comments that were made during debate and
questions within my closing, and then close with some closing thoughts for
Mr. Mackey and Mr. Wallace, if I can.
First of all: regarding Mr. Logan's argument that Opa-locka is divided,
yes, it is to the extent that we took a different approach to creating the four
majority black seats in Dade County and the influence seat in Dade

County. That may be a valid criticism but, Mr. Logan, you couldn't get up
here and Mr. Mackey couldn't get up here and Mr. Wallace couldn't get
up here; nobody could get up here to say that those five districts would not
perform. They would. So, the bottom line, sir, is that the 11 hispanic
districts were not drawn at the expense of the black community. There are

]

are competent. And I'm not saying it in a negative way; I'm saying it as
positive criticism. They are competent to analyze these plans and to make
those decisions and to serve the function that they have to serve, which is
to represent their community. And I submit to you, sir, that if we're wrong,
we probably won't be back here next year. But I submit to you, sir, if I'm

_ __ __ _ ___ __ __I_

E OF REPRESENTATIVES June 4, 1992

other areas. For example, the Mackey plan breaks in half a compact
community that used to be in my district, Fountainbleau Park, breaks it
literally in half for no reason, just like you complain in Opa-locka. Those
things happen when you try to make plans. The difference is whether you
do it to disenfranchise or to enfranchise. And our plan does it for the latter.
Now, equity, Mr. Logan, equity is a relative concept. If you're saying that
having over 50 percent of the seats in Dade County be hispanic is unfair-
what you're saying, sir, is that there's something wrong with either blacks
or hispanics representing non-hispanic whites. And you should be, sir, I
submit to you with all respect, very careful with that argument because one
day it will be used in the floor of this House and the floor of the Senate
against you and against your community. I don't see anything wrong with
black people representing white people and with hispanics representing
non-hispanic whites. We have for years been told, sir, that we should not
complain because the white faces are up here and up in the Congress are
"representing us minorities very well." Well, what's wrong with the
opposite, Mr. Logan? What's wrong with some black faces and some
hispanic faces representing some of those white non-hispanics that have
been telling us that for years? I don't think that's an equity problem, sir.
There is only one place where hispanic districts can be created, hispanic
majority districts, and that's Dade County. And that's the overriding fact
of why they need to be drawn there the way we have put in our plan-
because nowhere else, unlike the black community that has opportunities
to draw in the center and the west and in the north; unlike the black
community, this is the only place where you could draw, because of
demographic facts, majority hispanic districts. And I am sure that the
Federal Courts and the Justice Department, if this body is not as well
reasoned, will find that that is an overriding and compelling need that
would justify breaking up Opa-locka into two or three areas as long as the
number of black seats in Dade County would have remained the same.
Now, Mr. Wallace and Mr. Mackey, to answer some of your concerns.
First of all, Mr. Mackey, when you talk about the gerrymandered plan that
was done by the Democratic Party 10 years ago-that only gave us two
seats at 80 percent. There was packing at that time. You failed to mention,
sir, that the other districts that were drawn were 58 percent, 58 percent,
60 percent, 59 percent and that they, in fact, did not in the first term elect
hispanic representatives, precisely because they were at those numbers.
And that two years later when the population grew to approximately 64
percent, 65 percent is when hispanics got elected in those districts. You
need to be very careful to be accurate with your facts, sir. The bottom line
is that those districts that are 64.5, 64.7, in our map, if you just do what
you've done for the black communities and deviate down 1,500 people,
you'd get them all-over 65 in VAP and over 65 in total population.
Now let me close with one thought, Mr. Wallace, that I want to address
specifically to you. You have stated that we have to be, "very careful with
the districts that have been written here because they are marginally
hispanic and will not elect an hispanic," etc. Well, first, I would submit to
you, with all due respect, sir, that I'm a better judge of my community than
you are of my community because I live there and I know the voting
patterns of those people. Second, sir, I am willing to put my money where
my mouth is; I've drawn myself a 64.3 percent district. The district that
is 110 is under 65, so you know if I'm wrong I won't be here next year to
represent the people that I represent. But I'm willing to take that chance
rather than take the 85 percent district that your party had drawn for me,
because at 65 there is a greater opportunity to maximize my entire
community's representation. And that's more important to me than how
I fare in any given election. But I'll tell you, sir, a competent hispanic in
a 64.3 percent district in 110 will win the election.
Mr. Wallace, with all due respect, because I consider you a gentlemen,
I consider you a friend, let me also tell you from the heart that I consider
your attitude in that respect to be a little patronizing. And it is an attitude
of: let us tell you what is right for you. And in that respect, let me tell you,
sir, we have gotten to the point, thank God, in terms of our minority
representation, where we have attorneys that know the law and where we
have an engineer that understands numbers and where we have people that

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE]

a gambling man and the people that I represent still have faith in me next
year, I'll see you here.
Rep. Reddick: Representative Lippman, for what purpose?
Rep. Lippman: Mr. Speaker, are we ready?
Rep. Reddick: We were in a closing, Mr. Lippman. Representative
Webster, then Representative Mortham.
Rep. Lippman: OK, I was just going to say that we have an absence
of a quorum.
Rep. Reddick: Mr. Lippman suggests the absence of a quorum. OK,
say again. OK, the Speaker has been corrected. Representative Webster
you are recognized.
Rep. Webster: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll make the closing short,
but what I would like to say is that I may be somewhat missing something
here, but I believe that as we put this plan together, I think we come before
you with this amendment with, again, pure motives. And the motives that
we have were to put together a plan that would maximize the minority
districts in this state. And that is the direction we are heading with this
plan. I think we have clearly shown that, not only for blacks but hispanics,
we have maximized those districts. We have done the very best plan that's
here right now. And we're showing you this plan, we're asking you to vote
for it.
And I think the important thing to say here is that something I said in
committee. There is an enemy here and I don't believe it's Republicans or
Democrats. But there has been a lot said and there is an enemy of what is
right. And that enemy always lurks out there. And a lot of times that enemy
may be misunderstood, and a lot of times that enemy may not even be
known what that enemy's name is. But the enemy of what is right and the
enemy of what is just, is what is fair. And I have heard many people say
this plan that's before you, this bill that's before you, is fair. What is
fairness, and why is it an enemy of what is right? Because fairness lowers
the standard, fairness lowers it to so nothing changes. And that's exactly
what this plan guarantees, no change. None whatsoever. What is happening
right now and what is the change that would take place.
Does our plan, does our amendment, guarantee a Republican Speaker?
Does it guarantee a Democratic Speaker? No, it doesn't do either one.
What it does do is guarantee that there will be a change in this system. The
way the system operates now is: there is of the four groups that you could
identify as minorities or majorities, there is an imbalance. Our plan would
bring a balance. The balance is this: there would be white Democrats
elected, there would be white Republicans elected, there would be blacks
elected, there would be hispanics elected. However, none of those groups
with this plan would have a majority. The system itself is battling against
that change. Because now every group, no matter what minority it is, must
work with some other minority in order to establish a majority. No other
group, by themselves, within this plan, this amendment we are offering to
you, would have a majority. That is a change in the system. And that is
what's right. What's fair is to leave the system the way it is. The bill the
way it stands leaves the system the way it is. I think it is far more important
to address the change in the system. No more would one group be making
the decisions; no more would there be any non-consultation. There would
always have to be interaction between those groups. And that's what this
amendment offers. And I would encourage you to vote for it, not because
it's legal, not because someone says it's this way or that, because it's the
right thing to do. And I ask you to vote for it.
Rep. Reddick: Representative Mortham, you're recognized.
Rep. Mortham: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, as you can see,
this plan maximizes minority districts. If there is another plan out there
that does a better job with minority districts, we can vote for that as well.
This plan is not retrogressive, except in a very few limited areas where large
underpopulation of the current districts exist combined with the lack of
surrounding minority populations, which made it impossible to increase or
maintain the current percentage levels. In those areas, and Representative
Jamerson's is one in Pinellas County, we are continuing to work in those
areas so that there is not retrogression. Every effort in this plan has been
made to ensure that these districts are in full compliance with the intent

and the letter of Section 2 and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,
as amended. Based on our House Republican Caucus position, the House

June 4, 1992

I think our effort is a little better as far as minority participation, and if
you're interested in ensuring that we have as many minorities, blacks and
hispanics, as possible, then I think you will vote for our plan. Let me say
one little thing about this process as far as reapportionment: I have been
in the Florida House of Representatives for 10 years and I have never seen

E OF REPRESENTATIVES 55

Republicans will vote unanimously against any plan, any plan, which
contains partisan Democratic political gerrymandering and does not
maximize hispanic and minority districts as required by the Federal Voting
Rights Act; and we'll only support plans which adhere to the publicly
stated House Republican redistricting standards which were mentioned at
the very beginning of this whole debate. I will be voting for this plan, as
well as all House Republican Members. And I encourage all Members who
truly believe in fair redistricting at maximization of the voting rights
districts, those opposing gerrymandering and those recognizing and
supporting all the other legal parameters that are required by the law.
Justice will prevail. It's just a matter of time. We ask you to support our
plan.
Rep. Reddick: Representative Mortham having closed. Fearing the
absence of a quorum, the Clerk will unlock the board and indicate quorum
present. The Clerk will lock the machine and announce the presence of a
quorum.
Reading Clerk: 115 Members voting. A quorum is present, Mr.
Speaker.
Rep. Reddick: And now the question recurs on the amendment as
offered by Representatives Mortham, De Grandy and Diaz-Balart. All in
favor of that amendment please indicate by saying "Aye." All opposed,
indicate by saying "No." In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment is
defeated. Upon seeing five hands, the Clerk will unlock the board and
Members will proceed to vote. Have all Members voted? Have all Members
voted? The Clerk will lock the board.
Reading Clerk: 46 "Yeas," 71 "Nays," Mr. Speaker.
Rep. Reddick: And so, as the Speaker indicated, the amendment is
defeated. The Clerk will read the next amendment.
Reading Clerk: Representative Reaves and others offered the
following amendment: Strike descriptions for District 1, District 2, District
3, District-

REPRESENTATIVE LOGAN IN THE CHAIR
Rep. Logan: Mr. Reaves, you're recognized.
Rep. Reaves: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask permission to approach
the well-
Rep. Logan: You may.
Rep. Reaves: -along with Representative Brown.
Rep. Logan: Representative Brown, you're recognized as is
Representative Reaves.
Rep. Reaves: Mr. Speaker, Members of this august body, a plan is
before you. It's very simple. What we have attempted to do is follow what
we believe is correct by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the 92 amendments
and subsequent case law. We simply sought to draw African-American
districts first, hispanic districts second and equal, and then fill in the rest
of the lines in a way that we thought was best. What we are attempting to
do here is really to bring in more members of minority communities into
this process. Representation equates to ability to discuss and vote for
health care issues, to discuss and vote for educational issues that are
important to the people that I represent and many others in this body
represent. We would hope and suggest that you vote up on House Bill 205.
Thank you.
Rep. Logan: Representative Brown.
Rep. Brown: Briefly, let me go through the compositions. As far as
majority districts, there are 13 districts that are 50 percent plus; as far as
influence districts, there are seven that are between 30 percent and 50
percent; as far as VAP, that's 18 and above; there are nine that's over 50
percent and 11 over 30 percent. As far as hispanic districts, there are 11
majority and one influence. Let me say one thing: I think that Mackey has
made an effort. I think that Representative Webster made an effort. But

56 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE

anything like this process. I've come to the conclusion, on this issue, that
you don't have any permanent friends or permanent enemies; you have
permanent causes. So, I'm asking you to vote for this plan.
Rep. Logan: Are there any questions of the sponsors? Mr. Diaz-
Balart, for what purpose?
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Purpose of a question, Mr. Speaker.
Rep. Logan: You're recognized.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Thank you. To either one of the sponsors, if I
may. Mr. Reaves, Mr. Reaves.
Rep. Logan: They yield.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Representative Brown, I want to ask the same
questions that I asked of the previous amendments. What drives this plan,
what was the reason for this plan, what is the main emphasis of this plan?
Rep. Logan: Mr. Reaves.
Rep. Reaves: The main drive, Mr. Diaz-Balart, behind this plan is for
once-for once in the history of this state, to bring to this august body the
appropriate-the appropriate number of representatives from minority
people in this state. You know, when I think about the fact of the many
years that we have been deprived of adequate and proper representation,
20 really is not enough. We ought to go over and aboard and do more. Now,
with this plan, we ensure the election of a good more than we currently have
in the House, and with the advent of Representatives Daryl Jones and
Cynthia Chestnut, there is indication that we can elect even more when
fair-minded people vote for people based on their qualifications and not
on the color of their skin.
Rep. Logan: Mr. Diaz-Balart, for a follow-up question.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, Mr. Reaves and
Representative Brown, I want to make sure I have this straight.
Rep. Logan: Hold up, Mr. Diaz-Balart. Members, let's give Mr. Diaz-
Balart the respect he deserves and attention to this matter.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, some of
us have not gotten much attention from this House on this matter, but I
appreciate your concern, Mr. Speaker. You were able to create a large
number of African-American districts, larger than any other amendment
that we have in front of this House today. You were also able to create a
large number of hispanic districts at least equivalent to the largest number
that we've seen so far-a much higher number than the plan that this is
trying to amend. My question to you then is: were you able to provide
maximization of both protected minority groups equally? You were able
to do that, and again, without the input of having spent hours and hours
and hours, and days and days beforehand on the computer. You two were
able to create maximum amount of hispanic and black districts. Again, the
question is because I don't understand why others were not able to do it
if you were able to do it.
Rep. Reaves: Well, Mr. Diaz-Balart, I can't speak for any other
Member of this body, but I would suggest to you, sir, that we have been
able to create 20 possible black House seats and 11 possible hispanic seats
without carrying one minority into the other's district.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Rep. Logan: For what purpose?
Rep. Hargrett: Mr. Speaker, I'm listed as a co-sponsor, and I'd like
a moment to speak to the House about this plan.
Rep. Logan: Let's see if there are any additional questions first. Are
there any additional questions of the sponsors? Mr. Hargrett, you're
recognized.
Rep. Hargrett: Mr. Speaker and Members, as we've all come to learn
in this reapportionment process, there have been technological barriers
and very technical barriers imposed by the House on our ability to express
ourselves. I decided to co-sponsor this amendment because of my desire to

take advantage of every opportunity to express myself regarding
Hillsborough County, District 63 and the Section 5 status that
Hillsborough County enjoys. I have not only taken it upon myself to co-
sponsor this one, but I have co-sponsored others. I am aware of only one
thing that I've been told by the sponsors: this plan maximizes minority

]

A little while ago I challenged my good friend, Representative Mackey,
to come up with a plan that further maximizes minorities. I think I would
be unfair if I didn't extend that challenge-extend that challenge to all the
Members of this House. Here is a plan that does what every Member of this
House has been saying has to be done: maximize African-American

E OF REPRESENTATIVES June 4, 1992

participation. With that, I accepted that this was an appropriate vehicle
for me to express myself regarding District 63 and Hillsborough County.
As I indicated in committee, the Mackey plan, which is the House plan and
the son of Mackey, is illegal. It retrogresses District 63, a minority district.
It's illegal on its surface and therefore, as a Section 5, it cannot be pre-
cleared. While that's a problem in one county because of the preclearance
and the Section 5 status, it becomes a problem for the entire state.
I have taken an effort to co-sponsor those plans that I think embody the
true sense of the Voting Rights Act, and I think this is one. I commend the
two prime sponsors, who worked so hard on it, for their effort. I just wanted
to explain that my concern is basically minority representation, but this
plan does an excellent job in Hillsborough County, one of the Section 5
counties that we ought to be concerned about.
Rep. Logan: Is there further debate? Is there further debate? Mr.
Crady, for what purpose?
Rep. Crady: To speak against the plan, Mr. Speaker.
Rep. Logan: You're recognized.
Rep. Crady: Mr. Speaker and Members, there are supposed to be 20
black districts in this plan, but looking over the voting patterns, we find
that in Districts 2, 9, 12 and 45, Alcee Hastings would have lost the 1990
run-off for Secretary of State. We also know that Jesse Jackson would have
lost the Presidential Primary in District 92. Five of the districts in this plan
are less than 40 percent black. Voting history tells us that the farther north
you move in Florida, the more black voting strength is diluted. You need
more voting blacks in those districts in order to get blacks elected. As this
plan moves north, it gets weaker. Only four of the 12 districts in Central
and North Florida are over 50 percent black. This plan was basically
created from the previous amendment-House Amendment 204-and it
carries with it a lot of the same defects. For that reason, I think this plan
should be rejected as well. Thank you.
Rep. Logan: Is there further debate? Mr. Diaz-Balart, for what
purpose?
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Purpose of debating in favor of the plan, Mr.
Logan.
Rep. Logan: You're recognized.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. You know,
we're looking at a plan here that maximizes minority representation,
provides for real performing minority districts.
Right now, we just heard a statement that five of the districts may not
quite perform well. Well, you know something? If you exclude those five
districts, you have a plan at least equal to the amendment-to the Mackey
plan. If you include those five districts, and you call them the worst thing
you could possibly call them-access districts, you are dealing with a much
better plan.
Furthermore, this plan also has 11 majority hispanic districts, which the
amendment, the Mackey plan, does not have. Again, let's look at reality.
This one doesn't pack minorities in order to protect non-minority
incumbents. This one doesn't crack or split minorities to protect non-
minority incumbents. Again, this creates more minority districts.
Who created this plan? Who created this plan? We have heard excuse
after excuse after excuse. We heard them in subcommittee. We heard them
in full committee. We have heard them before on the floor with the
congressional plan. "Oh no! This a Republican plan! Oh no! This is a
hispanic plan! Oh no! This is a Martian plan!" Who created this plan? Two
African-American Democrats. Yes, the "D" word! Two African-American
Democrats! No more excuses. I've got the Speaker standing next to me. I
think I'm talking too much. No more excuses. If you vote against this plan,
which we all have the right to do, it's not because it's a Republican plan;
it's not because it doesn't maximize minority; it's not because of some
strange reason. It's because, clearly, you don't want to maximize minority
representation.

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

participation and maximize hispanic-American participation without
diluting each other, without diluting each other, doing so fairly and created
by two African-American Democrats. Ladies and gentlemen, vote as you
will, but please, no more excuses.
Rep. Logan: The gentleman from Jefferson County is recognized as
an opponent.
Rep. Boyd: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I haven't said
anything today on reapportionment, and I've listened to the dialogue
between Mr. Diaz-Balart and Mr. De Grandy and now between
Representative Diaz-Balart and Representative Reaves. I'd like to tell you
a couple of things that this plan does do, Mr. Speaker. It will tear apart
black communities in Broward and Dade counties. We'll see towns like
Gladeview and Opa-locka and Carol City split into as many as three
separate House districts, many of them predominately hispanic. There's
one other thing that this plan does though, which I very strongly object to:
it tears apart communities of interest all over this state. When I first saw
this plan, I thought that it would be a good idea if the state would provide
us an airplane to travel from one end of the district to the other because
I cover a large district now, and I understand what it requires in terms of
time and mileage to get 200 miles from one end of the district to the other.
As I began to think more about that airplane idea, I thought it really wasn't
so good at all because there wouldn't be a space long enough or wide enough
in any of these districts to land an airplane. For that reason, Mr. Speaker,
I'd like to yield part of my time to Mr. Bill Clark, and ask that you vote
against the amendment.
Rep. Logan: Mr. Clark, you're recognized as an opponent.
Rep. Clark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I need to commend
the two Members that worked on this plan. As I look through the plan-
and I think all of us will eventually come down to making a decision about
what happens to your own district. I looked at the plan. You drew a line
into the central Broward area, where I live, and placed me in the district
with Representative Mackenzie. That is a district that is going to be
dominated by the east. For personal reasons, I don't support that kind of
reapportionment; and the other thing is, I'm not sure if this plan does
exactly what you intend for it to do. The Members that spoke early about
the percentages-I'm not going to dispute those. I'm going to make a
decision about this plan on the basis of how you've treated me and District
91, and Broward County in particular. You have completely taken my
house and placed it in a district that I can't win in. I don't know if that was
intentional or not, but I am voting against this plan.
Rep. Logan: OK, Mr. Arnold, you are recognized as an opponent.
Rep. Arnold: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, just briefly against. I have not
risen to speak about any of the reapportionment plans today, thus far.
When you look at some of these plans presented by the minority Members
here, it is interesting because the assumption they make is very clear. The
assumption that is made is that a black in Lee County is more fairly
represented by a black on the east coast of Florida. I am going to tell you
that I think that assumption is incorrect. I am going to tell you that just
because you create a black district or a hispanic district, does not mean that
that is fair and equal representation. I am going to tell you it's hard for any
person of any color or any creed to represent communities that are 150 and
160 miles apart. I am also going to tell you that our community in Fort
Myers, Dunbar community-the black community of Fort Myers which
has been snaked like a little spider leg all the way over 160 miles to the east
coast on the assumption that they'll get better representation by a black
on the east coast than they will by me, four miles down the road, is wrong,
ladies and gentlemen. Let me tell you, the blacks in Fort Myers deserve
better than what the blacks in the House have presented them with right
here. This is not a fair plan for the people I represent. It's not a fair plan,
frankly, for all of the minorities in the Legislature. I urge you not to adopt
this amendment.
Rep. Logan: OK, Mr. Burke, as an opponent.
Rep. Burke: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Let me just say this:
that again, and we can note these efforts, what we are doing here is real.
I rise only because I have one problem in Dade County, and I'll just bring
it to their attention, but it's the reason I oppose the bill. One of the things

that was said all throughout Florida is that we should try to keep
communities of interest together. Well, if you are going to try to keep

communities of interest together, then one of the things we should do is not
have a situation like in Dade County where there is a line drawn up what
we call 27th Avenue. The problem is we have now, from Dade County, a
very popular state Senator, who will probably be the first African-
American in the history of Florida to be in Congress. The problem is: her
district, under this plan, is in a Cuban-Republican district. Also, the reason
I know that is because her house is about a block from my office, which is
now, under this plan, in a Cuban-Republican district. I suggest of you that
this plan, perhaps, needs to be better thought out. Because of the need to
keep the communities of interest together, I would urge you to not approve
this plan and to vote "No."
Rep. Logan: OK. Mr. Harden, you're recognized as an opponent. I'm
sorry, as a proponent.
Rep. Harden: Yes, Sir. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and
gentlemen of the House, just very briefly to speak in favor of this
amendment. I think the numbers speak for themselves, ladies and
gentlemen. In Representatives Mackey and Wallace's plan, that ultimately
will be adopted, there are 13 black majority districts; but there are only two
black influence districts. In Representative Mortham's amendment, there
were 13 black majority districts, but you went from two influence black
districts to six. In the Reaves and Brown amendment, which I am honored
to be a co-sponsor of, it also has 13 black majority districts; but, has not
six, but seven black influence districts. I can tell you that one of those black
influence districts is in the northwest Florida Panhandle in the Escambia
County area, which in the Reaves-Brown amendment, which I have co-
sponsored, will create a black district-an influence district that is 40
percent black in the interior of Escambia County. In the hispanic situation:
in the amendment that's probably going to be adopted, the Mackey
amendment, it only creates seven hispanic districts. This creates 11, but
the big difference is in the black districts. The Mackey plan only has two
black influence districts. The Reaves and Brown plan has seven black
influence districts. The numbers tell the story. I urge you to vote for this
very good amendment.
Rep. Logan: OK. To line up debate. Now, we have Ms. Figg as an
opponent; Mr. Hill as a proponent; Mr. Mackey as an opponent and then
Representatives Brown, Reaves and Hargrett to close. Representative Figg,
you are recognized.
Rep. Figg: Members, I'd like to thank Mr. Hargrett for looking out
for the best interest of Hillsborough County, because what Mr. Hargrett
and Mr. Reaves and Ms. Brown have done in this plan is paired all of the
Democratic incumbents. Mr. Rush and I get to run against one another and
Mr. Davis gets to run against Mr. Glickman and best of all, Mr. Hargrett
gets to run against Mr. Martinez. So, all I can tell you is, Mr. Hargrett,
thank you for looking out for the interest of Hillsborough County.
Rep. Logan: Mr. Hill, as a proponent.
Rep. Hill: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members. You know, that's
one of the things I didn't look at when I decided to support this
amendment, was where people lived. One of the things that has been
argued back and forth during this reapportionment process is whether it
is better for a minority to be represented by another minority a number
of miles away or whether we can do better by representing them at home.
Let me tell you, the whole thrust of what we are looking at is to increase
minority representation in the Florida House. In this instance, this
amendment does it. It does it even better than the last amendment which
was a tremendous improvement over the Mackey plan and over the
amendment that is to follow. Do what we need to do. Do what we ought
to do, and do what we will be compelled to do. Vote for this good
amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Rep. Logan: OK. Mr. Morse, as a proponent.
Rep. Morse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a brief, very brief,
moment to remind the Florida House of Representatives that the Voting
Rights Act amended in 1985 was not, I repeat, was not an incumbent
protection act. The Voting Rights Act is a minority protection act, not an

incumbent protection act. We should vote for those plans that comply with
the Voting Rights Act.

June 4, 1992

57

58 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE

Rep. Logan: OK. Mr. Mackey, and then we are closing.
Rep. Mackey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, someone earlier
had the remark that who drew the plan. I do truly appreciate what my
fellow House Members are trying to do with a plan, but let me assure you
of one thing: the plan that we have submitted, the plan that's before you
now, we've worked with individual Members. We held community hearings
around the state of Florida. We heard from elected local officials, both city
and county, and had input from any House Member that was willing to
spend the time to come to the suite to put their twist within the plan that
they would like to see. As far as saying who drew the plan, and let's go for
the one that had the most input, the plan that we have before you answers
that criteria. There's one other thing: Mr. Hargrett alluded to the fact that
there was retrogression in the bill. Mr. Hargrett brought that to our
attention, and we have addressed that in an amendment that will be
coming to this floor later. There is no retrogression in any of the black
districts that we have. They're all as good, or better, in the amendment that
we will be bringing forward. I just want to make sure that everyone does
understand that no one was locked out of this process, and everyone had
a right to speak. And we asked for participation, as much as we could. We
were denied that by some Members of this body. We were denied that. This
was very open. Everyone had their input. We need to vote down this
amendment.
Rep. Logan: OK. I believe we have a couple of questions. Mr.
Gutman, for a question of Mr. Mackey. Mr. Mackey yields. Mr. Gutman,
you're recognized.
Rep. Gutman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Mackey, I presently
represent the portion of Miami Beach. Let me first tell you that Miami
Beach, the last census figures, was in excess of 48 percent hispanic. The real
numbers are closer to 60 percent hispanic. I've looked at the congressional
plan that was passed out of this House, and those voters in Miami Beach
will never be able to have hispanic representation under that plan. I've
looked at the Senate plan we passed out. Those voters in Miami Beach
again have been disenfranchised and will never be able to have
representation, hispanic representation. This plan that is offered has a
portion of Miami Beach so that at least the Florida House Member can
represent the portion of the beach and represent the hispanic community
within that city. Your plan does not. Your plan, from what I've seen, once
again, disenfranchises the hispanic voters in Miami Beach and disallows
them the ability to have a hispanic representative. Mr. Mackey, would you
believe that all three plans take away the right of 60 percent of the people
in Miami Beach that are hispanic? It removes their right to have hispanic
representation.
Rep. Logan: Mr. Mackey, you're recognized to respond.
Rep. Mackey: No, I do not believe that.
Rep. Logan: Mr. Garcia, for a question of Mr. Mackey. Mr. Mackey
yields. Mr. Garcia, you're recognized.
Rep. Garcia: Mr. Mackey, you stated to the fact that we all had access
to the suite, and I don't know if you were in the Chamber, sir, when I made
a statement a few minutes ago or maybe an hour or two hours ago. Last
Thursday at 3:45 p.m., I went to the Reapportionment suite, and I went
in there to show a constituent what the process was and what was going on
inside the Reapportionment suite, and I was denied access and said there
was no way possible that I can go in there. I looked at the wall behind the
receptionist and I was just shocked by looking at the list. It said the names
of the members of the conference committee, members of that committee,
and my name was still on there. I said to the receptionist, "My name is
Representative Garcia and I'm on that list and I'm one of the conference
members." She said, "Sir, you're still not allowed in here unless you have
an appointment to come into this office or to this suite." I am appalled
because that is the very first time that, in my eight years of tenure in this
process, I was not allowed to go into a suite to show a constituent how the
process works. That was the very first time, and for you to stand here and

say we had full access to the entire process-and that happened to me. Sir,
I don't think that the whole process is working as it should.
Rep. Logan: Is that a "would you believe" question, Mr. Garcia?
Rep. Garcia: Would you believe?

]

whether it's true or not because none of us have the homeseat icons down
on the floor, but out of respect for my delegation, I have withdrawn as a
sponsor of this amendment, even though I want to speak to what it does.
It makes District 63 illegal. I mean, it makes District 63 conform to the
Voting Rights Act, and therefore, legal. The current plan that this is

E OF REPRESENTATIVES June 4, 1992

Rep. Logan: Mr. Wallace, would you like to respond?
Rep. Wallace: Well, I'll just speak to that briefly. We heard it earlier,
and I didn't think, frankly, that it needed to be responded to. What we
found is that Members who were in the suite working on plans would like
to have some privacy from other Members, believe it or not, while they
work on their plans. It's not such a surprising concept. Therefore, if
someone wants to come into the room-for example, you wanted to talk to
a Member who was there-yes, we do call in and find out whether that
Member wants your company in front of the screen that has his or her map.
Yes, we do. The reason for that is that Members deserve some privacy when
they are working on maps at the screens in our suite. Yes, we have had
security for that reason. We think it's out of respect for the Members and
recognition of their work product. Yes, quite often there are maps up that
Members are working on, their private work product, in almost every
corner of that suite. That's the reason we afford them some privacy while
they are working on those plans.
Rep. Logan: OK. Are we ready to close? Ms. Mortham, for what
purpose?
Rep. Mortham: Comment.
Rep Logan: For what purpose?
Rep. Mortham: Comment.
Rep. Logan: You're recognized.
Rep. Mortham: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just very quickly, I would
like to compliment these two Members who have been extremely diligent
in trying to get a fair and equitable plan. Mr. Hargrett, as well. They have
the purest of intent. They're looking for maximization of minority districts.
I think that they should be commended for the work that they have done
on this plan. They have tried very, very hard to comply with all of the rules,
and I think that they have done extremely well.
Rep. Logan: Mr. Lombard.
Rep. Lombard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You said something about
somebody closing, and I have been hearing questions. Are we in debate?
Is this-
Rep. Logan: I thought we had concluded debate and that we were
going to close, but in all fairness we are going to allow continued debate,
if that's what the Members wish to do. Mr. Lombard, you're recognized.
Rep. Lombard: Thank you, Sir. I just wanted to make a brief
comment in favor of the plan. Ladies and gentlemen, you may recall that
when we talked about congressional redistricting, I said that it was very,
very important for us to understand that the voting rights districts had to
be drawn first. Then, and only then, can we concern ourselves with the
issue of the integrity of a community and things of that nature. I want you
to understand that, in my opinion, the plan that is here before us now by
Representative Reaves and Representative Brown will be almost identical,
if not identical, with what will finally be approved by the Justice
Department of the federal government. I think that is a very important
thing for you to understand. You are looking at a perfect Voting Rights Act
district, or as close to perfect as possible. So, please consider that when you
vote here today. Thank you very much.
Rep. Logan: Mr. Hargrett, as a proponent.
Rep. Hargrett: Yes. Mr. Speaker and Members, what I want to do
is just give you some facts for the record. As I indicated in my earlier
comments, and I think this is important that I document what this plan
does that is before you is the main bill-what this amendment does and
the amendment that Mr. Mackey said was coming. I think you ought to
know as you vote on these various plans that what you will end up voting
for, if you don't adopt some of the amendments that I am putting forward,
you will vote for a plan that is illegal on its face. Now, with District 63 in
current plan, the amendment that's before us, and I want to compliment
the sponsors of the amendment because I think it does a good job only for
District 63. Out of respect for my delegation members, and I'm not sure

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE]

attempting to amend has District 63 at 53.88 percent and a voting-age
population at 49.29 percent. That retrogresses from a total black
population of 54.63 percent and a voting-age population of 49.85 percent.
That's clearly retrogression, clearly illegal. The Mackey-Wallace
amendment still retrogresses. It retrogresses from a 54.63 total black
population to a 53.79 black population and it retrogresses from a 50.38
voting-age population to a 49.04 voting-age population-clearly illegal.
There's no amendment proposed by Mr. Mackey or Mr. Wallace that cures
that defect, and on the surface, we have an-if this amendment fails and
succeeding amendments fail, that I've offered-we have illegal plan
because it won't meet preclearance. You, ladies and gentlemen, would have
voted out of this House a plan that is illegal on its surface. I just put that
on the record for you to consider.
Rep. Logan: Mr. Garcia, for what purpose?
Rep. Garcia: Mr. Speaker, just in response to Representative
Wallace's statement. His statement, I'll put it right into the excuse file of
all the other statements made.
Rep. Logan: OK. To close, Representative Brown and then
Representative Reaves. You're recognized.
Rep. Brown: Thank you, and I'll be very brief. I found it very
interesting that some of my colleagues from South Florida stood up to
speak against the plan and problems with the plan. One of the things that
we have had on all of the plans have been a strong representation from
South Florida. South Florida will be taken care of-Broward and Miami.
One of the weaknesses of the plan, all of them, has been the lack of
participation from North and Central Florida. Let me tell you, folks, it
would have been very easy once we had taken care of the needs of
Jacksonville, to do like one of my colleagues said, "Well, my area's taken
care of, durn the rest of the blacks in the state of Florida." That is not my
position. My position is that we need to do the right thing for the people
that we've been sent up here to represent, and that's what it's all about-
doing the right thing, taking the right stand. This plan will give us 20 black
seats and 11 hispanics. You know what that will do? It will change the
composition of the Florida House of Representatives, and God knows, I
think that will be for the good.
Rep. Logan: Representative Brown, Ms. Holzendorf would like to ask
you a question. Would you yield? Representative Holzendorf, you're
recognized for a question to Representative Brown.
Rep. Holzendorf: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Brown,
you alluded to the fact that North Florida was not taken care of. In
reference to District 16, there is a certain portion there that is picked out,
like a pickle. Could you explain to me how that is compact black
representation for North Florida?
Rep. Brown: Representative Holzendorf, are you talking in my plan
or the House plan? OK. Representative Holzendorf, let me tell you
something: when drawing those districts, I didn't take a look at them. I just
looked at the percentages, period. You're welcome.
Rep. Logan: Representative Reaves, to close.
Rep. Reaves: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's been a good while since
we've started on this one amendment. Sometimes my mind plays tricks on
me. You know how you get this little song in your head and you can't get
out of it? I'm standing there and I'm thinking about Jack and the
Beanstalk, at all the times in the world. I decided if I just go through Jack
and the Beanstalk, I can get to the end, and I'll get it out of my head. I
started off with the cow, then I went to the beans, then I went to the stalk.
We all know the story of the giant and the goose that laid the golden eggs.
Then I started thinking about David and Goliath. Then I started thinking
David standing there naked with no armament, with just a rock and a
slingshot. Then I realized, I'm no Jack, I'm no David and there are no
giants in this House. We're just servants of the people, simply put, servants
of the people. I know that this amendment affects a lot of people in this
House and their personal and their political careers. I am not unmindful
of that, but as a servant of the people, I felt it important to bring forth what
I thought was correct under the law. It's like the old Fram Oil commercial:
either we can do it now, or we can do it later. We can march forward for

what is correct, openly and holding on to what is true, or we can be drug
into it backwards and screaming. Thank you.

June 4, 1992

specific incumbent.
We had a number of questions today about pairing or packing incumbent
Members into districts, and indeed, as I presented this plan in committee,
many incumbent Members asked if I had known that their district was
wiped out. I really did not know that, and except for those people who

E OF REPRESENTATIVES 59

Rep. Logan: Representative Kelly suggests the absence of a quorum.
The Clerk will unlock the machine and Members will record their presence.
Have all Members recorded their presence? Have all Members recorded
their presence? The Clerk will lock the machine and announce the presence
of a quorum.
Reading Clerk: 108 Members voting. A quorum is present, Mr.
Speaker.
Rep. Logan: A quorum being present, we are back on Amendment 7,
as offered by Representatives Brown and Reaves. The Clerk will unlock the
machine and Members will record their vote. Have all Members voted?
Have all Members voted? Have all Members voted? The Clerk will lock the
machine and announce the vote.
Reading Clerk: 47 "Yeas," 64 "Nays," Mr. Speaker.
Rep. Logan: By your vote, the amendment is defeated. Read the next
amendment.
Reading Clerk: Representatives Reaves and others offered the
following amendment: Strike descriptions for District 1, District 2, District
3-
Rep. Logan: Representative Brown. Representative Reaves, you are
recognized to explain the amendment.
Rep. Reaves: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request that Representative
Brown and myself be allowed to approach the well.
Rep. Logan: You may. Let's give our attention and respect to the
Members.
Rep. Reaves: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the reason we have a
second amendment is what we witnessed here during the congressional
vote. We had a process where amendments were brought to the floor, and
then a very nice deal was done where amendments were attached onto our
amendment so we would be blocked from actually having our amendments
heard. When you are dealing in this kind of atmosphere, you never know
what the bill is going to be, so we had a safeguard in case that was the case.
It hasn't been the case this time because I think this body was slightly
enlightened during the congressional plan that you can't hold down
something that is coming. Since we have had a vote on our previous
amendment, and it took a considerable amount of time, and out of respect
to the Members of this august body and other Members who come forth,
we respectfully withdraw this amendment.
Rep. Logan: OK. Did you withdraw the amendment, Mr. Reaves?
OK. Without objection, show the amendment withdrawn. Read the next
amendment.

THE SPEAKER IN THE CHAIR
Speaker Wetherell: Read the Thomas amendment, number 207.
Reading Clerk: Representatives Thomas and Hargrett offered the
following amendment: Strike descriptions for District 1, District 2, District
3, District 4-
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Thomas.
Rep. Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I come forward?
Speaker Wetherell: You're recognized to approach the well.
Rep. Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members. I am sorry to
keep you waiting, but it's a long way from back there. This amendment was
not done by Mr. Hargrett and myself. Indeed, we had very little input. This
amendment was done by Common Cause, and there was an intention that
we did not have a great deal of input into this amendment because
Common Cause has basically represented themselves throughout this
process as an impartial organization. Let me tell you how these districts
were drawn. After the Voting Rights Act districts were created, then
county lines and communities of interest were followed as best as possible,
and the concept was that the districts belong to the people and not to any

60 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE

contacted me directly, I don't know where any Member lives in regards to
this plan. These are the districts of the people of Florida, not incumbents.
As Mr. Reaves said earlier, we are servants of the people. With that as a
background, this plan accomplishes 12 black performing districts and one
clear black influence district; nine hispanic seats and one hispanic
influence seat. Subsequent to the development of this plan, I've seen other
plans, which do greater with the Voting Rights Act, but with that, Mr.
Speaker, with your permission, we'll take questions.
Speaker Wetherell: Are there questions? Mr. Hargrett.
Rep. Hargrett: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I join as a co-sponsor by request,
as well, and I just want to explain that since Common Cause is a
nonpartisan organization, I decided to make this bipartisan, but my real
concern with this plan is how it treats Hillsborough County, and that's
what I'm focusing on again, to cure-I offer that to the House, to cure the
retrogression problem that was created both in the House bill and the son
of Mackey, which is the Mackey-Wallace plan, which is illegal on its surface
because it retrogresses.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Daryl Jones.
Rep. Daryl Jones: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It may solve the
retrogression problem in Hillsborough County, but the amendment has
some problems in other areas of the state. Of course, I certainly respect the
fine job that Common Cause and the fine efforts that Common Cause
makes in participating in this reapportionment process. However, if you
take a look at the plan, there are some deficiencies. It does not meet the
spirit of the Voting Rights Act. There are three areas in which the African-
American population is in excess of 70 percent. There are also four areas
in which they are not a majority-specifically, three in which there are less
than 33 percent. The bottom line for this plan is that it ultimately will
probably elect 13 African-Americans to the Florida House of
Representatives, whereas the Mackey plan, which is an excellent start, will
probably elect 15. And therefore, I would ask the Members, respectfully,
to defeat this amendment and support the Mackey plan.
Speaker Wetherell: Is there further debate on the Common Cause
amendment? Further debate? Further debate? Representative Thomas, to
close.
Rep. Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly could not argue
with Mr. Jones' analysis other than to say, in those three specific districts
that he mentioned, that he alluded to, and I will mention District 54,
District 84, District 113 of this plan; they all were performance districts in
the Jesse Jackson race. All three of them would have selected Reverend
Jackson, and they would have performed as black districts. And with that,
permit me to close.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Thomas, to close.
Rep. Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I must have been terribly
articulate for you to ask me to close again.
Speaker Wetherell: I'm sorry. Well, you did so good on the first one,
I thought I'd give you another shot.
So, the question recurs on Amendment 8, number 207. All those in favor,
say "Yea," opposed,"Nay." The amendment is not adopted. Read the next
amendment.
Reading Clerk: Representative Hargrett offered the following
amendment: Strike descriptions for District 1, District 2, District 3,
District-
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Hargrett.
Rep. Hargrett: Yes, Sir, could the Clerk make sure I have the right
amendment, is that the number 110?
Speaker Wetherell: I don't even have a 110 on my page. Mr.
Wallace, can you tell me what's going on?
Rep. Wallace: Yes, Sir. Let me give a brief explanation of this
situation, because it came up just a short while ago. This is an amendment

which Representative Hargrett offered in the full committee on
reapportionment, and it was defeated in the committee. Subsequent to
that time, evidently, Representative Hargrett had the expectation that it
was submitted for purposes of floor consideration today. He believes he
had requested in writing, and verbally, that it be submitted for

population which is covered by the Voting Rights Act-it does not
substantially impact any other aspect of the plan. What I'm suggesting
here on the floor today that this amendment at a minimum is required in
order to make the plan that you have before you, that you're going to vote
on, a legal plan. Failure to adopt this amendment will guarantee, in my

E OF REPRESENTATIVES June 4, 1992

consideration. There is evidently some confusion about it, and I'd have to
say it is the fault of us in the Committee on Reapportionment that there
was a miscommunication. When that was called to our attention by
Representative Hargrett today, we brought the amendment down exactly
the way it was in the committee. I consulted with Representative Mortham.
It was not timely filed, I guess, because we didn't know it was to be filed,
but it is exactly the same amendment which has been in our computer now
for two weeks. And I just would like to have the House consider it today
on its merits.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Hargrett.
Rep. Hargrett: Yes, I can read the letter. I, of course, asked for it
verbally, and wrote a letter and-
Speaker Wetherell: All right. So, what I guess you're asking for is
for amendment 210 to be filed as a late amendment to be considered by
the House. Wait a minute. Representative Simone.
Rep. Simone: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to call a point of order
on this. We are not taking late-filed amendments. That was not the agreed-
to rule, this was not. I don't care what is being said in any other context
here on this amendment, but we were told that we were not accepting late-
filed amendments. It's against the rule. You would not waive the rule
before. It wasn't waived for Republicans. It was not supposed to be waived
for Democrats. And that's my point of order. It's the rule that the House
Rules Committee adopted that we would not take late-filed amendments
on the floor of the House.
Speaker Wetherell: OK, to the point, Representative Martinez.
Rep. Martinez: Mr. Speaker, I think the point is not well taken.
Under the rules, the supreme rule is a waiver of the rules, and that is a
supreme rule. If this House elects by two-thirds to waive the rules, we can
take up any amendments. Earlier, I remind Mrs. Simone, we took an
amendment by waiving the rules that wasn't even here and we argued it.
We argued it for about an hour-and-a-half. Now, the Chairman has
explained that because of some miscommunication, the amendment was
not timely filed. So, I think the point is not well taken, and if it's in order,
I would move you, Sir, that we waive the rules and allow the chairman of
the committee to correct what he has admitted is a miscommunication and
has accepted all the blame. We did it earlier with the amendment that
wasn't even before us.
Speaker Wetherell: OK. We don't need to get bogged down in
another one of these deals. Mr. Hargrett, your amendment is here. It is
available to be read. There's a map here. Does anybody really have
strenuous objection if he takes his shot just like everybody else? We've
tried to be fair. That way nobody can gripe. So, first of all, on Mr.
Hargrett's motion to waive the rules and introduce amendment 210 as a
late-filed amendment. All those in favor-takes two-thirds-say "Yea,"
opposed "Nay." The motion is adopted and we have read amendment 210.
Mr. Hargrett to explain 210.
Rep. Hargrett: I think that the number is 110, Mr. Speaker, but-
Speaker Wetherell: Is it 110? One ten, OK. I think we've read 110
to explain it.
Rep. Hargrett: Mr. Speaker and Members, since you don't have the
amendment on your desk, I think the Appropriations-I mean the
Reapportionment Chairman can verify that this amendment is merely one
that I presented in committee, and it was an attempt on my part to conform
my district to what I thought the Voting Rights Act required-that is, that
it not be retrogressed.
As I explained before, the House bill that we have presented
retrogressed, in my opinion, District 63; and we offered an amendment that
really did not substantially change the House plan as it's presented, except
to move to increase the black voting-age population and the total black
population; and proportionally without substantially affecting the
surrounding districts to move those districts to fill in the void. It does not,
in any way, even within the county, substantially, except for the minority

- ---

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

opinion, that the plan will not pre-clear in a section-especially if it's in
a Section 5 county, and we will therefore have ended up acting in bad faith
and have a prima facie case of discriminating against minorities. And,
that's something I don't think you want to vote for, where it is prima facie,
where everybody can see it. It's out in the open. It's not hidden under the
cover. It is illegal on its surface and if you vote for it this House is endorsing
an illegal plan. The fact that it's in one county does not, in my opinion,
excuse voting on an illegal plan. Mr. Speaker, it's a simple amendment. The
members of the committee understand it. It was put forth in committee
and it simply attempts to correct those statistics that I read into the record
earlier and with that, Mr. Speaker, unless there are questions, I will let my
counter-there may be a question or two.
Speaker Wetherell: OK. Why don't we do this. Why don't I
recognize Mr. Logan and Mr. Thomas, Mr. Wallace in opposition, Mr.
Hargrett to close and we can go ahead and vote that way. Mr. Logan.
Rep. Logan: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a question
for either Mr. Wallace or Mr. Mackey and that is that the amendment that
they're sponsoring that has not been heard yet. Does it bring up the district
that Mr. Hargrett is referring to, to at least at what it is now in terms of
the voting-age population of the black district? Does it comply with the
Voting Rights Act?
Speaker Wetherell: Mr. Wallace to respond to Mr. Logan.
Rep. Wallace: Let me make two quick points, Mr. Speaker, on this.
We've had some confusion and I share the responsibility for that confusion
on this point. So, let's make two key points. Number one is that you don't
measure retrogression purely as a question of percentage. It depends on
whether or not you can still have an effective black district, and we believe
in the Mackey-Wallace amendment. Yes, there is an effective black district
in Hillsborough. But the second point, maybe, is more important, more
directly to Representative Hargrett's point. In fact, the Mackey-Wallace
amendment does bring the black population percentage higher than it was
either in 1990 or 1980. The reason for the confusion is that the sheet that
Representative Hargrett is referring to has total black population. The
report which accompanies the Mackey-Wallace amendment has non-
hispanic blacks. So, you've got apples and oranges there. When you put the
apples together, basically what you've got is the following: the black
percentage in 1980 was 52.3 percent; the black percentage in 1990, at the
time of the census, was 54.63 percent; the black percentage total population
in the Mackey-Wallace amendment is 55 percent. So, even by a percentage
measure, there is not retrogression in the Mackey-Wallace amendment,
and therefore, I think we've addressed the concern that Representative
Hargrett had when he offered this amendment in committee.
Speaker Wetherell: OK. Mr. Thomas waives his time. Mr. Wallace,
I assume that's all you needed to say about it. Mr. Hargrett to close on your
amendment.
Rep. Hargrett: Could I ask a question of-
Speaker Wetherell: Yes, sir, you're closing.
Rep. Hargrett: Mr. Wallace, I want to just share part of my time with
you because you indicated that the plan was legal when I've asserted that
it is not legal. But you did not give what the voting-age population happens
to be, because I believe that the plan retrogresses in that aspect of it-that
the Mackey-Wallace's 49.04 voting-age population and in 1990 the voting-
age population was 50.38. That's a clear retrogression and I don't believe
that the act permits retrogression in any way, even if someone can get
elected, and I think the act addresses the totality of circumstances. The
facts are that right there, contiguous to the districts that have been drawn,
are large areas with solid black concentrations on the west and on the
northern portion of that district that ought to be included. I think that
anyone who read the Voting Rights Act and anyone who reviewed it for
Section 5 preclearance would ask those questions. Why didn't you include
those areas? And I don't think this House would have a good explanation.
And so I say the answer is, I believe, unless I speak for Mr. Wallace, that
it still remains in some minor respect illegal. I guess they think they'll try
to fix it up by and by, but for right now, Members, you're voting on a plan
that is illegal. And I have closed, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker Wetherell: OK. Mr. Hargrett having closed. The question
recurs on Amendment number 9 (110). All those in favor, say "Yea," you

sway to Mr. Hargrett. All those opposed, say "No." Amendment is not
passed. Read the next amendment.

Reading Clerk: Representative Jamerson offered the following
amendment: Strike descriptions for District 1, District 2-
Speaker Wetherell: Mr. Jamerson.
Rep. Jamerson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, let
me tell you what I'm going to do and it's my intent for this amendment.
Now, I've sat here all day like most of the Members and I've heard people
talk about all the wonderful things they want to do for me. I've heard
people who've consistently voted against many of the issues I've fought for
all of a sudden now have this great desire to help me. And my philosophy
is, sometimes when I hear this kind of stuff, if you see me in a fight with
a bear, don't help me, help the bear. I'd like for you to look at what's being
done for Pinellas County and my amendment merely addresses Pinellas
County. I have run in that district since 1982, after the last
reapportionment session, and when I came into this legislature, my district
was 51 percent white and 49 percent black and I've consistently been able
to get reelected to this House of Representatives. I might add without
opposition since 1982. And I believe I've enjoyed the support. I've enjoyed
the support of the white people of Pinellas County as well as the black
people of Pinellas County that live in District 55.
The plan that Mackey offers wants to break up Pinellas County and send
me south. I don't mind going south necessarily, but I don't believe that the
people in Manatee County necessarily want to have themselves hooked on
like a tail to a big urban area. Now, I think I could probably represent them
as better as anybody else other than Toby Holland, and probably I'll do
better than Toby Holland. In fact, I'm sure I'll do better than Toby
Holland. But I believe that the people of Pinellas County-when I've gone
home, they've said to me "What we'd like to see you do is stay within
Pinellas County," and that is what my amendment does. Now Members,
I wanted to just lay that to you on the table, so you'll see that the people
in Pinellas County do not-at least in District 55-do not want to be
brought down to Manatee County. I was told that I couldn't find the 50
percent black district in Pinellas County and if you will look at that map,
you will see the possibility of a 51 percent black district is a possibility as
well as a 53 percent. But when I looked at my plan overall, I begin to see
that I did some things to some of the Members in Pinellas County and
Hillsborough County who are Democrats that I didn't necessarily want to
impact upon. And so for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to withdraw
my amendment.
Speaker Wetherell: Show the Jamerson amendment withdrawn
without objection. Read the next amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE DE GRAND IN THE CHAIR
Rep. De Grandy: La proxima enmienda, por favor. [The next
amendment, please.]
Reading Clerk: Representative Lawson offered the following
amendment: Strike descriptions for District 1, District 2, District 3,
District 4, District 5-
Rep. De Grandy: El representante Lawson esta reconocido.
[Representative Lawson is recognized.]
Rep. Lawson: Buenas noches. [Good night.] Por favor [Please.]
Rep. De Grandy: El representante Simon esta fuera de order. El
representante Lawson, por favor. [Representative Simon is out of order.
Representative Lawson, please proceed.]
Rep. Lawson: Quelle age est vous? Bien merci, et vous? Je m'appelle
Monsieur Lawson. [What is your age? I am well, thank you, and you? My
name is Mr. Lawson.]
Mr. Speaker.
Rep. De Grandy: Diga me. [Please proceed.]
Rep. Lawson: Congratulations. Members, I'm going to withdraw this
amendment, but I will tell you one of the problems that I have with
reapportionment. I won't approach the well. One of the problems I have,
like I said before, is with Leon County. We have Leon County split into four
House districts. I have spoken with the Chairman of Reapportionment for
the House. Representative Mackey stated that he will work with members
of the delegation. I can tell you my amendment attempted to give

Representative Rudd some more blacks. He needed some more blacks in
his district. No, seriously speaking Members, one of the things that I think

June 4, 1992

61

62

is very important is that when you take an area west of Tallahassee and
you give it to Representative Trammell, as this plan attempts to do, then
you have people in about one or two precincts west of town, down Highway
20 that are in an area where they won't possibly get representation because
of the number of districts that Representative Trammell already has. The
other situation is when you look into the 10th District, you look at the area
that Representative Rudd used to represent in the Woodville area. That
means that you're going to take that one or two little precincts in
Woodville, which is a very small portion of Leon County and give it over
to Representative Boyd's district, Allen Boyd's district. Allen Boyd's got
more counties in his district than anyone else. Then I'm afraid that those
people probably would not have any representation. Woodville is a part of
Leon County and they've always had representation.
So, I'm saying that one of the things I think all of us have to come to grips
with, with reapportionment, and that is some of the compactness of some
of these districts. It's just not so important, in my opinion I could be wrong,
and we all have to come to grips with the people we represent. But in some
of these areas, the way we are ducking around corners and jumping over
rivers and lakes and going under bridges, you know, really puts people at
a disadvantage and I don't think we want to have representation for
minorities where you can draw minority districts. But for 10 years, going
on 10 years, I've represented, similar to what Representative Jamerson
stated, a lot of white people in my district as well as blacks. Probably my
district was more white than most of yours. I wouldn't know what it's like
to have a 90 percent black district. But, what I am saying is that we need
to make sure that all people have representation in this particular area, and
with that, I'm going to withdraw the amendment, and I'm going to work
with Representatives Mackey, Boyd, Rudd, Trammell to see if we can do
something a little bit better.
Rep. De Grandy: Representante [Representative] Lombard.
Rep. Lombard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a comment and then
I'd like to make a motion, please, Sir. The comment was that I hope Mr.
Rudd heard the presentation of Mr. Lawson about this plan coming up
having four districts in Leon County. Secondly, Sir, I'd like to move that
you appoint the members of the conference committee, please, Sir, that I
requested. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Rep. De Grandy: I don't think I'll be here that long. Representative
Starks.
Rep. Starks: Mr. Speaker, under Rule 8.14, consideration of bills out
of regular order, I would move you, Sir, that we take up House Bill 997
instanter. It's my bill.
Rep. De Grandy: What do you want me, killed? Show Mr. Lawson's
amendment withdrawn without objection.
Reading Clerk: Representatives Mackey and Wallace offered the
following amendment: Strike descriptions for District 1, District 2, District
3, District 4, District 5, District 6, District 7, District-

THE SPEAKER IN THE CHAIR
Speaker Wetherell: OK. Mr. Wallace, this is yours. Mr. Mackey.
Rep. Mackey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As we moved out of full
committee, different Members came to us-communities cames to us-
with little changes they wanted to see in the plan. This plan will continue
to evolve and even as we speak now, different ones are coming up with ideas
they'd like to see changed. What you see in the amendment is designed to
incorporate those changes that people have presented to us that they would
like to see accomplished here on the floor. Realizing we couldn't get
everything done that was necessary within the time frame, we have pledged
to quite a few Members to try to consider their ideas as we move further
in the process. So, what you have before you is a cleanup in quite a few
different areas. We still have the 15 African-American seats, we still have
11 hispanic seats with significant populations that these can perform as
well. And with that and with the debate, I would just suggest we go on with
the process.
Speaker Wetherell: All right, is there debate on the Mackey
amendment? Is there debate? Is there debate? Representative Thomas.

Rep. Thomas: For a series of questions, if I may, rather than debate
at this time.

June 4, 1992

Speaker Wetherell: He yields for the questions.
Rep. Thomas: Thank you. Mr. Mackey, I have looked at your
amendment with some interest. If you could, let's turn to District 37.
District 37, it's hard to tell on that little map, but this is what District 37
looks like. Now, we could accept this, if this were done for the Voting
Rights Act. But it splits, it seems to split communities to pack Republicans,
and it seems to be a partisan gerrymander rather than a Voting Rights Act
or a minority district. There aren't any minority districts around it. I'm
curious why the district was drawn this way and what's the purpose of this
particular district? And then I have a series of questions and I can either
ask them all at once or we will go through them individually. Whatever you
prefer, sir.
Rep. Mackey: In response, the area that you are talking about that's
oddly shaped-first of all, on any map that I've looked at, I've seen districts
that had similar looks to them. Also, when you get into that area, that was
a very, very high growth area. In working with the Member or the Members
that we had in the communities that did come to us to say that these are
some things that we would like to see, we tried to address as many of those
as possible within that area, and when you did that you have some-certain
areas that are left over. And in the case of the shape of the map that you're
talking about, we tried to put in as many requests as possible and then
move from there.
Rep. Thomas: So this Brevard, Orange, Indian River map, this one
that stretches across this way for it to achieve a district of roughly 106,000
people was done at Members' request?
Rep. Mackey: At Members' and communities' request, that's correct.
Rep. Thomas: OK. To continue, if I may. Then let's look at District
34, which includes Seminole, Orange, Brevard and Volusia Counties. Could
you indicate to me what's the community here that we are trying to protect.
There is a black community in Seminole, which is fractured, it's adjacent
to Orlando. So, anyhow there's a black community in Seminole that seems
to be fractured. Could you comment on that? It seems like we're diluting
not improving the Voting Rights Act on this one. It's with District 34, sir.
Rep. Mackey: It would be very easy as well to explain the district
you have there. In working with the Members once again, and trying to
incorporate their ideas as to what they would like to see in particular
districts and working with communities and what they would like to see
and also complying where we're encouraged to do so with the Voting Rights
Act itself, you have before you a district that has had input from Members,
from communities that surround it and are also a part of that district itself.
Rep. Thomas: Seminole, Brevard, Orange and Volusia are all
represented in here and they asked for something like this-those
communities?
Rep. Mackey: And I would suggest to you also that you had those
same communities in past districts that were largely represented in the
same fashion and manner.
Rep. Thomas: OK. Let's move on to District 40, which is totally
within Orlando, but has a couple of little odd-shaped hooks on it and I
don't know what those odd-shaped hooks on it are. When I presented the
Common Cause amendment to committee, a variety of Members came to
me and talked about pairing or putting incumbent Members of the
Legislature into districts. I didn't know where anybody lived. I didn't have
a great deal of input into the Common Cause amendment because I felt
that should be a separate amendment done by an impartial body. I do
notice that in this one, Misters Webster, McEwan and Reddick are all in

this same district and I'm just curious. If you could comment on the little
hooks and the odd-shaped parts of this one.
Rep. Mackey: Absolutely.
Rep. Thomas: Thank you.
Rep. Mackey: Mr. Speaker.
Speaker Wetherell: Are there-I'm sorry.
Rep. Mackey: I'm answering his question.
Rep. Thomas: He's answering my question. We've got-

Speaker Wetherell: OK.
Rep. Thomas: We've got a few more, if you don't mind, Sir.

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSI

Rep. Mackey: Anytime you're trying to address the Voting Rights
Act, and create where possible a chance for minority population to elect the
candidate of their choice, you have to reach. You have to find out exactly
where they are, then you try to draw that into a district, which gives it an
odd shape. And then you infill that district to try to make it look as
compact as possible. And that's exactly the reason that you have the
district there, District 40, that you're talking about.
Rep. Thomas: OK. So we get District 40 because of compactness for
minorities. So let's look at what's basically a recognized minority
community, the hispanics. And next, let's look at District 113. District 113
crosses the entire state. This little notch over here is Collier County, this
large black area here is Dade County. I'm sorry, it's hard to tell on a lot of
these which is correct and which is up and which is not up. Thank you.
Thank you. It's hard to tell on some of these maps which is the head of the
dragon. What's the compact, cohesive community of interest being served
and why did we have to run all the way across the state on this one?
Rep. Mackey: Mr. Speaker? One of the reasons that this district
stretches the distance that you see here, Collier is one of the counties where
the Voting Rights Act-we have to answer certain requirements-and in
linking the vote, the hispanic population that you see in Dade here, we feel
like we've addressed that.
Rep. Thomas: OK. So because Collier was a Voting Rights Act, you're
saying we had to throw that in with Dade? Were there not enough hispanics
in Dade to accomplish this same goal?
Rep. Mackey: Not necessarily to get the percentages that we have.
Rep. Thomas: OK. Let's look at District 20 and I don't know, I
presume this is the correct way to hold District 20. It crosses a bridge and
it seems to violate recognized communities in order to capture a partisan
voting group. It takes 12, roughly 12.5 percent of a black population from
a minority district and puts it into what is currently a white Democrat
incumbent. Could you kindly comment on this one?
Rep. Mackey: Absolutely. What you have in Jacksonville are two
communities and, if I'm not mistaken, I'm turning for the numbers now.
But we created two districts there that do meet the Voting Rights Act
requirements whose populations are over the 50 percent in both of those
districts and that is just what you have left over. And we want to stay
within the requirements and keeping as low a deviation as we could within
some of these areas and still get the VAP and the total black population
to an acceptable level.
Rep. Thomas: OK. So, we've done that one for voting rights and we've
done others for community of interest and Members requests. Do you
recall, as we discussed some of these: District 37, District 40, District 34,
District 113, which Members requested districts that were shaped like this
and looked like this?
Rep. Mackey: We simply took the information given to us by all the
Members in the communities at our hearings and tried to put that into a
composite form in the map that you have before you.
Rep. Thomas: OK. If you look at District 12, now that's a familiar
one, that's real small, compact and nice and that's your district.
Rep. Mackey: That's my district.
Rep. Thomas: Yes, sir. That's your district, yes, sir, Mr. Mackey. And
if you look at District 52, that's Ms. Mortham's district. I'm curious how
Ms. Mortham's district came into being looking this way. And I use Ms.
Mortham's name or your name understanding that these are the districts
of the people of Florida and not any specific incumbent, but you've got this
nice compact district now that you're representing, number 12, and she has
this. How did this one come about?
Rep. Mackey: First of all, let me explain my district. I think you
asked about that one first.
Rep. Thomas: Yes, sir.
Rep. Mackey: Whether I go to the east or go to the south, I think you
realize that in that part of North Florida, we lost representation. So we
were compressed somewhat. Both from the east and from the west. Now
if you want to divide, if you will check, I had a split county there as well.

The numbers in that area remain basically the same and in some of the
earlier plans that we looked at, I actually did run to the east. But it doesn't

June 4, 1992

Rep. Thomas: OK. Thank you, Mr. Mackey. I'm still a little
distressed about, for instance, 37, which runs from the Atlantic Ocean to
the middle of Orlando to pick up 106,000 people and doesn't have any
voting rights groups around it, near it or adjacent to it.

E OF REPRESENTATIVES 63

matter in this area, if you will check, most all of these are as compact as
possible and communities of interest or counties are left whole where
possible as well.
Rep. Thomas: Mr. Mackey, to comment on that before you go on to
the other question. When you lost population, you managed to keep a
compressed district. Then what you said was, we lost population and yet
that compresses. But normally a lost population causes an expanded
district.
Rep. Mackey: I think if you will look on that and if you will look at
my old district lines, there is expansion in mine. I picked up one full county
and another partial county as well.
Rep. Thomas: I believe that's kind of what you meant to say, even
though you said, it was compressed. Go on and talk now about Ms.
Mortham's.
Rep. Mackey: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
Rep. Thomas: I'm sorry, sir. If you would go on and talk about
District 52.
Rep. Mackey: District 52 is, as a matter of fact, all of Pinellas County
and Hillsborough is somewhat interesting because the restrictions placed
upon you there by water masses and having bridges that can only be used
in one particular district, when you start at the end of Pinellas County and
back up. If I put Mr. Jamerson over the Skyway Bridge to answer some of
the questions we were trying to do there with the Voting Rights Act, then
that does not allow me to use that bridge again for anyone else. Then you
start to fill those districts up and then you come around and you have
populations. You just fill your districts up then you can go to the north and
then you can go to the east with that. And I think when you look at Pinellas
County that becomes pretty obvious on how that develops.
Rep. Thomas: So, you're satisfied that District 52 was done for
Voting Rights Act.
Rep. Mackey: District 52, was that, sir?
Rep. Thomas: Yes, sir.
Rep. Mackey: No, sir. I'm telling you that when you-in the case of
Mr. Jamerson, and we crossed over the bridge, that then had an effect on
the rest of the districts within Pinellas County because, then we could not
relieve that voting number down to the south. The bridge has been used
and it could only be used once. Then you have to take those numbers and
go back to the north.
Rep. Thomas: So, in other words, it is the leftover area from the
Voting Rights Act that obliged you to do that?
Rep. Mackey: If you want to say that.
Rep. Thomas: Yes, sir.
Rep. Mackey: That would be part of it.
Rep. Thomas: Did you draw the Voting Rights Act districts first?
Rep. Mackey: Which is what we did in this particular case.
Rep. Thomas: Throughout your plan?
Rep. Mackey: Yes. I think if you will check with Members of the
Black Caucus, they will tell you that we did work with them very, very
closely in developing the plan that you see before you today.
Rep. Thomas: OK. I don't really understand that. I understand that
you worked very close with them. Did you draw the Voting Rights Act
districts first?
Rep. Mackey: Yes, sir. In the case of the ones that you can see, we
did draw those first. As a matter of fact, as we moved through the process,
there are many members of the Black Caucus that can tell you that we-
worked with them in drawing those in those particular communities first.
Yes, sir.

64 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE

Speaker Wetherell: Representative Mackey.
Rep. Mackey: Is that still in the form of a question that you are still
concerned about it or-
Rep. Thomas: Yes, sir. I'm still concerned about it. Do you want to
comment on it any further?
Rep. Mackey: No, sir. I appreciate your concern and if you would like
to work toward doing something with that in the computer or on the
computer up in the Reapportionment suite, you are more than welcome to
do that; and we're going to take these ideas, if you have some suggestions,
and we'll move them forward.
Rep. Thomas: Thank you. I just, you know, it's hard to believe this
is as compact and as contiguous as you can get and it wasn't done for
partisan purposes in this particular instance. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker Wetherell: OK. Are there further questions?
Representative Young.
Rep. Young: I'd like to speak in favor of this at the proper time.
Speaker Wetherell: You're recognized.
Rep. Young: All right. Mr. Speaker, Chairman, I'm going to vote for
this amendment; however, I do feel that I owe it to the folks back home
after they saw the amendment wonder why their Representative would
consider voting for it. We have been chopped up pretty badly. However,
the thing that bothered most of us in our delegation was that we really
didn't feel we had the input we should have in this bill. We have since
worked with you and with your committee and we have been assured by
you that you will consider some of our input. It isn't too late that the
conference will consider the work product that we have here. And that as
you say, trust us. Mr. Chairman, our delegation has decided we will trust
you and hopefully we will come up with something that will contain more
of our feelings and our information and our expertise in our district. So
for that, I will vote, and the folks back home hopefully will trust me.
Speaker Wetherell: OK. On the amendment, Representative Clark.
Rep. Clark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members of the House.
Representative Mackey, we've talked with you. As Representative Young
has indicated, there are some specific areas we have some concern with, and
as a delegation, hopefully we have worked those out. But for your
information, the concern that we had in the two black House seats in
Broward County, the VAP needed to be increased. It is my understanding
that you are aware of that and intend to do that in conference. I represent
a city-as you've heard some of the other black Members on the floor talk
about them not being elected from a minority district. I was one of those
and I'm also very much concerned about the future of the city of
Lauderdale Lakes which is the city that is less than three square miles and
your plan-some of the condominiums there were hooked into Dade
County and goes down to Hialeah. The concern that we had that there was
no center of common interest there and it is my understanding that that
is also going to be worked out. I'm going to vote for this plan, along with
most of the members of our delegation, with the understanding that our
concerns will be addressed in conference.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Feeney.
Rep. Feeney: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For the purpose of a question
of the sponsor.
Speaker Wetherell: He yields. Mr. Mackey.
Rep. Feeney: Representative Mackey, the district that Dr. Thomas
showed my colleagues, District 37, that runs roughly from south Indian
River all the way from south Brevard and Brevard and comes up into a part
of Orange County and grabs a home that I happen to live in, and you
indicated that these districts were drawn based on the requests of
communities and individuals. I just wanted to know if you would be good
enough to provide me with the names and the addresses of the people in
Indian River and Brevard that wanted to be drawn into a district that I
lived in?

Rep. Mackey: Mr. Feeney, we'll be happy to provide you with the
same material that we were given as we held our hearings around the state.
And a lot of times, what one community wants-remember in my opening
remarks today I said that it would impact what another community wants.

I[

E OF REPRESENTATIVES June 4, 1992

Now, you may cure the problem for you and make yours just a little more
compact and do it just like you want it, only to have those people around
you adversely affected and then have them calling you saying wait a
minute. Now that you've corrected your problem for yourself, you've given
others a problem as well. So, that is a problem in trying to satisfy everyone
in a map and in a plan and in every community. What we've done is to do
that to the best of our ability, with the input that we had from our hearings
and from Members as well.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Diaz-Balart.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For a number of
questions, if I may.
Speaker Wetherell: You're recognized. Mr. Mackey yields.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Thank you. Mr. Mackey, I heard you tell Dr.
Thomas a few minutes ago that some of the districts that you created are
because that is what you heard the people in those areas tell you. What did
you hear from the hispanics in the public hearing in the Ruben Dario
School. What did you hear from them? And how what you heard from them
was applied? Did you apply it to the plan that you created?
Rep. Mackey: Well, to be honest with you, Mr. Diaz-Balart, I heard
more from you and Mr. De Grandy when I was in the hispanic area than
I did from that community. And as we traveled around that particular area,
there were some that said we don't consider ourselves to be a part of the
Cuban-hispanic community, we consider ourselves to be part of the
Mexican-hispanic community, and it got somewhat confusing, I think,
probably as to who really wanted to belong to what. Given that and given
the remarks that you made, I think you wanted to see 11 districts; I've
heard that number before. Well, we have 11 districts. They might not be
to the voting-age population that you want or to the population to the
whole that you want, but we have those districts in there.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: On that point, Mr. Mackey, I don't want to
confuse the issue. Did you not hear the representative of the Nicaraguan
Business Association tell you to maximize hispanic representation and
demand 11 districts? Did you not hear a person representing the Puerto
Rican community ask to maximize hispanic representation and support
11? Did you not hear a member of the Columbian-American Chamber of
Commerce ask to maximize hispanic representation and ask for 11
districts? Did you not hear members of the Latin Builders and the
Hispanic-American Builders Association ask for 11 districts, support 11
districts? Did you not hear, time and time again, those statements that are
introduced into the record where we had a separate public hearing, and if
you did hear that, how does that apply to the districts that are on the map
today?
Rep. Mackey: Mr. Speaker. First of all, if I may, let me ask you a
simple question. Did you hear the remarks that I just expressed as well?
There were some who said in different areas that they did not feel that they
were a hispanic community as a whole. Yes, we did hear these people say
that they would like to maximize. But then that becomes someone's call
as what is maximizing and what is not. I'm sure that you have a different
opinion than we do of that, and there again, you know we have talked with
you before about what you would like to see. We got your wishes very late
in the process, as far as a map. So if you have something you would like
to give us, we'd be happy to accept that and try to work toward developing
a plan that you feel comfortable with.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Mr. Mackey, that comes up again. Now, you're
saying that if you would have seen it, well, you have a plan in-house, it was
introduced today, that has 11 hispanic districts. You had introduced in the
Opa-locka public hearing a plan with 11 hispanic districts. But, let's now
look at the facts, we have in the computer and on the floor today a plan
with 11 hispanic districts. You're saying that maybe our definition of
hispanic districts are different. What is your definition of a hispanic
district? What do you consider a hispanic district? We consider a hispanic
district one that can elect the candidate of its choice. But, what is your
definition? Do you have a percentage that you're looking at? In other
words, why are ours not right?

Rep. Mackey: I don't think that there is any magic number. Say, if
you have this number it is a hispanic district, but does it perform? I think
that begins to be the question and even in the maps that you presented,
I think there's a question of doubt if they will do that as well. So, that's

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE]

an issue that we can debate long and hard here on the floor and never come
to a conclusive answer.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Mr. Mackey, could you show me one instance? Do
you have any place-have I seen? You haven't, in truth, sent it to me, as
far as I know-any evidence that those hispanic districts don't perform the
11. Could you please show me that?
Rep. Mackey: We have some information using the maps that you
provided to show that they would not. There again, I think I pointed that
out in the committee and here on the floor again today. If you go back to
the 1982 process, you see what happened there-who was elected and who
was not in districts where lower percentages were there. To say would that
happen again today, that's a hard call to make. Yes, I think we can support
that in some of these districts, we can show where they would not perform,
that you had in your map.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Mr. Mackey, what is your criteria or your
definition of packing or stacking and also of cracking or splitting districts?
What is your definition or how would you define that?
Rep. Mackey: Mr. Speaker. Once again, any definition that I may
give you on any of those issues you could take debate with, and we could
debate that here on this floor all day, and we could spend some time here.
I think anything that anybody wants to say about packing or cracking an
area, that's up to debate and I could not give you an answer, I'm sure, that
would be pleasing to you, unless the map was just perfect to your suiting.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: So, you don't have no real criteria what those
definitions are, correct? You have no criteria, no established criteria that
we can debate for what those definitions may be.
Rep. Mackey: Mr. Speaker, one last comment on that.
Speaker Wetherell: All right. Mr. Mackey, I think we ought to move
on, time is getting short and people are a little bit anxious right now. Mr.
Mackey would you go ahead and-
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Mr. Speaker, if I-
Rep. Mackey: Within the definition of anything, you have to look at
the totality of the entire circumstance or circumstances themselves and
take all of that in. You're trying to debate one on one on each of those, but
you have to look at the whole situation to ever come up with a definition
on that.
REPRESENTATIVE CRADY IN THE CHAIR
Rep. Crady: All right. I have Mitchell, De Grandy, and Martinez, but
Members, we need to go ahead and move this amendment one way or the
other. Mr. Mitchell, you're recognized. Mr. Hill, I see you waving your
mike.
Rep. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I haven't said anything all day and I've
been waiting. I'm a little bit nervous. We've had a lot of amendments on
the floor and all of them have been defeated. And I'm worried that one's
fixing to pass. I think it's fixing to pass. I think it's fixing to pass and I'm
a little bit dissatisfied with what I see and I've been like Representative
Young over there. I've been trusting all along that these things will be
worked out, and of course, Randy gave me his assurances that they'd be
worked out and right now, it doesn't look like they'll be worked out. I think,
I'd like to hear you talk about District 7.
Rep. Mackey: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Mitchell and I have spent some time
in front of the computer, and I tried to help him solve his problem as much
as we can. But when you have an area such as North Florida that Mr.
Mitchell lives in and then you start to lose a House seat, which we did, that
causes the rest of the district across the panhandle to have to stretch to the
west, if it's lost in that area-as well as it would cause those stretched to
the east, those that would be lost in the Jacksonville area. Mr. Mitchell, I
understand your concerns, and I know that there are some things that you
would like to have changed and fixed in the map. But I also believe that
you understand exactly what we're faced with and how everything
interrelates and interacts with every other community. Jackson
community, for instance, said that they would like to be whole, if at all
possible. And these are some things that we are trying to work with, the

totality of the situation to make sure that we can present as good a map
as possible.

June 4, 1992

I think most of the growth area took place along the beach and to the north,
am I not correct on that?
Rep. Mortham: Yes, it would be.
Rep. Mackey: OK.

E OF REPRESENTATIVES 65

Rep. Mitchell: Mr. Mackey, I've never heard the part here that I'd
be going into the bikini area, but I see it on the map there. And I just don't
want that area and I'd rather Mr. Ritchie or somebody else have that area.
They know how to deal with the bikinis, being much younger than I am,
and I'd like for them to have that district.
Rep. Crady: All right. I have Members that want to call a previous
question. The Chair would prefer not to have that done at this time. We
want to hear as many people as we can. I'm going on down the list and Mr.
De Grandy, you're next. Please make it brief, if you would.
Rep. De Grandy: I have very few questions, Mr. Speaker. I have an
inquiry also for you. After the questions, is it appropriate to debate or will
that be left for another time?
Rep. Crady: You're asking questions right now. It's very appropriate
prior to debate and I think Mr. Diaz-Balart wants to debate after we hear
the questions.
Rep. De Grandy: Mr. Mackey, from Mackey I to Mackey II, there
were changes made in Dade County. What were the purposes of those
changes?
Rep. Mackey: You'll remember in committee, we set a time frame
that we would have to have amendments in. Given that constraint, there
were Members who came to us with some changes that they would like to
see. We did our best at that time to incorporate those and there again
saying to Members, who didn't get amendments in or they were just so
large and moved so much population that we couldn't get it done in that
time frame that we would continue to work with them to get that done, as
we moved towards conference. So, what changes you see in Dade County
are there to try to work with individual Members to fix some problems that
they had that we could get in in the time frame set aside for us.
Rep. De Grandy: OK sir, let me ask you a "would you believe"
question. I'll reserve the rest for debate. Would you believe, sir, that the
reason the amendments were made were actually to go from bad to worse
in terms of the hispanic community. For example, whereas you only had
two minority incumbents running against each other in Mackey I, that
being Mr. Gutman and Mr. Morse, you now have six out of the eight
Republicans running together. You now have Mr. Valdes and I in the same
district and I'll show you a plan that has the House icons in your computer.
You now have Mr. Valdes and I running in the same district and you have
Mr. Diaz-Balart running with Mr. Hoffmann and Ms. Guber. So would you
believe, sir, that-and also you're taking a district out to Collier County
that I find hard to believe was for Section 5 reasons only, because if it were,
sir, I could show you a way to make two districts out of Monroe County,
which is a Section 5, and merge with Dade. But of course, that would take
out your Appropriations Chairman and you wouldn't do that. So, would
you believe, sir, that the reason that you did all of these changes was to
further disenfranchise the hispanic community?
Rep. Mackey: Mr. Speaker, if that's in the form of a question-if he
is asking me would I believe that, then my answer would be simply "No."
Rep. Crady: Mr. Martinez.
Rep. Martinez: Mr. Speaker, I don't have a question, I'd like to
just-
Rep. Crady: Can you hold on one minute then and let's finish the
questions? Anyone else have any questions or are we ready? Mrs.
Mortham.
Rep. Mortham: Question of Mr. Mackey.
Rep. Crady: You are recognized.
Rep. Mortham: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Mackey, in Pinellas
County could you tell the Members where the high-growth area is in
Pinellas?
Rep. Mackey: Where the high-growth area is in Pinellas County?
Rep. Mortham: Correct.
Rep. Mackey: Well, Mr. Jamerson had to pick up some additional.

66 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE

Rep. Mortham: To follow up on that, if the high-growth area would
be in the north and along the beaches, why is it in your particular plan that
the preservation of Members are all in the south of the counties?
Rep. Mackey: If you will look at the map again, you will find that
those Members themselves were all stretched as towards the growth. I
think everyone you will find that they run north or south and as a whole
the compression from the entire county runs to the north.
Rep. Crady: All right, Mr. Hill you had a question? You are
recognized.
Rep. Hill: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Question of Mr. Mackey. Actually
a couple of questions. First question, Mr. Mackey, are you representing
that this plan is the best that can be done for minority participation?
Rep. Mackey: We feel that the plan that we have before you today
is the best that can be accomplished with the input that we have been given
to this time. Once again I would state to you, we have asked for that in the
past and we have started to get some cooperation from other Members on
what we can and can't do, but we have people tell us that they know their
communities better than we do and I would believe that's probably very
true. So, the more input that we continue to get from Members it would
probably be wise to say to you and would be correct that we could probably
do a better job in some of those areas.
Rep. Hill: Second question, Mr. Mackey. We've heard from time to
time that you said, well we're going to take all this under consideration and
we are going to keep this going and maybe make improvements in the plan
as we go down the road. Isn't it true that we did not have a single
subcommittee meeting to consider this and that the full House will never
get to consider any changes that are made unless it comes out of the
conference committee report?
Rep. Mackey: I think everyone has had participation in the process
up to now. Those who wanted to work in the suite were allowed to do so
and did do so that wanted to do so. We had a full committee hearing where
everything was aired in the public and I think everyone had a chance to
raise any questions they wanted to at that time. We are here on the floor
now and then we will go to conference and we'll come back.
Rep. Hill: At the proper time, I would like to speak against the
amendment, Mr. Speaker.
Rep. Crady: All right, Mr. Hill. All right, back on the questioning,
Mrs. Mortham, you had an additional question?
Rep. Mortham: Yes, Sir. Still following up-back on Pinellas
County. You have said that the growth was in north county and along the
beaches which I would agree and yet we have retained the membership
totally from south county in your particular plan. Now, earlier Mr. Rudd
complained about the fact a county was split into four segments. Now, in
my particular area I live and have lived in a city for 39 years and it's got
60,000 people, only 60,000 people and yet under your plan, Mr. Mackey,
that city has been divided into four districts. Could you tell me what
community of interest that is?
Rep. Mackey: If you look at the number of Members in Pinellas
County as a whole, now I would have to ask you, there are 24 municipalities
located inside the county-now, I would like to invite you at any time to
come to the Reapportionment suite and deal with that issue of all the
municipalities and draw those in a way that you don't split somebody
somewhere somehow that feels that either there is a county violation, either
it's a city corporate area that's violated or a community of interest violated
or whatever. There are some people, regardless of where the lines fall and
how you draw them, that are always going to feel like they have not been
represented as well as they could.
Rep. Crady: Mrs. Mortham, go ahead and follow up.
Rep. Mortham: Would you agree with me that a city of 60,000 people
should be divided into four different House districts when there is no

minority seat involved? Would that be something that you think we should
do as a Member of this House?
Rep. Mackey: I can report to you that sometimes that does happen.
Rep. Crady: Mrs. Brown, then we are going to debate.

1]

world of make-believe and come on into the real world because we all know
how to count and we all know what's about to take place on the Mackey-
Wallace or Wallace-Mackey, or whatever plan we are getting ready to vote
on. I would appreciate it, gentlemen, if somewhere along the way-pardon
me, I was speaking to the two gentlemen, Mrs. Figg, nothing personal-Mr.

E OF REPRESENTATIVES June 4, 1992

Rep. Brown: Thank you. I have one question. One of the things that
I pointed out over and over again is the weakness in the representation of
black Members from North Florida or Central Florida on the committee.
When I look at your plan that I am going to vote for, I want to point out
something that I hope you will work on. If you look at Escambia County
you have it divided into two districts-District 2 and District 3. I have been
here 10 years. I can't tell you how many times the people from Escambia
County have called the Black Caucus concerning problems that they have
had in that area. I don't understand why we cannot have combined that
to make that a 40 percent black district, or at least it would be a strong
district and the person whoever represents that person would bring their
needs and concerns to this House. If you look at Districts 8, 10, 11 and 12
in North Florida, it would have made a black district a strong black district.
And the last area is Volusia County. If you look at Volusia County, it was
clearly a Member-they are educated, they come from Bethune Cookman
College in that area and it was clearly-you have divided the blacks into
three areas and it could have been one area and you could have had a black
Member from that area. Now, as I told you before I am going to vote for
the plan, but there is a clear weakness in the plan as it related to blacks
in North Florida and Central Florida. And I am hoping as this process
moves forward that this issue that I continue to bring before this House
will be addressed.
Rep. Crady: Mr. Starks, and then Mrs. Hanson.
Rep. Starks: Just for a series of brief questions to Representative
Mackey. Mr. Mackey, I am just curious, in the state of Florida, how many
Republican incumbents were put in the same district-i.e. Mortham,
Muscarella; i.e. Webster and McEwan throughout the state of Florida?
Rep. Mackey: I can tell you from my original map and I don't think
there has been very little variation from that. We had a situation where we
had, I think, four Republicans against Democrats, five Democrats against
Democrats and maybe four Republicans against Republicans. It was
somewhere in that area and probably the change in the map and there has
been very little change in that, so it was pretty even throughout the board.
Rep. Starks: So there's roughly four contests where Republican
incumbents and four or five with Democrat incumbents in the same seats?
Rep. Mackey: Right. Roughly, if I may continue, those were the
numbers in the original map and I don't have them right here in front of
me now, but I can tell you it was like four and five, four and five and then
I think one with two, one and one.
Rep. Starks: Just one other brief observation in Central Florida in
central part here in Orange and Seminole Counties, I notice that there are
two new districts drawn: District 38, and also District 1. I find that
interesting just in the numbers assigned to districts. District 1 used to be
in, I believe, Escambia County and now it's next to District 114 that used
to be in South Florida. But in lieu of the fact that you have two new
districts, District 1 and District 38-District 36 was split in three portions
and effectively split the cities of Castleberry, Maitland and Winter Park.
What was the reasoning behind that?
Rep. Mackey: First of all, are you sure where those cities are split by
the maps that you have before you?
Rep. Starks: Yes, I represent the district.
Rep. Mackey: OK. If you will remember that area is extremely high
growth and if you will look also at the districts around that, they are as
compact as we can have them, given the fact that we tried to do as good
as we could in District 40 as well. If you draw District 40 first then you start
to fill in around it, then you come up with some of the odd shapes you have
there because what's contiguous to one is contiguous to the next, etc. So
that's the reason for most of what you have there.
Rep. Starks: Thank you.
Rep. Crady: Mrs. Hanson.
Rep. Hanson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are about to leave the

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSI

Mackey and Mr. Wallace, if somewhere along the way you could put in
writing how we are going to deal with our interest in the process. Now, as
you know, Broward and Palm Beach Counties have been trying very hard
to work out a little agreement. It was our understanding that if the
delegations could agree 100 percent that maybe-well, now today, I'm
hearing it's going to be up to the individual Member for me to come and
for you-Mr. Mackey, or you, Mr. Wallace, it would be helpful and I'm sure
I speak for a lot of the Members, mainly the Members that have an "R"
after their name, but it would be helpful if you could spell out what it is
that you want us to do before the reapportionment plan is put to bed for
one last time. So, could you be kind enough to promise me that one of you
gentlemen would do this? The answer is no?
Rep. Crady: Mr. Wallace.
Rep. Wallace: I have to be careful about making promises on the
subject, but I am trying to figure out the way for me to make a promise and
for you in turn to make a promise that you are going to vote for the
conference report when it comes back. I would suggest to you that the best
approach would be to do both of the things that you suggested. One is to
continue to work with your delegations, Broward and Palm Beach, in an
effort to resolve concerns within those delegations. The other is to work
with me and with Representative Mackey and with the other Members of
our conference committee to provide your input as to the best solutions.
I said yesterday, in meeting with the Broward delegation, that we are not
making promises-that we would take a single product from the delegation
whether it's a majority vote and just place it into a conference report and
I don't have the power to make that promise and Representative Mackey
doesn't either. But, certainly the input from the various delegations is
going to be very valuable in coming to a final resolution of the House
redistricting.
Rep. Crady: All right, Mr. Martinez.
Rep. Martinez: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just let me tell you from
someone who's been through reapportionment before. Under any plan that
you have seen or devised-there's a little community out here in the
Panhandle that is called Two Egg. No matter what you do in
reapportionment when it ends you are going to have an East Egg and a
West Egg. We are going to divide that small community, too. That's the
way reapportionment plans work.
Let me tell you about the reapportionment committee and the process.
There is a group of people in the Hispanic Business Caucus in the city of
Tampa who were up here and were interested in creating a second possible
access to the hispanic district in Hillsborough County. They were given
complete cooperation by the committee, had access to the computer, spent
one or two afternoons on the computer getting all the help they wanted,
were aided in showing them how to do it on their computer at home, but
unfortunately at the last minute when they sent their tape up here,
apparently UPS or someone had run it through an X-ray apparently and
it wiped some of their program out and they were unable then to submit
an amendment. But it was not because they were not heard. It was because
of that difficulty that they had.
What happened after listening to all the cross-examination on the part
of Mr. Diaz-Balart and Mr. De Grandy, on Mr. Mackey, which is what it
was, cross-examination ready for their law suit-and considering the fact
that everything we say, there is a motion to spread it upon the Journal, I
can tell you the only one that's going to be happy when we leave here
tonight is the printer. He is going to be very happy because it is going to
be four or five hundred pages that we are going to print. And all of it means
nothing.
In Hillsborough County there are eight Representatives. We are now
going to be entitled to about eight-and-a-half. We, among ourselves, cannot
agree on where the lines are drawn. But Mr. Mackey and his committee
have gone to the extent of meeting with us more than once trying to
facilitate this situation. So, we have agreed and Mr. Mackey has agreed and
we all know that this is not the last plan we are ever going to see. But if
we are going to wait to vote for a plan when everybody is happy, we will
be here until next Christmas-or, we won't be here until next Christmas,
the courts are going to do it anyway. What I am saying is that although the
plan for Hillsborough County is imperfect, the commitment is to continue

to work it out and, if we, among ourselves, could work something out and
just report to Mr. Mackey we've done it, he would take it in a flat second.

June 4, 1992

Voting Rights Act is complied with in relation to District 63 because of its
preclearance requirement.
Speaker Wetherell: OK, now we are on debate on the bill, let me
recognize Mr. Webster. You are working on a five-minute time period.

E OF REPRESENTATIVES 67

And, I'll tell you he'll do that for everybody else in this House because he
has demonstrated he's that type of person and the whole committee
attitude and the staff has been that way. So, I urge you that after all the
rhetoric and all the cross-examination listen to what Mr. Mackey has had
to do. He's had to answer Mrs. Mortham and indicated and show a
knowledge of the demographics of Pinellas County. He's had to answer Mr.
Mitchell and show he had knowledge of the demographics of North Florida.
He's had to answer the cross-examination by Mr. De Grandy and Mr. Diaz-
Balart and show he had a working knowledge of the demographics and the
ethnic makeup in Dade County. So, I urge you to-let's vote on this plan,
we continue to work on it and ultimately we will all come out with a plan
that only the printer is going to be happy with, but I guess if no one is
happy it's a fair thing to do. So I urge you to vote for the Mackey
amendment.

THE SPEAKER IN THE CHAIR
Speaker Wetherell: OK, folks, I think everybody has beat this horse
to death. Ms. Mackenzie.
Rep. Mackenzie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I think just
about everybody in this Chamber knows how they are going to vote and I
would propose that you would allow it to limit the debate on this bill to five
minutes per side.
Speaker Wetherell: All right, let's test the sentiment of the House.
The motion is to limit debate to five minutes a side, since it is
reapportionment. All those in favor, say "Yea," opposed,"Nay." Looks like
the threes are really there, eh? We can get it over with in five and be fair
to everybody and I'm going to run the clock. All right, five minutes per side.
Those who wish to debate-all right, let me line it up before we get going.
In opposition would be: Mr. Webster, Mr. Hill, Mr. De Grandy, Mr.
Harden, Mrs. Simone, Mr. Diaz-Balart-we'll never get through those-
OK, and proponents of the bill would be: Mr. Mackey, Mr. Wallace and
Mrs. Holzendorf. Holzendorf, Mackey, Wallace-all right, Mr. Hargrett,
you had a quick question.
Rep. Hargrett: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Reapportionment Chairman
and I have been discussing my situation with regard to retrogression in
District 63 and I would just like for the record for him to give me some
comments so that I can, on the record, vote for a bill that I will have
confidence will be made legal and I would like to make a comment after
he makes his comment.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Wallace.
Rep. Wallace: Three quick points, Mr. Speaker. Number one, the
black percentages, whether you take it VAP or whether you take total
population or whether you take non-hispanic black population, are very
close between the 1990 district and the proposed district which, of course,
has a much larger population base because you had to make up about
45,000, I'm sorry, about 35,000 new residents into that district. Second
point is that retrogression, of course, is not determined solely on the basis
of percentages, but rather on a totality to circumstances. Third, Mr.
Hargrett, we will work with you to make sure that in every percentage
index that we have improved that district over 1982 and over 1990 so you
are satisfied when we have a final product that no one can argue that there
is retrogression in this plan.
Rep. Hargrett: Mr. Wallace, one final rhetorical question and I make
it rhetorical for the purpose of time consideration of the Members, but I
believe that the Voting Rights Act requires us to draw the minority
districts first. I believe that is the consensus of thought and the way that
District 63 was drawn this time that would have been an impossible
procedure to follow because it eliminated some of the existing black areas
that the district currently has and took it out into Brandon which is a fast
developing community in the 1-75 corridor-one of the fastest developing
areas in the state and that would balance off an older city population that
is declining in population and so I would request that the conference
committee do a better job of following a policy that would ensure that the

68 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE

Rep. Webster: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. All I would like to point out
is, just kind of the answer that was given Mr. Starks about the number of
people that were paired. I would like to bring to the House's attention that
40 percent of the Republicans in this body are paired with another person
in the district that are drawn and 10 percent are Democrats. Also, I think
it would be good to note that most of the leadership team on our
reapportionment are paired. Seven of the Republican Members of
reapportionment are paired, none of the ones that are Democrats are
paired, and of that, basically, the ones that have been the spokesmen are
all paired: De Grandy, Diaz-Balart, Lombard, Mortham and Webster are
all paired. I think there definitely has been political gerrymandering in this
plan and I would be against it.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Hill, you are working on 4
[minutes] 12 [seconds] in opposition.
Rep. Hill: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, very briefly. This amendment
before us is inferior to every other amendment that was offered here, as it
pertains to African-American and hispanic participation in the election of
Members of this House. Secondly, we have heard over and over again they
are going to continue working with it through the process. Well, just
remember we had the opportunity to have sub-committee meetings, we
didn't have it; we don't have, apparently, the plan that will be the plan
because we have been told that between now and conference and during
conference, the House plan is going to continue to be worked on. Ladies
and gentlemen, this is not a good amendment, it ought to be voted down
and I would urge you to do so.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Holzendorf, a proponent, five
minutes.
Rep. Holzendorf: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand to support the
plan. I don't know how everyone else did in drawing the plan for their area,
but specifically I took mine to the community: city council persons,
community presidents, all came to Tallahassee, met with Representative
Mackey, worked on the computer without me, but to see that the district
was drawn according to the way they felt it should be drawn. I think we
have had a very open process here. I think we've got a plan now that we
can work with to make necessary corrections. I don't think anyone in these
Chambers will be satisfied with the plan as it currently is, but at least it
is a plan that can be looked at. I stand to speak because I do not want the
constituents that I currently represent to think that I did not take their
wishes into consideration. Right now, Mr. King and I have a problem that
we need to work out as it relates to the districts, but other than that I think
that this is a workable plan and I think that we ought to support it and get
on with the business of conference.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Diaz-Balart, 3 [minutes] 31
[seconds].
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have been asking the
questions about packing, stacking, cracking, splitting and it sounds like
Rice Krispies, but the answer that I have been getting is, that it is relative.
Well, it is relative. It probably is relative and let's look at the numbers here.
In the Mackey plan you have-let's look at packing-you have hispanic
districts that are 80 and 90 percent, you have then hispanic districts that
are split, or actually black districts that have 36.7 percent hispanics, 30.9
percent hispanics, 28.4 percent hispanics, other districts that are 43.3
percent hispanics, non-hispanic districts 33.1 percent, 41.2 percent
hispanic, again Mr. Mackey, with all due respect, yes packing, cracking, it's
all relative, but if this is relative to anything else, this is the worst plan that
this House has seen as far as reapportionment is concerned.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative De Grandy, you are working on
2 [minutes] 42 [seconds].
Rep. De Grandy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Incumbency protection,
ladies and gentlemen, cannot be viewed as narrowly as protecting an
individual. It could also be looked at as law, as representing an attempt to
preserve an incumbent political party. Now, there are arguments where
that is OK or not in the law, but certainly not when you are talking about

minority districts. It is clear from looking at the Dade County plan that
there was a double standard. There was an attempt to maximize African-
American districts where African-Americans traditionally vote Democrat,
and a conscious attempt to minimize hispanic districts where in that area
they tend to vote Republican. That is unlawful, ladies and gentlemen. All

1

to indicate their presence. Quorum call. The Clerk will lock the machine
and announce the presence of a quorum.
Reading Clerk: 115 Members voting. A quorum is present, Mr.
Speaker.

E OF REPRESENTATIVES June 4, 1992

the arguments that we have heard about why we are sending a district out
to Collier County equally as false argument. If you really wanted to do that,
we could have done that in Monroe County, but again you see the double
standard. There is a Democrat that represents Monroe County so we
wouldn't touch him, but we'll touch Republicans because Collier County
is traditionally a Republican county. This plan, ladies and gentlemen, is
simply unacceptable. Thank you.
Speaker Wetherell: OK, Mr. Harden, about 30 seconds.
Rep. Harden: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to add
to what Representative Corrine Brown of Jacksonville said. We have an
opportunity, with the Reaves amendment that was rejected, to create a
black district in Escambia County that was 39 percent black, and voted in
the Democratic Presidential Primary 52 percent for Jesse Jackson. The
amendment that we are about to adopt in the plan would split the black
vote 28 percent to 15 percent and do away with a district in which a
majority of voters would have voted for Jesse Jackson. It's clear what this
plan is doing across the state and even in the Panhandle. I urge a negative
vote on this bill and the amendment.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Simone about 26 seconds.
Rep. Simone: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could I speak at the time of
third reading when we are on the bill?
Speaker Wetherell: Yeah, do you want to roll it today? Just
kidding.
Rep. Simone: Well, when we get to it I want to be first up to speak
on the five minutes.
Speaker Wetherell: Yes ma'am, you are first up tomorrow. All right,
Representatives Mackey and Wallace to close. Representative Wallace
first.
Rep. Wallace: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We've had plenty debate
today, but I want you to recognize this amendment is the product of
hundreds of hours of time, not only Representative Mackey's time, but the
time that has been spent working with individual Members of this House,
with dozens of Members who took the time to provide their input on how
best to have districts drawn for their respective areas for the communities
which they represent. It is a good plan, it's a fair plan, it honors the one-
person, one-vote standard and it meets the requirement of the Federal
Voting Rights Act and the United States Constitution. I urge a favorable
vote for the Mackey amendment.
Speaker Wetherell: Mr. Mackey to close on the amendment.
Rep. Mackey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, there has been
quite a bit of discussion and debate on what this amendment does. One,
we know that it does create minority black seats that do perform. They
don't just look black, they perform black. We know that we create hispanic
seats that don't just look that way, they perform as well. There has been
a lot of hours and lot of effort put into this, and granted, I know that.there
are some people who have some discomfort with the plan, but I have had
Members of the Republican Party come up to me and tell me very happy
with the district you've got, but, you know, we have taken the position we
can't vote for it. I want everyone to know that anyone who has taken the
time to spend the time in the Reapportionment suite, we have tried to
accommodate them and work with them to the best of our ability as we
moved back on through the process. And I will tell you this, any Member
from this time forward that wants to work with us to give us some of their
ideas and to have some imput into the process itself and the map that will
come later, you are welcome to do that. We encourage you to participate,
and with that, Mr. Speaker, will close.
Speaker Wetherell: OK. So, Representative Mackey having closed
on Amendment number 10, the question recurs on passage of Amendment
number 10. All those in favor, say "Yea," opposed,"Nay." The amendment
is adopted. Five hands? Representative Kelly suggests the absence of a
quorum. The Clerk will unlock the machine and the Members will proceed

Speaker Wetherell: Representative Mackey having closed, the
question recurs on Amendment number 10. The Clerk will unlock the
machine and Members will proceed to vote. Have all Members voted, have
all Members voted? The Clerk will lock the machine and announce the
vote.
Reading Clerk: 71 "Yeas," 47 "Nays," Mr. Speaker.
Speaker Wetherell: By your vote the bill passes. Representative
Wallace-read the next amendment, I believe it is a technical.
Reading Clerk: Representative Burke and others offer the following
amendment: Strike descriptions for District 1-
Speaker Wetherell: Mr. Wallace.

69

Speaker Wetherell: OK, he yields.
Rep. Mortham: Mr. Wallace, do you believe that there is agreement
between the House and the Senate on the congressional, Senate and the
House maps at this time?
Rep. Wallace: If there is any agreement at this time, I'm not aware
of it.
Rep. Mortham: OK. Well, then, would you think that we're at
impasse?
Rep. Wallace: No. I do not believe we're at an impasse. We have a
conference committee appointed and efforts are being made to resolve the
differences between the House and the Senate.

Rep. Wallace: Technical within the definition in our policy, and all Rep. Mortham: Well, then, by what date do you believe that we'll b
it does is associate some vessel cruise with contiguous territory. finished with this particular product if we are not at impasse at this time?

Speaker Wetherell: On the technical, on the technical. All those in
favor, say "Yea," opposed,"Nay." Show it adopted, without objection. Are
there further amendments?
Reading Clerk: None on the desk, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker Wetherell: OK, the bill will roll over to third reading
tomorrow. Representative Johnson.

Remarks from March 5, 1992 on HJR 2491
Speaker Wetherell: Let's take up and read the bills on third
reading.
Reading Clerk: By the Committee on Reapportionment and
Representative Wallace and others: HJR 2491, first engrossed. A joint
resolution of apportionment; providing for the apportionment of the House
of Representatives and the Senate; adopting the federal-
Speaker Wetherell: Are there amendments?
Reading Clerk: None on the desk, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Lombard.
Rep. Lombard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the
House of Representatives. As you are all aware, there has been a great deal
of concern with the Republican Members and a number of the minority
Members of this House about the process that we've been going through
on redistricting. Specifically at issue, at this time, is the question as to our
representation on the conference committee on all redistricting issues, and
it has been a subject of continuous negotiation between the leadership of
both parties.
As you all may be aware, there are a limited number of resources that
a minority has at its disposal in issues of this type. One of them that is
available is one-third of the Members of this body can request that a bill
be read in full. The bill that we have in front of us, as amended, is over 270
pages long. That would be a very serious demonstration on the part of the
Republicans that we wanted to be heard on an important issue. The
leadership of this House has, in good faith, been discussing with us the
issue of the makeup of this committee. And therefore, at this time, we will
not choose to request that this bill be read in full.
I think it's very important for everybody to understand that our
motivation is, that it is possible for the majority to choose the best
Representatives of the majority to serve on a critical committee on
conference with the Senate. We, with all due respect, believe that it should
be incumbent upon us to also have our best Representatives involved in the
process. So, in the sense of fair play and developing a good plan, I am very
hopeful that we can reach an accommodation on this issue. Thank you very
much.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Wallace, on the bill.
Rep. Wallace: Mr. Speaker, this of course is HJR 2491, which is the
House and Senate plans which we passed yesterday by amendments on the
floor. I'm ready to move on to the debate, and then I'd like to close when
the opportunity presents itself.
Speaker Wetherell: Is there debate on the bill? Is there debate?
Representative Mortham.
Rep. Mortham: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A series of questions, I
believe, of Mr. Wallace.

Rep. Wallace: Well, I don't think there is any certain answer to that.
We have a conference committee and the results and the determination of
the conference committee is not easily predictable, and I don't claim to
predict that, so I won't try.
Rep. Mortham: What about your time line from this point forward?
If this particular bill passes here today, what is your proposed time line?
Rep. Wallace: The session ends on March 13 and it's my intention
to conclude our work on redistricting by that date.
Rep. Mortham: And when do you propose that the conference
committee will meet on congressional, on Senate and House?
Rep. Wallace: Well, we've been trying to set up a conference
committee meeting today on the congressional plan. But, in as much as the
Senate has expressed its intention to take up the legislative redistricting
resolution next week, we wouldn't be in a position to confer on that until
action has been taken by the Senate.
Rep. Mortham: Have we heard from the Senate what day they intend
to take up the plan?
Rep. Wallace: I don't know for sure. I believe it's going to be early
next week.
Rep. Mortham: Early in that week? OK. Well, since it seems that the
plans that have been passed out of here, or will be passed out today, are
really miles apart, would you concur that we're pretty far apart in the
process?
Rep. Wallace: No. I think we have a good opportunity to work to an
orderly conclusion, and that's our intention.
Rep. Mortham: So you propose that we will be finished by Friday the
13th?
Rep. Wallace: It is certainly my intention to resolve all these issues
by Friday, March 13th.
Rep. Mortham: OK. And on another note, going back to yesterday-
I guess these would be more to Representative Mackey or Wallace, really-
but on the Pinellas County map, I'm back to that. My question, Mr.
Mackey, is on the southern border of this particular district, could you tell
me which incumbents or which districts are involved? Mr. Speaker, this is
for Representative Mackey.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Mackey, you're recognized.
Rep. Mackey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mrs. Mortham, I guess I
would probably find myself in much the same position that you found
yourself the other day and only be able to tell you that I don't know exactly
who lives where in all of these districts. I can tell you, if you say that's your
district, I believe you. If you want to point out where you live in that
district, I will tell you I believe you. But to tell you who lives around you,
I really couldn't tell you right now without looking at a map further.
Rep. Mortham: OK. Well, I would like to point out where I live,
which is right on the tip of this little curved-out spot here. And I believe
that we have another incumbent Republican living up, about here; both
women. And I will tell you that we have an incumbent Democrat living
here, and one here. So my question is: how, under what criteria, was this
district drawn?

June 4, 1992

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

70

Rep. Mackey: Mr. Speaker, in response, there again-I think I
explained yesterday that when you compress the population, you use the
Skyway Bridge. Then, you yourself said the growth really runs from the
beaches north. And that's what you do. And there again, I would remove
to your own comments yesterday when you were at the well, and you said
that you really didn't know who lived where. And much of these cases we
really don't know who lives where, and there was no purpose in that. Some
of these districts just ended out with this. But now, let me set one other
thing straight that was said on the House floor yesterday. Mr. Speaker, if
I may, let me get everyone's attention for this.
Speaker Wetherell: All right Members, I believe it's important that
you pay attention to Mr. Mackey and those presenting on this item. In
addition to that, I would point out to you that I'm sure people are making
statements for the court cases that are to follow. The Clerk will probably
be instructed to transcribe this and have it available for the Journal at
some time and point in the future. It is paramount that the sound system
be able to pick up all of these pearls of wisdom for the courts to read and
look at in the future. Please take your conversations somewhere other than
this Chamber. Mr. Mackey.
Rep. Mackey: Thank you, Sir. In continuing to answer
Representative Mortham's question, and also to add to something that was
said on the floor yesterday. Mr. Starks asked a question: How many
pairings are there, Republicans against Republicans and Democrats
against Democrats? And that's also being alluded to here. I went back, I
think I represented yesterday that it was pretty even in our original map
that we had-that it was four, four, five, something along that line. But we
heard some other figures that said that was not the case. Let me tell you,
I've gone back and I've carefully counted the amendment. And let me tell
you what the pairings are. This is accurate. There are four Democrats
running against Democrats. There are five Republicans running against
Republicans. There are three Democrats and Republicans paired, and
there is one case where a Democrat and a Republican and a Republican are
paired. So you can see from that, that it is just as I stated yesterday. It's
pretty even across the board.
Rep. Mortham: To follow up another question. And yes, we did look
at those figures, Mr. Mackey, and I would concur that you are exactly right.
We probably are somewhat even, except in the area of possibly of women.
And 25 percent of the women that are in this House today are paired. Now,
I'm not saying that-and that, I might add, is a higher percentage than
men. And I think the women in this House need to watch this particular
item. But are you saying, Mr. Mackey, that you never looked in your plan
at where incumbents live?
Rep. Mackey: I'm saying, just as you said, that in some cases we did,
and in some cases we did not. Also, let me follow up with an answer to the
women's issue. I think, yesterday, what someone did to really skew the
cloud, or skew the fact a little bit, was use a percentage. And you're using
a percentage here again, as to the number of women that are paired in the
process. I think to more adequately-you should probably use a number
of the actual pairings themselves because the percentage of men in this
Chamber is a lot higher than the percentage of women in the Chamber, to
start off with. So, if you had just one pairing among the women it's going
to reflect a lot higher percentage of their total than if you had several
pairings with the men in the Chamber.
Rep. Mortham: Well, I would totally agree with that except for one
thing. Yes, it's going to be a higher percentage because we don't have as
many in the House today. And that's exactly what I'm getting at. The
women in this state need adequate representation as well. And I believe
that there are many, many men. Most of the men in here do a very good
job at that, but I don't think that it should preclude women, and I certainly
don't think we should go out of our way to pair women in this plan. And
you have. OK, not using a percent, we've got five women. Well, we only
have 20 women in the House. So, should those five women be paired?
That's all I was asking.
Rep. Mackey: And to answer that, I think, Mr. Speaker, Members,
that I understand that no one wants to be paired. I think it's just-anyone
who is would be uncomfortable with that fact. And it's regretful sometimes.
But a lot of times, when you're looking at these maps, as Representative
Mortham has said yesterday and I'm saying today, when you just take in

the total numbers necessary to build these districts, some of these pairings,
due to their location, due to where they live, unfortunately occur.

June 4, 1992

Speaker Wetherell: Representative Mortham.
Rep. Mortham: Mr. Mackey, just one other question. In this
particular gerrymandered district, and believe me, it would be very easy to
square off this area-I mean, I think we all know in this particular area
right here, this is presently Representative Huenink's district, and this
over here is Representative Jones' area, Representative Hafner's area; did
you not know, in this particular plan, where the incumbents lived?
Rep. Mackey: I can tell you from looking at the map there that I do
not know where all the incumbents live in that area. That is correct.
Rep. Mortham: Did you know where any of the incumbents lived?
Rep. Mackey: I know where some of them live, yes, but I can't tell
you where they all live.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Kelly.
[Rep. Kelly introduced guests in the gallery. The Speaker welcomed
them.]
Speaker Wetherell: Is there further debate? Representative
Liberti.
Rep. Liberti: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will Mr. Mackey yield for a
question?
Speaker Wetherell: He yields.
Rep. Liberti: Mr. Mackey, a lot of the questions you received this
morning have the inference that there are certain types of people, or
parties, or freshmen and the like, that were purposely gerrymandered into
running against each other. And I want to give you a "would you believe"
question. So, you might want to be able to expound upon it concerning the
nuances of the demographics, and how they fall at times, in trying to square
off at certain natural boundaries and major roads and thoroughfares that
you tried to adhere to. In that list of people, it would be appropriate that
you would expect, predicated upon the kinds of questions you've been
receiving this morning and some that you received yesterday, that you
would certainly not see two 14-year Democrat veterans running against
each other. But, however, in Palm Beach County, you do have two 14-year
Democrats in the same district. So, do you think that that kind of strikes
the fairness that everybody was in the same tank?
Rep. Mackey: Mr. Liberti, you're absolutely right. It's the
unfortunate fairness that does occur when you have a situation where you
need to change, due to growth or due to creating voting-rights seats or
whatever, that sometimes this will happen. I think if you look further in
the map that you will find the Speaker-designate himself is even paired
with another Democrat.
Speaker Wetherell: Further debate. OK, there's a bunch standing.
Representative Thomas. I'll get to everybody.
Rep. Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For two things, if you will?
A motion and then a series of questions to Mr. Mackey. The motion, Sir,
is, I move you, Sir, that we spread the remarks concerning reapportionment
on the Journal.
Speaker Wetherell: OK, show it done without objection, and refer
it to Rules.
Rep. Thomas: And then, Mr. Mackey. You know, I finally figured out
which way was up, Mr. Mackey. And on this map, here, which is District
113, we've got Collier and Lee County on the west coast of Florida. And so
one would expect that to be, you know, kind of a Southwest Florida coastal
seat. I live in Southwest Florida, so I happen to know a lot about that. But,
I also grew up in Dade County. I don't admit that a great deal, but it's true.
I did grow up in Dade County. And this little notch over here is Dade
County.
Could you please tell me if this isn't a partisan gerrymander? You've got
a district that crosses the entire state, and seemingly unnecessarily. It
includes Dade, Collier and Lee Counties. It fractures the hispanic
community in Dade, and if you were to represent this area, in order to cover
this entire district in a day, you'd virtually need a helicopter or an airplane

and an airboat for parts of it. So, could you kind of tell me what kind of
compact, cohesive community is being served by District 113?

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Rep. Mackey: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that you can pick any map.
Also, Dr. Thomas, after yesterday-oh, before I go any further, too, some
of your colleagues on the back row said that they were glad you figured out
which end was up.
Rep. Thomas: Which end was up. Yes, I heard a lot of those
comments too.
Rep. Mackey: But I also, I went back yesterday and I pulled some of
your plans that you offered yesterday, as well, out. And I started to blow
some of those up and bring them back into the Chamber to show what some
of those plans looked like. But, you know, I said, that's really a wasted
effort because I believe anyone in this Chamber who has looked at any map
that anyone has proposed at any time, even from other states, they're going
to find districts that very much resemble anything that you can hold up
from any map. And you, sir, have some in what you were proposing that
looked maybe just as awkward to you.
But now, as far as that district, what we said yesterday, I believe, on that
district, you will find that it is a community which represents hispanic
interests. What is the common interest there? Is that the direction that you
want to go to build a hispanic seat? Is it not? That's a question we have
to ask ourselves. Is it right to go in that direction? I would assume so. And
some of the percentages that I have heard from the Hispanic Caucus that
say they would like to have those districts pulled down too. Where do you
go to get that? You know, that's just again a judgment call.
Rep. Thomas: Mr. Mackey, I've got to take exception to one of the
things you said. The map that I presented was the Common Cause map,
Mr. Mackey. And the Common Cause map, except for the voting-rights
access seats, communities of interest and counties were the driving force;
communities of interests and counties, after the minorities seats had been
done. And except for minority seats to comply with the Voting Rights Act,
that map doesn't really have districts that include three counties and cross
the state and divide, not include communities of interest.
I am curious once again. You said we did this for the hispanics. Do you
not-you ran across the state and included hispanics and non-hispanics to
get a map that looked like this, and yet you couldn't do this in Dade
County? In one county you couldn't pull that hispanic vote together.
Rep. Mackey: I believe that you stated that this one did come out of
Dade County.
Rep. Thomas: That's right. You've got half of it in Dade County, and
a half of it stretched across the state.
Rep. Mackey: Well, then, you have a map in hand that you said your
maps didn't have odd-shaped districts except in Voting Rights Act areas.
And there again, if the hispanic percentage is high enough in the district
that you're holding up, I think you would be representing a voting-rights
district there as well.
Rep. Thomas: Except, Mr. Mackey, at the public hearings we heard,
and indeed in testimony we heard, the hispanic community of Collier
County say they are separate, unique and distinct from the hispanic
community in Dade County, and they did not wish to be included in the
hispanic community in Dade County.
Speaker Wetherell: All right. Further debate. Further debate.
Representative Burke.
Rep. Burke: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, for the record, I
would ask Mr. Wallace if he would take the floor and yield to a series of
questions because I want to actually clarify some of the remarks that were
made.
Speaker Wetherell: Mr. Wallace yields.
Rep. Burke: Mr. Wallace, if you would first, Mr. Webster made some
statements about the Republican Party's attempts to put plans into the
House redistricting computer system. Would you tell us which plans were
put into the computer in the committee suite in preparation for yesterday's
debate on the floor by Republican Members of the House.
Rep. Wallace: Representative Burke, on Wednesday, February 26th,
we loaded and had available, a plan for the Senate, drawn by the
Republican Party of Florida. This plan was available to any Member to use

as an amendment, or to use as the basis for an amendment three days prior
to the amendment submittal deadline.

71

Rep. Burke: A series of questions, Mr. Speaker, if you will. Would you
tell us, Mr. Wallace, if anyone worked on this amendment that had been
put into the system?
Rep. Wallace: Mr. Burke, our staff director asked the Minority Office
staff person, who had been their lead on redistricting, Mr. Bill Lawson,
what he wanted the staff to do with the plan. Mr. Lawson told Mr. Meier
not to do anything to the plan, that the Republican Members would not
be filing an amendment for Senate districts. Mr. Meier stated that there
was time and staff available to identify and clear up any technical
problems. Mr. Lawson made it clear that he thought the plan was in
terrible shape and that there was no point in working on it.
Rep. Burke: Mr. Wallace, did the Republicans submit any other
Senate plans?
Rep. Wallace: Yes. On Friday, February 28, Mr. Lawson, that's Mr.
Bill Lawson, asked to have loaded a disk, which he stated contained a
Senate plan. This happened approximately 10 and one-half hours prior to
the amendment submittal deadline. We proceeded to load this plan and
discovered that it was not complete. The staff was told that the second half
of the plan would be delivered later that day.
Rep. Burke: Mr. Wallace, correct me now. Is what you're saying is
that the Republican Party had a Senate plan on our House machine for
more than two days and did no work on it, and then delivered a partial
Senate plan just a few hours prior the amendment submittal deadline to
have it adopted by this House and its policies on the floor? And is that a
fairly correct statement of what happened?
Rep. Wallace: Yes, Mr. Burke, that's correct.
Rep. Burke: And let me ask you, was the second half of that Senate
plan ever delivered?
Rep. Wallace: Yes, Mr. Burke. The second disk was delivered to the
committee offices at 9:15 p.m., 15 minutes past the submittal deadline.
Rep. Burke: And can you tell us what we have done with this
two-part plan?
Rep. Wallace: Representative Burke, both parts of the plan are on
the House redistricting computer system. They have not been merged
because the amendment was not timely submitted and no one
subsequently has asked that the plan be put together. Representative
Webster's comments yesterday about differences between the two-disk
plan and our system, and the same plan on the Senate system, are
mistaken. No comparisons can be made because there is not a whole plan
in our system. An examination of the districts in our system against those
shown to us on the floor yesterday by Representatives Brown and Reaves
show that they are the same plan with the same deviations in both. Let me
also respond by pointing out that no Member has ever looked at the two
parts of the plan. Mr. Bill Lawson was working on plans in the committee
offices during the same times that our staff was preparing all the materials
that were distributed during second reading yesterday. At no time on
Saturday, February 29 or Sunday, March 1, did Mr. Bill Lawson ask the
staff director to do anything with the two-part plan. The only
communication about Senate amendments was to withdraw amendment
205 by Representatives Reaves and Brown.
Rep. Burke: Mr. Wallace, that brings up another point that I would
like to pursue. Would you tell me the scenario by which Representatives
Reaves and Brown came to sponsor their two amendments which they
described yesterday as being unfinished?
Rep. Wallace: Representative Burke, when it became clear on Friday
that the second part of the preferred plan would not be available on a
timely basis, Mr. Bill Lawson directed that the staff work on the
Wednesday Senate amendment as the basis for two Senate amendments
to be offered by Representatives Brown and Reaves.
Rep. Burke: So, I see. Is it correct to say that the Republicans
apparently decided something on Friday, just hours before our deadline-
submittal time period, that they began working on a plan that actually had
been available for two days on the committee's computer system?
Rep. Wallace: That is evidently correct. I can only surmise that it

appears that instead of working on the amendment in the House computer,
the Republicans worked on it on their own computers. Of course, they

June 4, 1992

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

72 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE

delivered the reworked plan in two parts. I do not know why the second
part was delivered to the committee more than 10 hours after the first.
Experience would have dictated that it was safer and more efficient to work
on the changes to the Wednesday plan on the House computer. The policy
says that amendments are timely submitted when they're available on the
House computer. All the time involved in loading part one and waiting on
part two could have been used productively to perfect the amendment
which was already on the system. And the amendment could have been
worked on Wednesday and Thursday as well.
Rep. Burke: Well, Mr. Wallace, yesterday Representative Brown
made a statement about one of her amendments being available to me on
Monday, but not being available to her and Representative Reaves. Can
you shed some light on why that might have occurred?
Rep. Wallace: Yes. All amendments were prepared and available for
public inspection late Sunday night. Those of you who visited the
committee offices know about the big table with stacks of amendment
maps and data. On Monday morning, the spot for amendment 205, by
Representatives Reaves and Brown, was marked withdrawn. This was done
at the request of Mr. Bill Lawson on Sunday afternoon. He directed the
staff director to withdraw the amendment because it was in such bad
shape. Let me also state that both amendments offered by Representatives
Brown and Reaves were developed under the direction of Mr. Bill Lawson
and Mr. John Morgan, an employee of the Republican Party. Mr. Morgan
worked with a member of the committee staff on amendment 205, Friday
afternoon and night, and on Saturday morning and early afternoon.
Rep. Burke: Well, tell me this now. Why would the staff director, our
staff director, withdraw an amendment sponsored by two Democratic
Members at the direction of a staff person from the Republican Office?
Rep. Wallace: Well, Mr. Meier evidently had a misunderstanding
because when the staff subsequently asked Representatives Brown and
Reaves to indicate that they did not want the amendment filed, they stated
that they did want the amendment filed. It was at that time that the
amendment was put out on the table for public distribution.
Rep. Burke: Did Representative Brown and Representative Reaves
work with Mr. Morgan from the Republican Office on their amendment,
and like many of us who were trying to develop our amendment plans, did
they also work with our staff or did they just work with Mr. Morgan, to the
best of your knowledge?
Rep. Wallace: Well, let me say first, that the Minority Office staff
and the Republican Party employees have had almost continuous access
to our suite and to the resources and staff of the Reapportionment
Committee. It is my understanding that Representative Reaves was in the
committee suite on Friday night for a short period of time. Representative
Brown was in the suite Friday evening as work was being done on the
amendment. It is also my understanding that all work on the amendment
was directed by Mr. Morgan, working on the original imperfect Senate plan
from paper maps printed by the Republican Party's computer. Neither
Representative Brown nor Representative Reaves was in the suite on
Saturday when Mr. Morgan finished his work on amendment 205, without
fixing the noncontiguous flaws, in spite of our staff's suggestion that it was
something that needed to be done. While I can state that neither
Representative Brown nor Reaves spent much time working in our offices,
I can not speak to how much time they spent at the Republican Party
headquarters working on the two-part amendment.
Rep. Burke: Thank you, Representative Wallace. I have no further
questions, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker Wetherell: OK. Mr. Lombard, I think we ought to just go
ahead and read the bill. I think it's a lot more exciting than this. All right,
I've got Mr. De Grandy, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. Holland, Ms. Figg, Mr.
Langton, Ms. Simone, Mr. Morse, Ms. Hanson, Mr. Logan, Ms. Hawkins,
Mr. Hill, Ms. Brown, Mr. Hargrett. Anybody else? Mr. Simon. OK,
everybody. Mr. Corr, got you. We'll get everybody. Mr. Garcia. We'll get
everybody. Just stand on up and we'll get to you in a few minutes. OK, let's
see. Mr. De Grandy, you're next.

Rep. De Grandy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, would you
be kind enough to recognize Mr. Hill before me?
Speaker Wetherell: Mr. Hill.

REPRESENTATIVE LOMBARD IN THE CHAIR

]

Rep. Lombard: Mr. Hill.
Rep. Hill: Isn't it true, there was some discussion about the use of the
Republican plan or the Republican computer to-as a basis for the Reaves
and Brown amendment? Isn't it true that during the development of the

E OF REPRESENTATIVES June 4, 1992

Rep. Hill: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's good to see you there.
Rep. Lombard: This will show you what it's going to be like next year.
Rep. Hill: Mr. Speaker, if I could be recognized for a series of
questions to Mr. Wallace, if he'll take the floor and yield.
Rep. Lombard: He yields.
Rep. Hill: Mr. Wallace, yesterday we heard from Mr. Garcia that he
came to visit the suite with a constituent and could not be accommodated
because there were Members working on amendments, and those
amendments were confidential. Now, we've just gone through-now, I
wouldn't want to get you off your script, you understand-but we've just
gone through a pretty detailed account of amendments that were on the
computer. Can you explain an apparent contradiction there?
Rep. Lombard: Mr. Wallace.
Rep. Wallace: Mr. Speaker, I don't understand what the
contradiction is. Maybe Mr. Hill could elaborate on that for me.
Rep. Lombard: Representative Hill.
Rep. Hill: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me see if I understand what
happened, what was discussed yesterday. Mr. Garcia asked about a time
when he went to the Reapportionment suite and was told, unless he had
an appointment he couldn't go in. And your explanation, I believe, was that
there were Members in the suite working on their own plans, and that those
plans were confidential because they were the work product of Members.
Just a minute ago you went through and answered to questions from
Representative Burke, the amendments that were offered by the
Republican Party or that were sent over by the Republican Party, as it
related both to Republican amendments and to the amendments offered
by Ms. Brown and Mr. Reaves. Are those amendments confidential in the
same way as the other amendments that were being worked on are
confidential?
Rep. Lombard: Mr. Wallace.
Rep. Wallace: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My point yesterday was that
when Members are in the suite and they have a live working draft in front
of them on the screen, many of them have been very sensitive about other
Members coming in the suite behind them and seeing what they're working
on. The amendments that Representatives Brown and Reaves offered
yesterday, of course, were distributed to the public earlier this week and
they're in the Journal that's on your desk in front of you. And there's
certainly no confidentiality at the point when those amendments are filed
and become a part of the record. The third amendment which they worked
on, which I referred to, is the amendment for which Representative Brown
brought a map into the Chamber yesterday and put it up for everyone to
see and referred to it in the course of the debate over the second
amendment because that third amendment was the one that would have
been offered if the second amendment had passed as a technical correction.
So obviously, just as when a bill has been worked on in Bill Drafting and
is confidential up to the point of its release, once it's released and made
available for public distribution the confidentiality is lost.
Rep. Lombard: Mr. Hill, for a follow-up.
Rep. Hill: That would apply as well now, to what would have been the
technical amendment offered, that would have been offered, by Ms. Brown
and Mr. Reaves?
Rep. Wallace: Well, that's correct because Representative Brown
brought that map into the Chamber yesterday and requested that I put it
up on an easel for all the Members to see and it was referred to in debate.
And I think, absolutely, that once she has done that, and made it available
to the whole world to see, that the confidentiality is lost.
Rep. Hill: Even though the amendment wasn't offered?
Rep. Wallace: Oh, absolutely even though it wasn't offered because
it was brought in and put on display and openly debated yesterday.
Rep. Hill: Mr. Speaker?

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE]

Logan plan on congressional redistricting the Republican plan was used as
a base for that.
Rep. Lombard: Mr. Wallace.
Rep. Wallace: I actually don't know the answer to that. You might
direct that at Representative Logan.
Rep. Lombard: Mr. Hill.
Rep. Hill: Mr. Logan. Way back here. The congressional plan, I
believe offered by you and others, was that based around the amendment
that was offered by Mr. Webster and others?
Rep. Lombard: Mr. Logan.
Rep. Logan: Mr. Hill, absolutely not. The members of the Black
Caucus stayed up here a weekend. Each of the members were working on
different regions of the state. Those plans were developed from scratch,
with the assistance of the House staff on the House computers. No, we did
not use the Republican amendments as a base, or use the Republican staff
to come up with those districts that were drawn in the Black Caucus
proposal.
Rep. Lombard: Mr. Hill.
Rep. Hill: Thank you. Mr. Wallace, going back to confidentiality. So,
I take it that now, since, or upon the passage of the House plan, if it passes,
will the amendments and the aborted amendments, amendments that were
never offered, become a part of the public record?
Rep. Wallace: Well, anything that is on the computer that has not
been released by the Member would remain confidential. But, any plan
which was either offered as an amendment or brought onto the floor for
presentation as an amendment in paper map form and openly debated
here, I presume the confidentiality with respect to that amendment was
lost.
Rep. Hill: Further, Mr. Speaker, if I could?
Rep. Lombard: Mr. Hill.
Rep. Hill: Was any other computer system that was owned or utilized
by the State used in preparation of any amendments that you know of.
Rep. Wallace: Well, we've had-I'm not sure that I can speak directly
to this-a series of amendments yesterday. But there has been a fairly
regular exchange of plans between the House and Senate computers.
Rep. Hill: But no others that you know of?
Rep. Wallace: No, sir.
Rep. Hill: OK. One final question, Mr. Speaker, and that would be:
I noticed that you had a nice answer that you were reading to the questions
asked by Mr. Burke. Did House counsel participate in creating those
answers?
Rep. Wallace: I believe, and I'm not certain, I've discussed that with
our staff director, Mr. George Meier, because after yesterday's debate we
felt the need to correct some inaccurate statements which were made on
the floor during the course of the debate. If you're referring to Mr.
Tedcastle, House counsel, to my knowledge, or to the outside counsel Cobb,
Cole and Bell, to my knowledge neither Mr. Tedcastle nor the Cobb, Cole
and Bell law firm participated in the preparation of that question-and-
answer that Mr. Burke and I did.
Rep. Hill: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Rep. Lombard: Mr. De Grandy.

June 4, 1992

Rep. De Grandy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A couple of questions, if R L R B H
I may?Rep. Lombard: Representative Burke? He yields.

Rep. Lombard: He yields.
Rep. De Grandy: Let me ask you two, and the second maybe "would
you believe," but I'll phrase the first one another way. Sir, on Florida Public
Television when I stated that the suite was not open to Members, the
Reapportionment suite, you stated: "Shame on Mr. De Grandy for saying
that. This suite is open to any Member and any Member has access to the
combination." And yet, yesterday in answering Mr. Garcia's question you
said the opposite. You said, "Yes, there was a closed system to provide
privacies for the Members inside." Would you believe, sir, that you have

Rep. Brown: Representative Burke, I have two questions for you. The
first one, you have implied in some way that Representative Reaves or
Representative Brown was not the author of the product we produced
yesterday. Now, let me set the record straight. I am not a technician, but
clearly I am the author. No one has presented a plan to this House that has
the number of black districts and the composition of the districts the way
the Brown and Reaves plan. So, I want you to be clear that I drew my plan
not in relationship to Democrats or Republicans but blacks and afro-
Americans. And I want you to go on the record being clear as to your
position as to our plan.

E OF REPRESENTATIVES 73

now publicly contradicted yourself on the floor as to the openness and
access of that suite, and that in fact, sir, if the reason for having
combinations, to begin with, was privacy for the Members, that wouldn't
be needed because each door where the computer terminals are can be
closed.
Rep. Wallace: Well, I think the two are consistent, Representative
De Grandy, because what I've said in the past, and will continue to say, that
Members who have appointments or work to do up on the computers in the
suite are welcome to come up and do that work. You've been there, you've
been around the suite and you've seen, I presume, just about every corner
of it. It's there and it's available to you. Yes, we do provide the Members
and afford the Members some privacy when they're working on the
computer systems. And, as you know because you've been there, there are
computer terminals in almost every corner of the office because we've tried
to get enough terminals to accommodate the Member-demand to be able
to work on the system. And so, there is almost nowhere in the office you
can go without putting yourself in front of a computer terminal. And, yes,
the Members do appreciate having some privacy when they're there
working on amendments.
Rep. Lombard: Mr. De Grandy.
Rep. De Grandy: So, sir, when you said on Florida Public Television,
"Shame on De Grandy for saying that we would restrict access," I submit
to you that you were wrong because on the floor and right now you've said
that yes, it is a desirable purpose to restrict access and, in fact, you have
done that. Now, let me ask you another "would you believe" question to you
and also to Representative Mackey who have made the point that, quote,
we have not participated, in talking to hispanics, as we should have in going
up to the suite as opposed to going to another computer and submitting
our plan. Would you believe, sir, that the reason that we have chosen to go
to another computer and draft our plans and then bring them in diskette
is so that we wouldn't be in the position where you're putting
Representative Brown and Representative Reaves where you have
documented everything they have done, disregarded their rights to privacy
as Members and thrown on the floor with times, with dates, etc., everything
they have done with regard to their plan? Would you believe, sir, that's why
we, the Cuban-American Caucus, chose to go to another system and do our
computer work somewhere where we could get privacy, as opposed to the
House Reapportionement suite where everything was being documented
to be used against us.
Rep. Wallace: Well, Representative De Grandy, we've tried to ensure
privacy for Members who choose to work on amendments up there. You
know your reasons and your intentions for working the way you've done can
only be answered by you. But I will say this, when there are statements
made on the floor, as yesterday, which inaccurately characterize what has
gone on in the suite-and where there is essentially a fabricated incident
that tied up the floor of the House for an hour, and I think it was essentially
useless debate yesterday-I have an obligation to set the record straight
and to come out here and to document, without a lot of generalizations and
mischaracterizations, to document what actually happened. And that is the
purpose of my remarks today with respect to those amendments. I need to
set the record straight for the Members of this House and for the public.
Rep. Lombard: Mr. De Grandy.
Rep. De Grandy: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to yield to Ms.
Brown for a series of questions.
Rep. Lombard: Representative Brown.
Rep. Brown: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, would like to set the
record straight. Would you ask Representative Burke to take the series of
questions?

74

Rep. Lombard: Mr. Burke.
Rep. Burke: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Ms. Brown, what
I did note is a couple of things in all honesty, Ms. Brown. For example, I
noted that the Republican plan and your plan both in Dade County treated
Opa-locka the same way. That is, you split Opa-locka into three districts.
You also, where my office is in Dade County, where Senator Carrie Meek
lives in Dade County, your plan and the Republican plan just happen to
be the plan that put both of those in the hispanic-Republican districts. I
notice some other indications also. I did an analysis of your plan, a political
analysis, and noted that your plan and the Republican plan would also
maximize Republicans. You could have had at least some of us, some 55
or so Republicans under your plan and under the Republican plan. I just
also noted in looking at the plans, Ms. Brown, that under your plan and
the Republican plan that there are a number of districts that were
designated or called African-American, but when you look at the analysis
of where they were located and the conservative philosophies of even some
of the Democrats in those areas, that they actually would not elect African-
Americans-that they more likely, at best, will have African-Americans as
a Democratic nominee. But that we had also-I looked at your plan and
the Republican plan and I both noted that even your plan treated your own
district in a way that decreased the possibility that an African-American
Senator would come from your district. Your plan did that, and the
Republican plan did less than ours. So, it's not my attempt to say you
didn't offer the plan, although we did note that Mr. Lawson, Bill Lawson,
from the Republican Party, Mr. Morgan from the Republican district, all
gave directions to our staff as related to your plan which you later came
and verified. So, it may not be that you wrote them. I just wanted to say,
as I said yesterday, I just want to make sure that all these plans or the so-
called black plans, does not a case where rhythm and blues means that
Republicans get the rhythm and black folks get the blues, and we see the
result of it. And I just want to make sure that it's that way. I don't say that
you didn't author it, I'm just noticing that there are so many analogies that
call into question of who it benefits.
Rep. Lombard: Representative Brown.
Rep. Brown: Representative Burke, in response to your concerns.
First of all, the Miami-Broward County area was taken directly from
hispanics. They worked on that area of the state. My concern is, and always
has been, blacks in North and Central Florida. Do you understand that,
first of all? The persons that you are talking about, the Republican staff,
are just that, staff. I am the author of the plan and my concern is blacks
in North and Central Florida. Now, as it related to some analysis as you've
given on my plan, as you well know, my plan is not complete. But when my
plan is complete, clearly there are two black seats over 60 percent, two or
three over 50 percent and exactly two under 50 percent. So, you have not
seen my completed plan, so do not stand on this floor and talk about what
is and if is. My interest is getting blacks and afro-Americans to the Florida
House and the Florida Senate, and I am sure that is your interest and
concern also. I hope that in the end that we can come up with a plan that
will not have to go to the Justice Department, that will be fair for the Rs
and the Ds. But my primary concern is the afro-American or black people
in the state of Florida that are not here, and their issues are not being
addressed and articulated in the Florida House and definitely not in the
Florida Senate.
Rep. Lombard: Representative Burke, to reply.
Rep. Burke: Thank you very much. Ms. Brown, let me just say that
I really don't doubt your sincerity as it relates to African-Americans and
our need to be represented. I accept your comment that when it went to
Dade County, you went to the hispanics to get the Dade County plan and
that you did not view that as a Republican plan. Although, regretfully, just
the politics of Dade County are such that we don't have any Democratic
hispanics representing us in the Legislature. But, I don't doubt your
sincerity. I believe in it. I think we both claim, I think, Gwen Cherry as a
mentor. I just accept your comments and I accept also that at some time
we'll get a completed plan and we'll still try to do our best to maximize
African-Americans in this process.
Rep. Brown: Thank you.
Rep. Lombard: Rep. Diaz-Balart.

Rep. Diaz-Balart: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. For a series
of questions of Mr. Wallace, if I may.

June 4, 1992

Rep. Lombard: Mr. Wallace yields.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Mr. Wallace, if you would. Thank you, sir. I have
a series of questions for you relating to different issues. First, we just heard
about the process and we've heard you do a pretty detailed outline of what
has happened and what has not happened in the suite, in the
Reapportionment suite. Could you please explain to me what the process
of developing amendments as far as confidentiality? I can't even say that
word, I am a language minority. Confidentiality, thank you, Rudy.
Rep. Lombard: Excuse me, Mr. Diaz-Balart. (gavel) Mr. Wallace
cannot hear Mr. Diaz-Balart's questions so, if we could, please keep it
quiet.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I can probably say
the word on the second time around. What is the process as far as the
development of the amendments, the confidentiality process? Usually in
the amendment process and in the creation of bills and whatever, one does
have some level of confidentiality as far as that unfinished or that word
program. How is that process different with the reapportionment process?
Is it not different? Can you explain specifically how that works?
Rep. Wallace: It has been our intention from the very beginning to
treat the development of reapportionment plans or amendments just as we
do bills that are in draft form. That is, we've treated them as work-in-
progress and we have allowed the Member who authors the plan to keep
that plan confidential up until the time that it is submitted as an
amendment to the committee or released in any formal sense by the author
of the plan.
Rep. Lombard: Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You also said yesterday,
and I've heard again said today, that your leadership had not created
minority districts unless they were effective districts. What exactly do you
mean by effective districts? What do you mean by that?
Rep. Wallace: Under the Voting Rights Act, an effective district is
one in which the minority community has the opportunity to elect a
candidate of its choice.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: You've also been dealing with performance.
You've been stating performance and that if districts didn't perform-and
that was just said right now by Mr. Burke as well-that if they didn't
perform for minorities that those districts shouldn't be drawn. And, that's
exactly what you've been saying why some of those districts haven't been
drawn in your plan. What do you mean by that, if they don't perform?
What specifically do you mean by that, if they don't perform?
Rep. Lombard: Mr. Wallace.
Rep. Wallace: Mr. Speaker, I heard, "what specifically do you mean
by that," but I didn't hear what went before it and I'm going to have to ask
Representative Diaz-Balart to repeat that question.
Rep. Lombard: He'll repeat it.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I keep hearing about
performance. And I guess-I think I know what performance is. But also
today and yesterday you're saying that certain districts did not perform as
minority districts, therefore, they shouldn't be drawn and they have not
been drawn, as a matter of fact, in your plan. What specifically constitutes
performance? What do you mean by performing districts?
Rep. Lombard: Mr. Wallace.
Rep. Wallace: In order to analyze performance, you need kind of a
multilevel analysis that's comprised of total population, voting-age
population, registered-voters statistics as we have them and then the
performance in actual election contests in so far as our election-history
database permits.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Have you been saying, and I want to make sure
that what you've been saying is what I've been hearing is correct. Again,
you did not draw a number of African-American districts, not to mention
hispanic-American districts. That's, again, even more blatant. But your
reasoning for not drawing a number of African-American districts was
because either they didn't perform as majority districts or that they
weren't necessarily effective districts and they weren't created for that. Are

you then telling us that unless it's a certain district, a district that is a lock
for a minority, that those districts should not be created?

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSI

Rep. Wallace: Well, it's a complicated issue, Mr. Diaz-Balart,
because I used the phrase "sophisticated fragmentation" yesterday, and let
me explain what I mean. In some parts of this state, in many parts of this
state, we can develop a history of racially polarized block voting. That
means that when you get to the primary, but also to a general election, that
whites would tend to vote for whites and blacks would tend to vote for
blacks and hispanics would tend to vote for hispanics. When you create a
black district that is not demonstrably an effective black district, you run
a risk which is as follows: you run the risk that the black or African-
American candidate would be able to become the Democratic nominee
because the black population is disproportionately large among registered
Democrats, and therefore, a 35 or 40 percent black population, for example,
might be able to control a Democratic primary. But where there is racially
polarized block voting, when that black Democratic nominee reaches the
general election, the racially polarized block voting prevents the
Democratic nominee who is black from winning the general election. Where
that occurs, you, in most cases, would have elected a white Republican,
notwithstanding the fact that you've drawn a district which is 35 or 40
percent black. Now historically, as you know and I know, the African-
American community votes heavily for the Democratic candidate in the
general election. Therefore, when you constructed a district which will
nominate but not elect an African-American candidate, you have not
helped the black community to elect the candidate of its choice. In fact,
you've done exactly the opposite. What you've done is created a situation
where the hopes of the African-American community are frustrated
because a white Republican is ultimately elected in that district instead of
the black Democratic nominee, and that's what I mean when I refer to
"sophisticated fragmentation." I have seen it, in my opinion, in some of the
districts that have been drawn supposedly to assist the African-American
community.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: You mentioned yesterday, "racial block voting,"
is that what you just explained right now basically? What did you mean
by that?
Rep. Wallace: Well, racially polarized voting is voting in which, as I
said before, blacks voted in a block for a black candidate, whites vote for
a white candidate, hispanics vote for a hispanic candidate. The existence
of racially polarized voting is one of the pillars of proving a Section 2
violation under the Thornburg v. Gingles case.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Let me ask you this. Does that mean, and of
course the explanation that you just gave in your opinion, does that mean
that if a minority community cannot necessarily elect a candidate of their
choice, not a majority, does that mean, in your opinion, that the community
should be split into several districts? In other words, it should be
fragmented into several districts if they cannot positively elect a candidate
of their choice?
Rep. Wallace: No, not necessarily, no. But, when you take a
significant African-American population which is not sufficiently large or
it has not performed in the past in a manner which would enable it to elect
a candidate of its choice, and put that community into a single district in
a situation where it can control the nomination process but not the general
election, then you have frustrated that community from electing the
candidate of its choice.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Again, what you just said not necessarily but,
when you expanded on the answer, you kind of contradicted. Are you then
saying that-is there a percentage that you think is adequate? There are
districts that are 30 percent African-American, 40 percent African-
American, should they be created? Is that enough, in your opinion,
number-wise to create that district or should that be split up into different
districts?
Rep. Wallace: As you know, Representative Diaz-Balart, you've
become a little bit of a trial lawyer yourself in this process. As you know,
the Voting Rights Act claims are based on a determination of the totality
of the circumstances. So, you are not going to, despite your training from
Representative De Grandy, you are not going to get me out here trying to
put specific percentages. You know the percentages cannot be fixed or
absolute. The determination of the Voting Rights Act claims is under the

totality of the circumstances and that means a specific district in a specific
community with a specific history of voting patterns and registrations.

June 4, 1992

favorite friends and the press got onto him pretty good. He said, "Well, it's
a poor cat that won't take care of his kittens." And I want you to know and
to compliment you for taking care of your Democratic colleagues in this
body and the way that you have politically gerrymandered. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.

E OF REPRESENTATIVES 75

Rep. Diaz-Balart: Yes, I think you're right.

REPRESENTATIVE BO JOHNSON IN THE CHAIR
Rep. Bo Johnson: OK, let's go through the Chair to be recognized to
speak. We still have 15 names on the list for questions. Are there further
questions?
Rep. Diaz-Balart: A couple of more questions.
Rep. Bo Johnson: You're recognized, Representative Diaz-Balart.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess you're right, Mr.
Wallace, I don't have as good training and I probably will not be able to
get you to answer that question on the floor. But now, as an attorney, in
your case as an attorney, and as Chairman of the Reapportionment
Committee, is it your opinion that the hispanic community in Dade
County, hispanic community in Dade County, is a protected class, a
language minority protected class under the Voting Rights Act, in your
opinion as a lawyer and as Chairman?
Rep. Bo Johnson: Rep. Wallace, you're recognized.
Rep. Wallace: Well, my understanding, as an individual, of the
Voting Rights Act, and let me make a disclaimer, I do not have any legal
training in the Voting Rights Act as a practicing lawyer, so I'm not going
to pretend to offer you a legal opinion here today and don't sue me for
malpractice if I'm wrong about this, but my understanding of the Voting
Rights Act is that it encompasses language minorities, in that hispanics are
a language minority. Now, I have heard the argument from others that
under the circumstances of the Cuban-American community in Dade
County that that community might not come under the protections of the
Voting Rights Act. To my knowledge, that is not a sound argument, but
it is there and I presume it will be entertained by a court at some later time.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Are there further questions? Representative Diaz-
Balart. Is this the final question? You're recognized.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wallace, I appreciate your last answer and I guess as a form of "would
you believe." Would you believe that the law firm that was hired by the
House and in the lawsuit against the Department of Commerce there are
three hispanic plaintiffs? And those three hispanic plaintiffs, according to
the law firm hired by the House, we're considered hispanics and it clearly
states they're a protected minority. So, would you believe that at least in
the opinion of counsel hired by this House, by the Speaker of this House,
that counsel considers Miguel De Grandy, a Cuban-American, Mario Diaz-
Balart, a Cuban-American and Rudy Garcia, a Cuban-American,-Cuban-
American protected hispanics?
Rep. Bo Johnson: Representative Wallace, you're recognized.
Rep. Wallace: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Of course, we've had that
discussion many times and, yes, I believe it as your co-plaintiff in that
litigation.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Further questions? Representative Holland.
Rep. Holland: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question, I guess
"would you believe" question, for the Chairman, Mr. Wallace. Mr. Wallace,
are you awake? Are you having fun? Mr. Wallace, just so you don't have
any false illusions about the folks in Manatee County and who they want
to represent them, I have a list of resolutions by Manatee County Chamber
of Commerce, by Manatee County Board of Commissioners, by the City of
Palmetto, by the City of Bradenton and all the communities over there.
They don't like your plan. I'm glad your mama and your daddy are not here
to watch you because they would be absolutely upset with you for not
pleasing the people of Manatee County. But for the record, I will deliver
these resolutions to you that the folks from Manatee County are not happy
with your plan.
That also reminds me of a story. We used to have a Governor here by
the name of Catts. He was accused one time of taking care of some of his

76

Rep. Bo Johnson: Let me remind the Members, we're on questions
and not on debate. Representative Wallace, you're recognized.
Rep. Wallace: Well, let me just first, categorically, deny that this
plan is a partisan gerrymander but then to go on to say that you have to
be careful, Representative Holland, you might hurt Representative Corr or
Representative Jamerson's feelings if you try to indicate to them that the
citizens of Manatee County are not interested in having them as
Representatives within Manatee County.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Representative Figg, for questions, you're
recognized.
Rep. Figg: Yes, if Mr. Mackey would yield for a question, Mr.
Speaker?
Rep. Bo Johnson: Yes, you're recognized.
Rep. Figg: Mr. Mackey, this is a follow-up question to Ms. Mortham's
earlier questions regarding the women who were paired. Among the five
women who were paired with either one other woman-and there's one
instance of that and those are both Republican women. There are two other
Democratic women who are paired with a male, and finally, there is a third
Republican woman, Ms. Irvine, who is paired with a male. Only one of
those individuals has announced to not seek reelection. That is Ms. Irvine.
So, is the net result of that, that in the pairing of incumbent women, that
you have actually two Republicans and two Democrats?
Rep. Bo Johnson: Representative Mackey, you're recognized to
respond.
Rep. Mackey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You're absolutely correct in
that assessment. It's very equal as far as the number. There again it might
be unfortunate that any of the ladies in the House are involved in this, or
any of the women Members. But it is even and it is two Democrats and it
is, basically, two Republicans, yes.
Rep. Figg: Well, from a personal and female perspective, I'd like to
say that I'm not pleased by the fact that two good women, even though they
are Republicans, are paired against one another because clearly in that
kind of contest, unless one moves, you're going to lose a good woman in the
House. And both of these Members are very valuable to us. As far as the
other two Democratic women are concerned, I think the men they're paired
against had better watch out.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Representative Mackey, to respond.
Rep. Mackey: Just simply to say, I understand fully what you're
saying and it's very unfortunate to lose any good Member of this body.
That's an unfortunate circumstance. But, you know, reapportionment, the
history of it dictates that each time that we've had it, that that has occurred
to some degree. There are good Members, both male and female, of this
body and I respect them fully and their abilities. And, I agree with you in
the fact that it is unfortunate that somebody will have to lose in this
process.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Further questions? Representative Hargrett,
you're recognized.
Rep. Hargrett: Yes, Mr. Mackey, I would like to pursue a few
questions regarding District 63 in Tampa, but my question really revolves
around your entire approach to drawing minority districts. The reason I
think it's important for me to engage in that, as I've indicated I'm
concerned about the preclearance process. My question really goes to how
or what policies drove your drawing of minority districts, particularly
District 63? I think everyone would agree that at least there's a signal from
the Voting Rights Act that you ought to draw minority districts and make
sure they're taken care of first. Whether we have that as a hard-and-fast
policy or not, I think it's good procedure, and I think adhering to such a
policy would demonstrate fairness to minorities. I get concerned when
there can be a misinterpretation that Democratic leadership is doing
something to be unfair to minorities who support the Democratic party.
When I look at District 63 and the way it's been drawn-I, of course, gave
you maps which had a certain configuration. That configuration was very
similar to the configuration that was drawn in the last time, so you had the
district lines from the previous time. In the map that you drew that's in

the amendment, it not only cut out a major portion of those black voters
in that pattern, but it took the district two census tracts out in the areas

June 4, 1992

that were totally majority areas with very minimal minority areas to the
east. You could have gone north and picked up 4,000 black voters to the
north; you could have gone west and picked up contiguous black voters.
When I look at the plan, so that people don't get offended, I would like an
explanation as to what policies drove the drawing of that plan and whether
there was any intention to be fair to minorities.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Representative Mackey, you're recognized to
respond.
Rep. Mackey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I really don't believe there's
any question that we have not, whether or not, we have tried to be as fair
to minority representation as possible. I believe that you know as well that
you drew a great deal of maps as did the other members of the Hillsborough
delegation. We plugged in the two districts that are areas of great concern,
your district and Mr. Martinez', and then we tried to fit everyone else in
around that as best that we could. We could go north if you wanted to do
that, but I think even in your own words, I think that you represented that
that was probably a community that was not really connected to your
district fully.
Now, I understand that Progress Village which is to the south of your
district, that is an area that possibly we could do something with, and it
may have been an oversight. Anytime you draw a map, there's going to be
little areas here, little areas there. If that is a concern, I think we have also
addressed, that's something we'll be happy to look at that and I think Mr.
Davis, who now has that in his district, has also agreed that's something
we can look at.
But as far as drawing the districts, yes sir, our intent was to draw those
areas of intense concern and those critical areas for the Voting Rights Act,
to draw those districts first, and then let's move on from there trying to
incorporate the best wishes, as possible, of the other members that you
share in your delegation.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Further questions? Representative Hargrett,
you're recognized.
Rep. Hargrett: Mr. Mackey, that answer may be one that may soothe
some of my concerns as a Member, but as a representative of a minority
district, I'm not sure it goes to the heart of the issue as to how the district
was constructed and what policies drove it. Now, members of the
Hillsborough delegation I can represent maybe drew over 100 maps and I
saw most of them if not all of them. No map that I have seen by any
member of this delegation took the black districts or the minority districts
out in the two major census tracts in the fastest growing area, in one of the
fastest growing areas in Hillsborough County or in the state of Florida the
1-75 corridor. And the question is why was that done? I'm trying to get an
answer so that no one would be offended by the Democrats drawing a
district that purposely or intentionally, disadvantages minority districts.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Question of Representative Mackey. He yields.
Rep. Mackey: Thank you. I don't believe, even in my earlier
explanation-I still feel that no one really can be offended by the process
that we used to draw those maps. Let me also say, if I had to give an award
to the delegation that drew the most maps, it would definitely go to the
Hillsborough delegation, by far. I applaud your efforts, I applaud all the
Members. That's one thing that we've really looked for, for the Members
to come in and help us with the plan so that they feel like they've invested
in it and do as much work because you certainly do understand your
communities a lot more than I do, a lot better than I do. But I can tell you
once again that we tried to draw the districts that you're concerned with
first, we put those in place and then we put everyone else's district around
you as best that we could. If you find that there are some areas that you
feel are not right, you have heard me say to you that I will work as best as
I can to make sure that we can correct as much as we can for you.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Further questions? Representative Langton. Now
let me be clear on whether you're rising for the purpose of question or
debate, it is questions. You're recognized.

Rep. Langton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to ask Mr. Mackey
if he'd yield for a question.

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Rep. Bo Johnson: The gentleman will yield. You're recognized.
Rep. Langton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Mackey, there's been a
lot of innuendo and reference or indication that a lot of Members feel like
that your entire motivation and effort here has been to gerrymander a plan
for the purposes of electing incumbent Democrats. I'd just like to point
out-lay the foundation and ask you this question. I'd like to point out the
situation in Jacksonville. In Jacksonville, having been a loyal Democrat for
seven years and a Member of this House, I no longer have a seat. What
you've done in Jacksonville is you've taken Mr. Wise and I and placed us
in the same district, and sought to make Mr. Wise's district extremely more
Republican. Now, I want to ask you the question and that is, in light of
what we've heard the implication being to protect incumbent Democrats,
that certainly doesn't make sense and certainly doesn't ring true in that
incidence, but what was your motivation? Now, I can only conclude that
your motivation was one of three things in doing this. One, was to
encourage Mike Langton to become a Republican, to become number 47
in this Chamber. Obviously, that's a possibility. That could have been one
of your motivations. The other one was to defeat, defeat, a loyal Democrat
by putting him in a Republican district, that could have been one of your
motivations. Now, the third motivation could have been to create a fair and
impartial system of reapportionment where there are winners and losers
obviously, but it's not for the concern of protecting incumbent Democrats.
Mr. Mackey, could you tell me which of those three was your motivation?
Rep. Bo Johnson: Representative Mackey, you're recognized.
Rep. Mackey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Langton, you have really
hit at the very heart of the issue. There is no incumbent on this floor that
can lay claim to their district. There is no one that can simply say, "That
was mine last year and it's mine now." The people of Florida own these
districts and it's unfortunate, in your case, yes it's very unfortunate that
in drawing the map and starting with Representative Crady and coming
down that it gets compressed and compressed and compressed. In
Jacksonville, you have the situation where there are two minority seats that
have been created there to create a situation where they can elect a
candidate of their choice which puts you at an extreme disadvantage. I
think you've hit the situation fairly and I think your words were well stated.
I think most of the Members agree with that as well.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Further questions? Representative Simon, was
yours a question or debate?
Rep. Simon: Debate.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Debate. OK, we'll move your name over to the
debate column, thank you. Next, we have on the list Representative Morse,
question? You're recognized.
Rep. Morse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Mackey, may
I? Representative Mackey, I have heard from Representative Wallace a
positive statement as to the Cuban-American group from Dade County
being considered hispanic. Being that we are hispanics and therefore, one
of the protected minorities on the Voting Rights Act, could you please tell
me what basically is the difference between one protected minority and
another protected minority, the African-American protected minority? In
that the African-American minority, and this has been represented to me
by Representative Burke, has no incumbents running against each other.
The hispanic minority has got four out of eight running against each other.
And I am including Representative Martinez as part of our hispanic eight
minority. And yet, you have four of us running against each other, all four
with campaign accounts open, all four saying, that yes, we're running. Why
is there a difference in the treatment between the hispanic minority and
the afro-American minority, Mr. Mackey?
Rep. Bo Johnson: Question of Representative Mackey, he yields.
Rep. Mackey: Thank you, Sir. I would like you to look at the map and
look at the black minority representatives in the House-look at their
location and look where they live. I believe in your situation and the one
you're talking about, especially with you and Mr. Gutman, I believe, if I'm
not mistaken, as I referenced back to the maps and tried to recall where
different things are within the map, I believe, sir, that I would have had
to particularly gerrymander to draw a line between your home and the
other House Member that you're referencing. If I'm not mistaken, you all

live within roughly the same block or the same two blocks. You're very, very
close together. In going back to my comments earlier, that if you try to draw

77

these and in the hispanic community I think you will agree that it's very
compact, it's very compact. When you start to draw those districts, there
again it's unfortunate but sometimes when Members do live so close
together as in your case and Mr. Gutman, you're just right on top of each
other.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Mr. Morse, for a follow-up question.
Rep. Morse: Yes Sir, follow-up question. Number one, to thank you,
Mr. Mackey, for saying for the record that the hispanic community is a very
compact community. I don't understand then why you needed to take it
all the way down to the west coast of Florida-District 113 which is the one
I represent, you know, from Dade County all the way down to the west
coast when our community is a very compact community and yet you saw
fit to do that. But, nevertheless, also I would like to remind you that
Representative Diaz-Balart and Representative De Grandy are also paired
together, and yet they are not living within a few blocks. Also, I'd like to
remind you, sir, that Representative Gutman and myself do not live in the
same block, do not live within two blocks, we do live separated enough so
that, right now, we do represent different districts and we do have enough
of a migration line between us so that, yes, there is right now, a line
separating both of our districts, legally.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Let me remind the Members, we're in the phase
of taking questions. Are there questions? Was that a question you care to
respond to, Representative Mackey? You're recognized.
Rep. Mackey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, you'll remember
that we tried to get as much cooperation as we could from the hispanic
community in drawing the map. Then when you suggested to us that you
would like to see a district that-and if you will remember and look at the
map, it's very compact in the middle of the hispanic community. When you
start to expand and we tried to draw one that does have a lower percentage
that, sir, takes you out. I believe fully that you will agree with me that the
Mexican-hispanic members deserve as much representation as anyone. It
took that line to be reached over there to ensure that they got the fair
representation that I'm sure that you would seek in this process for all the
people of the state of Florida.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Further questions of Representative Mackey or
Representative Wallace? Representative Hanson, you're next on the list.
You're recognized.
Rep. Hanson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's been suggested I direct
my questions to Mr. Wallace so I shall. Well, I don't know maybe would
you believe it's time for a my, my, my? I'm intrigued to hear that perhaps
Republicans got the rhythm and the blacks got the blues because, would
you believe, I'm beginning to believe the women got the shaft? I was
intrigued with Ms. Mortham when she held up the district, I thought it was
my district. I suspect what I'm going to end up doing is taking the district
that I represent into the schools and showing them a classic example of
gerrymandering. Mr. Mackey had said that he had looked for Members to
help them because we know our districts. Well, I had taken my plan to Mr.
Mackey and shown him how I had done a nice compact district, but he
looked at the map and that was the end of it. I went on my way with my
map. But, Mr. Wallace, I need to ask you, when we were talking about the
50/50 pairings, you know, it's sort of like: what we did to the Democrats,
we did to the Republicans. Would you not say that this is not true
representation because there are so few Republicans in the House
compared to the Democrats, so we really can't say in all honesty that it's
been 50/50, as far as the pairings, can we?
Rep. Bo Johnson: Representative Wallace, you're recognized.
Rep. Wallace: Well, you know the numbers speak for themselves. I
didn't read those numbers Representative Mackey ha's t about even
between Republicans and Democrats being paired. Sometimes it's
Republicans and Republicans and sometimes it's Republicans and
Democrats and sometimes it's Democrats and Democrats.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Further questions? Did you have a follow-up
question, Representative Hanson? You're recognized.
Rep. Hanson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, just would you believe,
you know, the Republicans are only 39 percent of the House. Let me talk

a minute about we didn't know where the Members, where the incumbents
lived. I believe Mr. Mackey said sometimes we did and sometimes we

June 4, 1992

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

78

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

didn't, but isn't it a fact that every map that came forward during the whole
process had the little log cabins on the map? So that, in fact, you did indeed
know where every single incumbent lived because they were there. Why
would you say that you did know in some cases but you didn't in other cases
when in fact you really did know, didn't you?
Rep. Bo Johnson: Representative Wallace, you're recognized.
Rep. Wallace: As you well know, the computer system has the
capability of displaying what we call the home seat icon or what you call
the log cabin, but it has to be deliberately activated in order to be in use
and it has to be activated in order to print out on a map. The answer to
your question is sometimes it was activated when the computers were in
use and sometimes it was not. So, sometimes it was on maps which were
printed and sometimes it was not.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Further questions? Representative Hawkins,
you're on the list. I believe you had debate as opposed to questions or was
yours questions? Question, you're recognized.
Rep. Hawkins: Mr. Wallace, I thought I heard Mr. Mackey say in his
exchange with Dr. Thomas that some of the people in Collier County,
particularly in District 113 which was the one Dr. Thomas was waving
around, had asked to be put with the Cuban-hispanics in Dade County. I've
heard that said by several members of the Democrat leadership in this
House who told me that they heard from people, particularly in the
Imokalee area, that they would like to be with the hispanics in Dade
County. I know the records show that when you all were in Naples for your
hearings that everybody that came to the hearings, regardless of what
ethnic group they belonged to and regardless of what political party they
belonged to, asked specifically that they not be included in any district
with Dade County. So, I have also brought to the committee, and I know
that people have written to the committee, that my Democrat chairman
has written to the committee and specifically stated that the protected
minority and that he and the people that he represents do not want to be
in a district with Dade County. So, all the evidence that I have seen and
I keep hearing from home is that my people do not want to be in any district
with Dade County in the House, in the Senate or the Congress. So, since
I continue to hear from members of your committee and of the Democrat
leadership that you have heard from people in Collier County wanting to
be in a district with Dade County, could I ask to see that evidence or see
those letters so I can know who they are? Because I've searched down there
and I cannot find a single soul who will admit to having written such a
letter.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Representative Wallace, you're recognized.
Rep. Wallace: Representative Hawkins, I'm not aware of any such
letter but I've not made those statements. I was at the hearing and I agree
with you that at the hearing it was said by representatives of the Naples
community that Naples did not want to be joined to Dade County in a
district. We've wrestled with that question because, as you know, Collier
County is a Voting Rights Act county and this District 113, in reaching into
Collier County, does pick up approximately between six and 7,000 voting-
age hispanics and pull them into an effective hispanic district. I think it's
an area for reasonable debate, but I personally don't believe I've made the
statement that the people of Collier County asked to be with Dade County.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Are there further questions of Representative
Wallace, or Mackey follow-up? Representative Hawkins.
Rep. Hawkins: Could I ask you, Mr. Wallace, and Mr. Mackey, I
believe, did say to Dr. Thomas that he had heard from some of those people
that they did want to be with Dade County.

June 4, 1992

I think if, once again, if we go back to what we said earlier, we were simply
trying to create a district and give those people in Collier County a chance
at fair representation and electing a candidate of their choice, and that was
the reason for the reach.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Representative Hawkins, you are recognized.
Rep. Hawkins: You've not heard from the Mexican-Americans in
Collier County specifically saying that they want to be with the Cuban-
Americans in Dade County.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Representative Mackey.
Rep. Mackey: Thank you. We've heard from them to the fact that
they want as fair representation and accessibility as possible, and we feel
that as it's drawn now, it gives them that opportunity.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Are there further questions? Representative
Reaves.
Rep. Reaves: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of
Representative Wallace.
Rep. Bo Johnson: The gentlemen yields. He yields.
Rep. Reaves: And I slightly preface this, but it is not debate. I
listened very interesting, intently to the little dog and pony show that you
and Representative Burke put together in attempts to repair the damage
that you did yesterday. For my question to you, sir, is, when was the
elaborate tapping system put into effect to monitor the time and place of
Representative Reaves and Representative Brown, and was that same
system put in place for other Members of the House?
Rep. Bo Johnson: Representative Wallace, you are recognized.
Rep. Wallace: You know, I don't think that question really deserves
an answer, Mr. Speaker. You know there is no-I don't think I need to
elaborate on that.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Are there further questions? Representative
Reaves.
Rep. Reaves: Mr. Speaker, I suggest because my name has been
whirled around somewhat this morning, that I be allowed to ask Mr. Logan
a question on this issue.
Rep. Bo Johnson: The gentleman yields. He yields. Representative
Reaves.
Rep. Reaves: Representative Logan, at any time when the Black
Caucus was preparing a congressional plan, did you consult or use any
portions of the Republican Party's oriented and generated plan?
Rep. Bo Johnson: Representative Logan.
Rep. Logan: Absolutely not.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Are there further questions? Representative
Reaves.
Rep. Reaves: Just one last question, Sir, if I might for Representative
Dan Webster.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Will the gentleman yield? He yields.
Representative Reaves.
Rep. Reaves: Thank you. Mr. Webster, at any time when the state
Black Caucus was putting together their congressional plan, did any
members of the Black Caucus, other than myself, consult with you or use
any portions of the Republican generated plan?

Rep. Bo Johnson: Representative Mackey. The gentleman yields. Rep. Bo Johnson: Representative Webster.
You are recognized.Johnson: Representative Webster.

Rep. Mackey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe if you will check,
yesterday what we said, we had heard from several communities who said
they did want to be linked here, they did want to be linked there. There
was no particular reference to your county individually to say how they
wanted to be treated, but simply to say that there were several
communities who said that they would like to be coupled here or coupled
there, or they would like to have their community divided. As a matter of
fact, we have received some information from a county saying that very
thing just in the last little bit. So, that was our statement yesterday, and

Rep. Webster: I will say that I was asked to release our plan to some
of the Members, and those plans were basically, well, actually, several of
the districts were identical to the Republican plan that was offered. And
again, yes, that's true.
Rep. Bo Johnson: On HJR 2491, are there further questions?
Representative Corr.
Rep. Corr: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Two questions of Mr. Mackey.
Rep. Bo Johnson: You are recognized.

Rep. Corr: Mr. Mackey, I was listening a minute ago when they were
speaking specifically about Hillsborough County, and it was interesting to
me to hear that there's been over 100 plans that have been drawn for
Hillsborough County. I just have a couple of points to make. First of all,
the two Republican House Members in Hillsborough County had drawn
not even one plan-zero plans. In this question for you, why throughout
the entire process have you not or has not Mr. Wallace telephoned or asked
to meet with the two Republican Members of Hillsborough County to
consult with us on our feelings about communities of interest in our specific
areas.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Representative Mackey. You are recognized.
Rep. Mackey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I think it is
important to point out that the Hillsborough delegation that I am referring
to took it on their own initiative to go to the Reapportionment suite to work
on the maps. They felt that their involvement was critical to the process
and to the constituents that they represent. Unfortunately, other Members
haven't taken the same attitude toward the process. Why you didn't come
up there-only you can answer that question, Mr. Corr, but you certainly
had the opportunity to do so. My only dialogue with the other members
of the Hillsborough delegation has been one to discuss the maps that they
came to me with. I didn't encourage them to draw their maps. They drew
them because they were interested in their constituency, in the county and
in the process.
Rep. Bo Johnson: To the question, Representative Wallace.
Rep. Wallace: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Because my name was used
in that question too, let me respond as well. I did not seek to meet with any
members of the Hillsborough delegation. They sought me out and
requested that I participate with them in working on Hillsborough County
plan. You, Representative Corr, never made that request.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Further questions regarding HJR 2491. Follow-up
question, Representative Corr.
Rep. Corr: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. The second
question I had was earlier, couple of hours ago, Ms. Mortham was asking
Mr. Mackey specifically about whether we sought out the addresses or the
residence of certain Members here. Mr. Mackey, early before the first of
the year, why did the House Committee on Reapportionment call my office
nine times to ask me exactly where I lived, and asked for the specific
address? And then, when they still could not figure out, why did they send
me a map in the mail and ask that I mark on the map specifically where
I lived if that's not a factor?
Rep. Bo Johnson: Representative Mackey.
Rep. Mackey: Mr. Speaker, I believe the question was asked of me,
do I know where these Members live, and I answered that very correctly.
I should have stated earlier that I do know where Representative Wallace
lives because I have been to his house. He is about the only Member in that
area that I know. I believe that the committee asked for that information
to have as much information at their disposal as possible, so when the map
is finally put together and you do turn the icons on, then it starts to fall
into place as who is where and who needs to do what.

79

of questions concerning the record you kept of Representatives Brown and
Reaves, Mr. Mackey, Mr. Wallace. I have some questions about the
accuracy of those numbers of the times. You mentioned something about
a Mr. Morgan who works for the Republican Party meeting Friday
afternoon at what time to work on the Reaves-Brown plan. He mentioned
it a few minutes ago. I had some questions about it. I think there may be
some inaccuracies and I want that clarified, please.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Representative Wallace. You are recognized.
Rep. Wallace: I will read you this statement that I made which is, Mr.
Morgan worked with a member of the committee staff on amendment 205,
Friday afternoon and night, and on Saturday morning and early afternoon.
Rep. Harden: OK. For a follow-up question, Mr. Speaker.
Rep. Bo Johnson: The gentleman is recognized.
Rep. Harden: Let me ask you this. Because of Florida's open records
law, Mr. Wallace, could I have a copy and could the other Members of this
House? Could the members of the press have a copy of those records of
which you can delineate with me, with a full amount of accuracy, to
determine that a Republican consultant was at what time working on what
amendment? Can we have copies of that as well since you have a copy and
your staff has a copy? Can we have copies of that? Can the press have a
copy of that information to determine the accuracy? I'm sure we can.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Representative Wallace, you are recognized.
Rep. Wallace: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We do have records,
Representative Harden, of all the appointments that have been made
through the months, of members or Members of this Body or members of
the public or staff members who came and worked on the computer. I don't
know whether Mr. Morgan actually had an appointment and whether his
name would appear in those records, but I presume that when this
statement was made here it was as a result of someone who was actually
there working with Mr. Morgan, and knew of personal knowledge that he
was present.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Is this your final question, Representative
Harden?
Rep. Harden: Yes, Sir.
Rep. Bo Johnson: You are recognized.
Rep. Harden: So, then you are saying that you have the same level
of detailed information, not only on the Reaves-Brown amendment but on
the Republican amendments that were worked on, as well as the
Democratic amendments to reapportionment as well, Mr. Wallace?
Rep. Bo Johnson: Representative Wallace.
Rep. Wallace: Well, I guess I don't particularly want what I have to
say characterized, I'll just repeat it. What we have is a record of the
appointments that have been made through the months by Members of
this Body, by members of legislative staff and by members of the public
when they requested appointments and made appointments in our
appointment book to work upon the House computer system. I presume
those are available to anyone who is interested in viewing them.

Rep. Bo Johnson: Representative Wallace, were you caring to Rep. Bo Johnson: Are there further questions? Representative
address the same question. You are recognized. Feeney, you are recognized.

Rep. Wallace: Yes, the committee started long ago to build its data
base, including the residences of incumbents. It's a legitimate part of the
process for compliance with the Constitution and in compliance with the
Federal Voting Rights Act.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Further question? Is this your final question,
Representative Corr? You are recognized.
Rep. Corr: Mr. Wallace, is the residences of incumbent Members a
part of the record, of the computer record?
Rep. Bo Johnson: Representative Wallace.
Rep. Wallace: Oh, absolutely.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Further questions? Representative Harden, you
are recognized, and then Feeney.
Rep. Harden: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of either
Representative Wallace or Mackey. This is a follow-up question or a series

Rep. Feeney: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For the purpose of a question.
Mr. Wallace or Mr. Mackey, you will remember the District 37 that was
displayed yesterday by Dr. Thomas. My first question would be, can you
tell me whether or not the purpose of drawing this particular proposed
district was to comply with the minority Voting Rights Act?
Rep. Bo Johnson: Was that question directed to Representative
Wallace?
Rep. Feeney: Either one of the sponsors.
Rep. Bo Johnson: The gentleman yields. Representative Wallace,
you are recognized.
Rep. Wallace: I don't believe-I know that in the greater Orlando
area, certainly, there is one district which, currently, Representative
Reddick represents, which is a minority district. I don't know-and I'm
trying to find my map to know whether it abuts that specific district you're
looking at.

June 4, 1992

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

80 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE

Rep. Bo Johnson: Further questions? Representative Feeney for
follow-up questions.
Rep. Feeney: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, in that event, since you
mentioned greater Orlando, could you help me, as I go back home and
explain to the citizens of greater Orlando, what it is that they have in
common, in terms of the community of interests, with the fine people, the
Treasure Coast and the fine people of Indian River County, and south
Brevard, because I would like to be able to explain to them why they have
been drawn into a district together; and I think that I'm going to need to
explain why we spent 7 million dollars to draw this particular district.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Representative Wallace, to respond.
Rep. Wallace: Just to mention, of course, that-you know the part
that draws across and down there is a county boundary, and in this
particular case, the choice was made to honor the Osceola County boundary
in drawing that district.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Are there further questions? Final question.
Representative Feeney, you are recognized.
Rep. Feeney: Thank you. One last question. Is it true, Representative
Wallace or Representative Mackey, that to the north and to the east of this
district, and to the south and to the west of this district, there are
Democratic incumbents on either side?
Rep. Bo Johnson: Representative Wallace.
Rep. Wallace: Well, I would have to say there are both Republican
and Democratic districts abutting the particular district that the
Representative is referring to, and that's true of most locations in the state,
that there are adjoining Democratic districts and adjoining Republican
districts. Now, I have to say, Mr. Speaker, of course, that none of these
districts, none of these districts, has ever elected a Democrat or a
Republican. They are new districts and the people will make the decision
as to who will represent these districts in the 1992 elections.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Also to the question, Representative Mackey, did
you wish to address? OK. No further. Any further question before we move
to debate? Any further question? We will, at this time, line up debate. We
have Representative Glickman. Are you a proponent? Representative
Glickman a proponent. Representative Simone as an opponent.
Representative Simon, he is out of the Chamber, we will line him up as soon
as he gets back. Representative Geller, a proponent. Representative Logan
as a proponent. We have Representative Garcia as an opponent.
Representative Diaz-Balart, you are an opponent. Representative
De Grandy as an opponent. Representative Reaves as an opponent.
Further debate? Representative Sansom as an opponent. We will have
Representative Wallace to close, Mackey to close, Simon as an opponent.
Representative Burke will be involved in the closing as a proponent. Any
further debate? Representative Harden as an opponent. Any further
debate? Representative Hill as an opponent. Any further parties who wish
to debate? Representative Irvine as an opponent. Further parties?
Representative Brown as an opponent. Any further? Representative
Banjanin as an opponent. Any further parties who wish to close?
Representative Arnold as a proponent. Any further parties who wish to
debate? Yes, Representative Lewis as an opponent. Any further parties
who wish to debate? We will, at this time, begin final debate on HJR 2491.
We will begin with opponents and will hear from Representative Simone.
You are recognized.
Rep. Simone: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We came. We saw. We
conquered. I'll tell you, ladies and gentlemen, I went to 26 public hearings
and we did exactly that. We conquered the best interests of the people of
the state of Florida. You've held public hearings. You've heard, but you've
failed to listen on what the public wanted. I am not going to belabor my
lists of counties, and what they wanted, and what they didn't get. This has
nothing to do with minority representation. I was at the public hearing in
Collier County. Not one person said-they said specifically they didn't
want to be with Dade. Manatee County said they wanted the lines to
remain the same-east-west lines. Sarasota County said they wanted the
lines to go east-west. Clay County didn't want to be divided. It's divided

four ways. Ladies and gentlemen, the Reapportionment Committee, in my
opinion, has done a disservice to hundreds of thousands of people in the
state of Florida in not considering their wishes and how they wanted lines
drawn. None of the lines that I am talking about have anything to do with
minority representation.

Representative Reaves, who I got to know as a result of this wonderful
process, would lean over and talk to me on days like today when the debate
seemed to go on and on, and would talk to me about his family; and most
importantly, and most consistently, he always spoke with great pride about
his son, Darryl. I got to meet Darryl, and I got to learn, sitting here in this

1

E OF REPRESENTATIVES June 4, 1992

In addition, Representative Mary Figg neglected to mention that I am
also paired with a Republican male. I have no problem with that if the
pairings were proportionate to the parties involved, in other words,
Democrats and Republicans. I urge you to vote against a bill that is unfair
to the people of the state of Florida, and is not in compliance with the
wishes that they stated at public hearings, ladies and gentlemen. Did we
waste their money? I don't know if we wasted money on public hearings.
I certainly probably wasted a lot of time in going to 26 of them. I expected
we would sit down, the staff would sit down, take all of the public
comments, draw the minority districts, use all of the concerns of the
citizens, and start drawing districts, not looking at where anybody lives. I
don't care where anybody lives. Please, vote against this very unfair plan.
Thank you.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Also in opposition, Representative Simon in
opposition, you are recognized. We have more in opposition, so we will try
to keep some balance as to how they appear. Representative Simon, you
are recognized in opposition.
Rep. Simon: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I
would like to make a couple of comments, preparatory comments, and then
get into my reasons for being opposed to the bill.
Personally, as a preparatory comment, I just want to take a moment to
commend Representative Wallace, who has walked off the floor. I was just
commenting to him on this fact. We look at reapportionment bill as the
most difficult bill that ever comes before the Legislature and fortunately
only comes up once every 10 years. Personally, I feel that Representative
Wallace in handling this issue has demonstrated a lot of character, has
demonstrated leadership, has demonstrated intelligence, and above all
else, he has demonstrated patience. You need a lot of patience to do this.
I would say quite candidly he has demonstrated the patience of a saint. If
he were here, I would officially anoint him St. Pete from St. Pete, for
demonstrating the fine patience he has done on this job.
I also want to make a comment to the effect that reapportionment is
about the future. It's not about the past. But, as I have listened to this
debate-and up to now I have not said anything-but, as I have listened
to debate, I couldn't help but think about the past. I couldn't help but
think about the reapportionment process the Legislature went through 10
years ago. I couldn't help but be reminded of the fact that, were it not for
the leadership that was demonstrated by this House, this House that was
led by people like Ralph Haben and Lee Moffitt, we would not have
adopted a reapportionment plan that we did adopt. We would not have
opted for single-member districts, and many of us who were elected as a
result of that plan would not have been here today. Perhaps people like
Peter Wallace and myself, Mike Abrams, Willie Logan; and I am mindful
of that because we have a special responsibility to the future to those who
may follow us, to try to open a window of opportunity to others who may
want to come in to the legislative process; the same way that window of
opportunity, that door, was open for those of us who were disenfranchised
to be able to come and participate in the system.
We adopted the single-member district system 10 years ago, with the
foreknowledge that it was intended to assure maximum representation of
the diversity-political, cultural and ethnic diversity that is the state of
Florida. That is the reason for reapportionment, and was the reason why
the leadership of this House worked so hard for the single-member district
plan. They worked so hard for that plan because they knew that was the
way to maximize minority representation. They worked so hard for that
plan notwithstanding the fact that they knew that plan would undoubtedly
result in increased representation from the minority party as well, but they
did because it was the right thing to do. As a result, we opened the doors
and allowed some new elected officials to come into this Chamber.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to mention that one of those
people who was elected that year, with myself, was Representative
Jefferson Reaves. Representative Jefferson Reaves was elected as a result
of that reapportionment plan, as was I, and we sat next to each other on
the floor of the House right over there. I can tell you, on many occasions,

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSI

Chamber with Jefferson Reaves, I got to learn about Darryl Reaves and the
love that Jefferson Reaves had for his son. I listened to Jefferson Reaves
talk about how proud he was of his son and how his son was going through
school, his difficult decisions in law school and his hopes and prayers that
his son would have the opportunity to come forward some day and actively
participate as Jefferson, himself, was allowed to participate in this process.
I can only say that if Representative Reaves, his father, was here today, was
still with us, he would be so, so proud. I know he would be so, so proud to
have heard his son stand before this body and debate with eloquence and
with passion, in support of the right of minority participation in the
democratic process. I want to say that that made me very proud.
I am also mindful of the fact that it's been a great opportunity to serve.
The first year that I ran for reelection after having been elected under this
system, I was assisted by a young man who I signed on as a campaign
manager. He was a very young fellow, but he had just a lot of good spirit,
really cared about government, came forward, worked hard, and he has a
most important attribute of anybody who wants to get into politics. He was
willing to work cheap. He worked hard. We walked many a day, knocking
on many a door, gathering many a vote, so I could come back and
participate in this process. I'd like to tell you who that person is, because
he is here with us today. I would like to acknowledge him and thank him
again for the assistance that he gave me then, and the friendship that has
been developed over the years. That person is my friend and your
colleague, Representative Mario Diaz-Balart. Representative Diaz-Balart
probably would not be in this Chamber today were it not for the fact, that
10 years ago when we went through reapportionment, the leadership of this
House had the courage of their convictions to fight for a plan that would
allow, for maximum access, into the political process a person who
otherwise might have been disenfranchised, and I support that basic
premise.
I have been totally silent on reapportionment up to now. I've sit. I've sat.
I've listened to the debate on the congressional plan. I've supported the
plan. I've supported all the amendments. Up to now, I've supported all of
the amendments on all of the plans. But I have listened to the debate and
most notably, I have listened to Miguel De Grandy speak about the need
for a reapportionment plan that would provide fair representation for
hispanics in Dade County. I have listened to Miguel De Grandy talk with
eloquence and with conviction in support of a plan that would provide due
recognition for the increased growth of hispanic residents in Dade County.
I have listened and I've sat, but I have to say, I am sitting no more. It's time
for me to stand up and be counted, because in truth, much of this new
growth, indeed most of this new growth, that has occurred in the hispanic
community in Dade County, has occurred in two districts. One of them is
Representative De Grandy's district, the other one is mine. The people in
my county, the people in my district, and the people in this House have the
right to know that I will stand for my constituents first, and I stand for
myself last. It shouldn't fall upon Miguel De Grandy to have to carry the
burden of fighting for the interests of his constituents and mine. It's my
burden too, Representative De Grandy, to stand up for my constituents
and for yours.
The truth of the matter is, at this point in time, I probably represent
more hispanics than any other-I do represent more hispanics than any
other Democrat in the state of Florida. In fact, I represent more hispanics
than some of the hispanic Members in this House. I think it's very
important for the people of Dade County to know, I think it's very
important for the people of my district to know, and it's very important
for the people in this House to know, this issue of reapportionment and
hispanic representation is not an issue that's solely important to the
hispanics. It's not an issue solely important to the Republicans. I think
enough people need to hear that there are Democrats who are not
hispanics, but will stand up and be counted.
I have indicated from day one that I would approach reapportionment
the same way I would approach any other major bill that came before me
in the Legislature. If the bill was good for my constituents, for my county
and my state, I would vote for that bill, even though it happened to be bad
for Art Simon. Conversely, the bill comes before me which I know does not
satisfy constitutional criteria. If a bill comes before me which does not, in
my judgment, satisfy voting-rights criteria, if a bill comes before me which

is not consistent with those principles of single-member districts that we,
as Democrats, worked so hard to implement; and even though the bill may

June 4, 1992

impacts incumbents, and how that is going to violate the Voting Rights Act,
how the plan impacts Collier, which also happens to be a Section 5 county,
and how that's going to violate the Voting Rights Act. I think the one thing
I've learned from probably drawing a lot of maps, I was probably one of the
ones who drew 50 of the 100 plans for Hillsborough County; from drawing

E OF REPRESENTATIVES 81

indeed contain some benefits for Art Simon, Art Simon would stand to rise
to speak against that bill.
I hope that we will see, as a result of the reapportionment conference
process, a bill that comes forward to provide increased representation for
the hispanic community in Dade County and for the hispanics in the state
of Florida. I understand the consequences of rising before you and making
the statement I am making today, but I know Representative Wallace and
I know and respect his intelligence, his fairness and his compassion to this
process. I also know that if the day should come that the only way we can
craft a plan which provides for adequate representation for blacks and for
hispanics and for others, if the only way that plan can be crafted is to draw
a plan which adversely impacts Art Simon, I want you to know when that
plan comes back before me, I will vote for it, and I will vote for it with pride.
Reapportionment is about the future. It's not about the past. I have an
obligation to those who came before me, who opened the door for me to
come, for Jefferson Reaves to come, for Representative Burke to come, for
Representative De Grandy and his predecessor, who is now the first
Cuban-American congresswoman to come. I would hope the same people
who stood before us 10 years ago and fought for that type of plan, a
democratic plan, to make it possible to elect people the democratic way,
will come forward and bring back a plan that satisfies all those objectives
on behalf of the state of Florida, on behalf of Dade County, and on behalf
of the constituents I represent. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I thank
you very much for your patience. Representative Wallace, I thank you for
your patience. I respectfully urge the Members to vote against this bill.
Thank you.
Rep. Bo Johnson: As a proponent of the plan, Representative
Glickman and then Logan. Representative Glickman, you are recognized
as a proponent.
Rep. Glickman: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen,
I am probably in a very unique position in this House of Representatives,
because I am probably the only Member at any time in their political career
has been impacted directly by the Voting Rights Act and preclearance. I
want to tell you a little story about this situation.
In 1984 I ran for my first political office, which was County Commission
in Hillsborough County. Well, for the seats that they created at that time,
and they went to a single-member district concept, that plan had to be pre-
cleared by the Federal Justice Department. We got up to within two weeks
of the first primary and the Federal Justice Department had still refused
to pre-clear that plan. So, a Federal district judge entered an injunction,
and two weeks before the first primary, prevented the Hillsborough County
Commission election from going forward. Now, a presidential election
intervened. November in 1984, Mr. Reagan won reelection, and quite
interestingly, in January of 1985, the Federal Justice Department decided,
all of a sudden, it could pre-clear the Hillsborough County County
Commission seats without a single change in the plan. We were able to run,
and we had first primary in March 1985, and ultimately a general election
in May.
Part of the reason why I bring up that story is, when Ms. Mortham earlier
said she was somehow-implying that the Democrats in the House or the
Democratic leadership somehow peculiarly had an interest in somehow
delaying the process. Well, my one experience with preclearance and the
Federal Justice Department shows that it was a Republican administration
in Washington, albeit it under a different president, who decided that they
wanted to delay the elections in Hillsborough County; and without a single
change in the plan after a presidential election had occurred, they were able
to pre-clear that and let it go on. I don't see, invariably, why the Democrats
have any interests in this case in trying to delay this situation at all, since
Hillsborough County is a county where probably six Democrats will be
elected in; and if that election doesn't occur, I don't think that that would
help the Democratic Party. I think people have to realize that preclearance
also is a political process. It's not just a legal process. It is a political
process, and again, Washington is controlled by the Republican Party.
Now, another thing we've heard about is a lot of talk as how the plan

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

a lot of maps, when you apply the Voting Rights Act, there is no guarantee
that any incumbent, minority or non-minority, is going to be happy. The
test that I understand of the Voting Rights Act is not whether incumbent
minority Members will be happy. It's whether minority populations can
elect candidates of choice. So, with Collier County, in order for those
hispanics to elect candidates of choice, it may very well be that you have
to travel to Dade County to get them into a district with those hispanics,
and can elect Members to represent them of their choice. Unfortunately,
that may require traveling a long distance but the Voting Rights Act
doesn't care, necessarily, that you may have to travel long distance if there
are no other alternatives.
Again, I think a little bit the argument about Collier County and the way
that district, whatever it looks, is a little bit of a red herring. I think this
plan, as most Members have said, makes no one happy, and I think the true
test may be of whether we have a fair plan that both Democrats and
Republicans are not happy with it. I think, in my review, it does allow
minority groups to elect the candidates of their choice. I think it will pass.
The Voting Rights Act, I think Hillsborough County, the plan-they are
still working on it-but I think even today the plan will pass preclearance
view. So, again, I hope we discuss, not our own personal incumbent desires,
but what the plan will do; and I urge Members to support the plan.
Rep. Bo Johnson: As a proponent, Rep. Logan, you are recognized.
Rep. Logan: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker and Members. First
of all, let me speak to some of the concerns or attempts that have been
addressed here to try to imply that this has not been an open process; and
the minority members, all of the minority members haven't had the
opportunity to work with the equipment and the staff of the House. For
the record, the members of the Black Caucus were well represented on the
Reapportionment Committee. We served on every single subcommittee of
the Reapportionment Committee. We were able to travel to each public
hearing that we would like to have traveled to. Each member of the Black
Caucus received travel approval, prior to session, to come up here and to
work on the plan. So, we had the resources with the staff and the House
equipment.
In addition to that, it has been demonstrated through this bill that the
issues relating to the Voting Rights Act are of concern to the Democratic
Members, and have been met. Let me just speak to an issue that Mr. Simon
brought up, and I want to say that I have a great deal of respect for Mr.
Simon. He has demonstrated time and time and over again that he is a man
of principle. I want to join him in saying that this particular bill that we
have before us may not, and probably does not, adequately represent the
growth that the hispanic community has had in Dade County. But as a
black Member of this Legislature, as the chairman of the Black Caucus, as
a Member of this Legislature, I have attempted to sit down with the
hispanic Members and to come to an agreement on the number of seats
that would adequately represent the hispanic community in Dade County.
Their attitude has been, we want all or we want nothing. Now, in this
process, you've got to give a little. Some of us feel that 11 is not where we
should be. A lot of us feel that seven is not where we should be. But if you
are not willing to work with us, if you are not willing to compromise with
us, then you've got what you expected to get, which was nothing.
I believe that somewhere in this process, we are going to do the right
thing. We are going to fairly assure that the hispanic communities are
adequately represented in Dade County, based upon the population growth
it has there. We aren't going to do that and try to make sure the Jews, the
hispanic communities in Dade County are representing the hispanic
community in Hillsborough. You often forget that Martinez is hispanic,
and so doesn't just take the hispanic members in Dade County to get to
that percentage you want to get.
I want to also say that there have been laws on the books such as poll
taxes and literacy tests that have prevented people from having the
opportunity to voice their vote-I don't believe that we should use the
Voting Rights Act to deny the opportunities of nonminorities to elect
candidates of their choice. I think it is just as wrong to use the Voting
Rights Act as it was to use other laws that are presently on the books to
discriminate against minorities. So, I say to my hispanic colleagues that I
believe the Democrats are prepared to address the issue of their

representation. I think the real question is whether you are prepared to
meet us half way, and I say, Mr. Speaker, that you have done a wonderful

job. I believe in maximizing blacks to having the opportunity to elect a
candidate of their choice. I applaud that effort, and I strongly urge the
Members to support the resolution that's before us today.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Thank you, Representative Logan. As an
opponent, Representative Garcia, you are recognized.
Rep. Garcia: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. After listening to
Representative Logan, I have to try to contain my comments. Even
considering what has happened last week, at 3:45 where I was again denied
access to the Reapportionment suite, and some of the Members of this
august body stand and say that we have had an ample opportunity
throughout the entire process. Mr. Speaker and Members, as
Representative Wallace accurately stated today, that a minority district is
one where minority voters can elect a candidate of their choice, and he also
added today that, in his opinion as the chairman of the committee and as
an attorney, he added that hispanics are a protected minority. Mr. Speaker,
again, as chairman of the Cuban-American Caucus, I do not understand
when you can draw 11 seats, how this committee, after spending 7 million
dollars, can only end up drawing seven seats. This does not make sense. I
feel that this body has had ample opportunity, and has had ample
conversations, with the members of this caucus. You have seen what has
happened with the conference committee. You have seen what has
happened with the suite. You have seen these districts that could have been
drawn, but time after time they were not; and for this reason, I would ask
all of you to think of these few statements that I have just made, and that
we have been making throughout this entire process, and check with your
own soul to see if this has been a fair process or not. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Thank you, Representative Garcia. Next as an
opponent, Representative Diaz-Balart. You are recognized.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I will be
brief, but before my comments I just want to tell Representative Simon:
Representative Simon, many years ago, I thought that you were the person
that I could support, and that my family could support, and that we could
show friendship to; and I just want to tell you that in these few years that
I have been serving up here with you, and today, you emphasized that I was
right, and that I will always be right. And again, I thank you for your
friendship, for your sincerity and for your integrity.
Mr. Speaker and Members of this House, we have heard many reasons
and many excuses, but the bottom line, or as the amendment in 1982-
amendment to the Voting Rights Act-says, the bottom line, or the effect,
is of discrimination. We've seen plans that have 11 hispanic districts and
about 65 percent each, and yet, this plan has barely seven. We've seen plans
that have 20 African-American districts, and this plan has barely 15. Ladies
and gentlemen, what we are seeing today is a mockery of the public
hearings, of the people of Florida. This plan makes a mockery of the rights
and of the needs of minorities in the state of Florida. Ladies and gentlemen,
this plan illustrates the worst fears of the people of Florida, the worst fears
of the people of Florida: the fear that the people have, that their state
government does not listen to them when they speak, the fear of minorities
that they are being disenfranchised by their state government, the fear of
the people that their state government goes to the extreme of violating the
federal law in order to protect incumbents at the expense of minorities.
My esteemed colleagues, wake up, wake up and listen to your conscience.
Wake up and see reality. Wake up and listen to what hundreds of people
have said, and are saying. Wake up and at least follow the law. Ladies and
gentlemen, please wake up today and make this body proud. And if you are
going to do that, ladies and gentlemen, you must vote against this plan.
Rep. Bo Johnson: As an opponent, Representative De Grandy.
Rep. De Grandy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There have been two
speeches in this House, so far, that I could say have really moved me, in
reapportionment. One is Representative Simon's and one is Representative
Logan's. And they have moved me in different directions. And I'm sorry
if you think some of the things that I will say are hard, but they have
moved. They have been moved by those two competing forces. I try hard,
as I stand here, Representative Logan, to be honest with you, to contain
my anger over the things that you have said. Let me talk about the positive
first. And let me get one point out of the way with Representative Mackey.

And then I'll address what you said, because I think it compels a response
at this point.

82

June 4, 1992

Representative Mackey, let's put the issue to rest as to why Cuban-
Americans did not participate, as you would have wanted them to, in
letting you draw their plans. We didn't participate in letting you draw our
plan, and we made a conscious decision not to do that, after we saw what
the leadership came out with-with their first plans on congressional in
this session. We knew then that the best shot we had was to work on our
own and to present that work product to the House of Representatives.
And that's what we did. And we were right, sir, because no one has been
able to get up on this floor and do what you did to other minorities in this
House, which was document their movements and basically spy on them,
to know what they were doing in advance so you could counter it. And we
were right in what we did. And Representative Wallace talks sometimes
about that I'm a trial lawyer, etc., and I'm flattered by his comments. But
let me tell you what I learned about. What I learned as a trial lawyer is that
you don't give your opponent your strategy before you go into court. And
I think you have learned that lesson too, and that's why you didn't release
your plan a month ago. You released it several days before the vote.
Don't criticize us, sir, for what you haven't been willing to do either. You
haven't been willing to put your plan out there with enough time for fair
debate and comment to build public pressure against what you're doing.
So, don't criticize us for not having done the same, and don't criticize us
for not having put a noose around our neck so you could hang us, like you
did with this plan, with seven hispanics. Whether or not, sir, there was one
hispanic in this Chamber, it would still be your duty, under the Voting
Rights Act, to have maximized the hispanic community's voting strength.
And you have failed to do that, woefully failed to do that, you and this
entire House, by voting for this plan that we're going to adopt today.
Let me talk to you about the Voting Rights Act for a moment. And then
let me address those other comments. The Voting Rights Act flows directly
from the Constitution. And the entitlement of citizens to the right to vote
is provided for and protected by the 14th and 15th amendment to the
Constitution. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 flows directly from those
principles, as stated in Grey v. Sanders, the conception of political
equality, from the Declaration of Independence, to Lincoln's Gettysburg
Address, to the 15th, 17th and 19th Amendment can only mean one thing:
one person, one vote. And that's not what this plan is all about. And it pains
me to see people like Representative Logan get up here, and say what he
said, because I'll tell you, Representative Logan, the same act that protects
against political gerrymandering is the same act that was created to protect
against things like the poll tax, and like the literacy test, and like the other
things that were used to disenfranchise the black community for decades
and decades. And let me tell you, sir, although less blatant, less blatant
than the poll tax and the literacy test, what you have done today to the
hispanic community is no less egregious and has no less an effect than to
disenfranchise a community, the same way that for decades Democrats
have been disenfranchising African-Americans and denying their right to
vote. No less egregious, although more subtle, and more sophisticated, and
done with state of the art technology.
And let me tell you something. You made a statement that we refused
to negotiate and therefore we got nothing. I thank you for that statement,
because you have put on the record precisely what we needed to put. That
we are being punished for the exercise of our rights and for having the guts
to be uppity spics and stand up here and fight for the hispanic community.
And I thank you for that. But let me tell you something once and for all,
sir. The rights of the hispanic community are nonnegotiable, period-are
nonnegotiable. We believe that, and we have stood by that, and we will
continue to stand by that on the floor of this House, out in those corridors,
and anywhere else they want to listen to us. We will not sell out the
hispanic community. And we expect the Representatives of the state of
Florida to do the right thing and not sell out our people's rights, or your
people's rights, or anybody else's rights, and to do what's right under the
Constitution and to do what's right under the law. This plan is shameful:
shameful in its disrespect to the Constitution as Representative Simon
noted, shameful in its total disregard for the legitimate rights of the
hispanic community, and it is shameful for any representative to get up
here and say you refused to play ball, and therefore your community got
nothing. Well, let me tell you, sir, I will go back to my community proud,
proud to have stood up for the rights of my citizens.

I represent, as Representative Simon correctly noted, the biggest group
of hispanics in any House district, 132,000 people, and those people are

83

important to me, and their rights are important to me, and their rights are
nonnegotiable. And, if I have to be here, and I can see that District 113 right
now that is two blocks from my home, has my name written on it, and if
that's my punishment, that's the punishment for standing up here and
representing the rights of my people, and I'm going to be representing
Collier and Lee Counties, I'll take that. Because you see, sir, we didn't come
here to protect seven incumbents. We already have seven hispanic seats.
We came here to give opportunity to other hispanics to represent people
in their community, and for the hispanics that elect them to have the
opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. And those rights, sir, are
nonnegotiable. And if we can't get what's right here, then we'll go to a court
of law, where historically blacks and hispanics have been able to get relief
from institutions like this that purposely discriminate. Thank you.
Rep. Bo Johnson: I'd like to remind the Members to please keep the
debate focused on the bill before this House, HJR 2491, and to avoid
personal reference as directed by Rule 12.1. As a proponent,
Representative Geller, you're recognized. Representative Geller.
Rep. Geller: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to make a couple of brief
points. First, we have heard from several of the opponents of the bill that
this bill is terrible because it splits counties and sometimes it splits cities.
This is wonderful rhetoric that sounds wonderful for the newspapers or for
the TV cameras, but let's recognize it for what it is. It's rhetoric. You
cannot draw a plan that doesn't split cities. You cannot draw a plan that
doesn't split counties. Any of the plans that have been created by any of
the Members split cities and split counties. It's the only way of drawing a
map. So, when people say, "Oh, this plan is terrible because it splits
whatever county." Recognize that all that that is, is rhetoric for the TV
cameras, the newspapers, because you can't draw a plan that doesn't divide
cities and that doesn't divide counties.
Something that I have heard which has got me increasingly irritated is
when I have heard about denial of access to the computer. Well, let me tell
you, I would like to give my personal thanks to George and to Brian
Berkowitz, because I've had no problem getting access to the computer.
Sometimes I've had to work until 1:00 in the morning; sometimes I've
worked until 2:00 in the morning. I generally work there past 10:00 or 11:00,
and I recognize that a lot of the Members don't want to do that. And if you
don't want to work late, yeah, you may have some problems getting onto
the computer. I've had almost as much access as I've wanted. It's not been
between the hours of 9:00 and 5:00, or between the hours of 9:00 and 7:00.
I've had to work very late to get on the computer, but I got on the computer.
And I've seen people there. I've heard that minorities have been denied
access. Representative Burke, what time was it? Representative Burke?
OK, I don't remember what time it was that you and I saw each other there
one night. I don't believe, I know, it was after 1:00 a.m. There has not been
a problem in getting access to the computers. Sometimes when I've wanted
to get onto it, if I've wanted to get onto it at 5:00, or 6:00, or 7:00, or 3:00,
I haven't been able to. But to the Members that have been willing to put
in the hours, the Members that have been willing to stay late, staff has been
willing to stay late. Staff has stayed there with us. Staff has worked. And
these arguments about having access problems, and access on the
computer, are simply not true. Maybe you haven't been able to get on
between 9:00 and 5:00, but, if you've been willing to stay late, you can get
on.
Having said that, the last thing I'll say is to Mr. Mackey and Mr. Wallace.
You're asking us for a leap of faith here, because the members of Broward
County do have some problems with this map. But you have been
reasonable. You have shown us all along that you have been willing to work
with us, and we're going to continue to work through the process with you.
And I'm sure that ultimately we will be able to get the plan that we like,
and for this reason, and for this reason, I would urge the Members of the
House to support this plan and to just disregard these false remarks,
primarily about lack of access, which simply have not been true.
Rep. Bo Johnson: In opposition, I recognize Representative Reaves.
Representative Reaves, you're recognized in opposition.
Rep. Reaves: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Speaker. First of all I'd
like to say to Representative Art Simon, on behalf of my family, I truly

appreciate your comments and whole-heartedness. Thank you very much,
sir.

June 4, 1992

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

84

In my life, I have had the opportunity to live all over this nation. I've
lived out West, in Colorado. I spent a good time in California. I've lived in
the Northeast of this nation. I've been all over the South. And I've traveled
extensively and have lived and worked from Miami to Madison. And I
stand here to tell you today, in all honesty, that black people in this nation,
particularly in the state of Florida, are hurting. They're hurting physically,
because of lack of health care, and lack of health insurance. They're hurting
educationally, not getting the type of education that will give them the
skills to compete in the marketplace. They're hurting financially. They are
unemployed, underemployed, underpaid, overworked. And they are
hurting patriotically because they have lost faith in the system. They have
been blocked from participating from day one. They've gone through poll
taxes. They've dealt with all kinds of weird registration requirements to
vote, and still in this state, we have multi-member districts in the city
governments, in county governments, in school board governments, in the
single-member districts in this state legislature. There are bodies of
neighborhoods that have been fragmented so that other people are assured
victory. And they are assured no way possible to seek office. Reality in this
nation, and this is honest, is that an Anglo-Saxon boy can be born, whether
rich or poor, dumb or intelligent, and rise to the position of governor or
president of these United States. But at the best, at the best, a young black
boy can ever imagine, is being a close cohort of a governor or a close cohort
of a president of the United States. This is not the way it ought to be.
Jeremiah raised a question, centuries ago, that still rings in my ears
today: "Is there no balm," meaning relief, "in Gilead? Is there no
physician there? Then why is the daughter," meaning the most precious of
my people, "still not saved?" I stand before you to respectfully ask that you
allow the physicians, meaning the politicians, the leaders, the people who
stand up regardless of the odds, to give them the opportunity to come to
this Legislature in maximum, meaning 20 Members, in the House, meaning
seven Members in the Senate, to deal with the ills of my people. I must
submit to you that those that represent black people over the years have
done a wonderful job. Those persons not limited to the people like Sam
Mitchell, the people like Allen Boyd, the people like Representatives
Elaine Gordon, and Fred Lippman, and Art Simon, and the list goes on,
have represented black people well in this Legislature, and I'm very proud
of them. But, let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that no one can scream about
the pain being felt by the man who is hurting like the hurting man himself.
Black people in this state are hurting. The question put to you: are you
prepared to allow their position to come in? Thank you.
Rep. Bo Johnson: In opposition, Representative Valdes, you're
recognized.
Rep. Valdes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A few moments ago, Mr.
Logan said that he wants us to meet him halfway. Precisely, that is exactly
what the problem is, the difference between Mr. Logan and the Cuban-
American Caucus-because complying with the law is not complying
halfway. It's complying all the way. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the
greatest nation in the world. And the fact that we are here as members of
the minority, born in Cuba, attest to that. I believe if we would have had
many other legislators that have the same philosophy as Mr. Logan has,
years ago, we would have not been here today. But what makes this country
the greatest nation in the world is that this is a nation of law and order.
I am confident that justice, that the Justice Department, will do just that,
justice. And I am confident that justice will prevail in this process. And that
justice will prove to you, and many others in this Chamber, that you are
wrong and that this piece of legislation that we are talking about, to vote
on, does not comply with the law. Mr. Logan, I submit to you that justice
is nonnegotiable and should not prevail halfway either. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Rep. Bo Johnson: As a proponent, Representative Arnold. He's
temporarily out of the Chamber? We'll move to the next proponent.
Representative Cosgrove, you're recognized.
Rep. Cosgrove: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members. You know,
we've heard a lot of debate, a lot of discussion, and a lot of concern, and
we all want to be respectful of each other in this process. And we all want
to be respectful of what the law requires us to do because we are lawmakers.
And I think that's the position that we should be in. But, what disturbs me
is that there are misinterpretations and misstatements of what the law

would require us to do in regards to the Voting Rights Act. And let me state
that I believe that the plan that is offered in this bill, that every Member

June 4, 1992

of this House has had an opportunity to work on and every Member of this
House has had an opportunity to participate in whether you took
advantage of that or not, is a fair plan and the right plan, and meets the
court test.
In fact, let me quote from statements from the most recent court case
dealing with the Votings Rights Act, and a requirement regarding minority
districts, because that's what all the debate has been. There's not been
debate saying, oh this, that. It's all been whether we have complied with
the law under the Voting Rights Act. In the Quilter v. Voinovich opinion,
issued on January 31, 1992, just a very short time ago, the three-judge
federal panel in that case squarely rejected the defendant's claim that the
Voting Rights Act required that, wherever possible, they create majority
minority districts, in other words, legislative districts in which members of
a minority group comprise the majority. The opinion stated that "the
language of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act contains no requirement for
majority-minority districts...where the creation [of majority-minority]
districts wastes minority votes by packing and dilutes minority influence
by fragmenting...we can find no per se requirement for the creation of
majority-minority districts in Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act...Thus, we
conclude that nothing in Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, Gingles,
[supra,] or Armour, [supra,] mandates the drawing of majority-minority
districts wherever there is a concentration of [Black] voters...we conclude
there is no legal mandate or finding of a Voting Rights Act violation to
justify Defendants' creation of..." those kinds of districts.
Now, what we have determined in this process, however, and what we
have met in this plan is that, regardless of the fact that federal court cases
are consistently inconsistent as to what the requirements are and there are
no nationally accepted standards, that we should meet the moral test of
making sure that Florida and Floridians, and minorities in Florida who are
Floridians, meet and have the opportunity to have the candidates of their
choice for representation. And we support that. And this plan can support
that. This plan increases minority representation for the Florida
Legislature. And not only does it increase it, but it nearly meets the same
percentage of representation of the people in regards to their population.
Now, I, like many of my Republican friends, don't like quota bills, don't
like quota plans, and yet, I get the sense during this that some people want
to force a quota system on us. You know that we should make every
determination based on race or ethnicity, and not by fairness, and not by
representation for all the people of Florida. And I think that we should
reject that kind of an argument. We should not place ourselves into a quota
system for reapportionment. We should be making decisions based upon
the legal requirements of the Voting Rights Act, the constitutional
requirements of the State of Florida, the constitutional requirements of the
United States Constitution, and making sure that when we pass a final
plan, that we can make sure that all Floridians have representation, fair
representation, and an ability to elect candidates of their choice as well.
And we have done that in this plan. We can vote with this plan with great
pride. We can vote for this plan with great pride. We can vote for this plan
knowing that we have had 35 public hearings all around the state of
Florida, that we have heard from all kinds of people, all kinds of interests,
and all of those matters were taken into consideration, and hours and hours
and hours of work and input from nearly everyone in this Chamber, in one
form or another. So, I urge the Members to vote for this plan. Let's move
Florida through the 1990s and into the next century with a fair
representation for all the people of Florida.
Rep. Bo Johnson: As a proponent, you're concluding your remarks.
Thank you, Representative Cosgrove. As an opponent, Representative
Brown, you're recognized.
Rep. Brown: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The plan invites scrutiny by
the federal courts and the Justice Department. It dilutes black votes to
protect white incumbents, and it ignores the many federal cases in North
Florida, which have found polarization, racial voting. Hopefully, before the
end of this process, justice will be served. As the House prepares to go in
conference with the Senate, Representative Burke, Mackey and Wallace,
they are going into conference with the Senate that has no plan, absolutely
no plan. The Senate plan has one black seat and a 42 percent seat in North
Florida. The House is in a real precarious situation because you have
Members, like myself, that feel that the House has not done enough. And

then you're going in there, and you really have no room to negotiate. I am
hoping that the House and Senate can get together and resolve the matters

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE

that we have brought before you, and that the taxpayers of Florida will not
have to spend millions of dollars in court costs to come up with a solution
that we can resolve ourselves, if we sit down and do what is right for the
afro-Americans and blacks and hispanics in Florida. And what is right for
the Ds and the Rs in Florida? We should not expend millions of dollars in
taxpayers' money to solve the problem with the leadership that we have
in both Houses. I sincerely hope and pray that we can get together to
resolve these problems in the next 10 days. Thank you.
Rep. Bo Johnson: As an opponent, Representative Rojas is next.
Representative Rojas, you're recognized.
Rep. Rojas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I guess that everyone's
heard everything that needs to be said, so I'll be very brief. My concern,
and I think it's a concern that a lot of Members in this body share, is that
we're doing process to this body. And I remember when I first got elected,
I think it was Representative Lippman who came to Fort Lauderdale, and
he talked about this House as an institution, and he talked about what it
meant to be a Member, and I think that I've gotten there. And I think that
I understand what it means to be a Member of the Florida Legislature. And
I take great pride that I'll always be a Member of the Florida Legislature.
I think we have taken this body, and this institution, to a place we do
not want it to go. We are not a litigious body; we are a body of compromise.
We are a body of people getting together and shaking hands, and your word
is your bond. And I think when you look at what you've done, or what this
map does to the hispanic community in Dade County, there has been a
violation of that trust. There has been a violation of that spirit of
compromise. When you realize that Dade County is 50 percent hispanic,
and when you realize that there is going to be 18 seats, then the middle
ground, what's fair, is nine. And this plan does not do that. Now, we can
talk about laws and we can talk about lawyers, and we can talk about
decisions, and you know what? Lawyers are going to disagree, and courts
are going to disagree, and the law is not always right. And the law may give
someone an advantage, and may give someone a disadvantage, and it may
not be morally right. And that's why we have this thing called equity, and
equity is really what's right. And I suggest to you very simply that when
you look at this plan, and you see that in Dade County, 50 percent of the
population are hispanic, and you're only giving the hispanics seven seats,
that there is something fundamentally wrong with that. And I would
suggest that at the least, at the very, very minimum, we should have nine
seats. Now, the law entitles us to 11, and that's what the Justice
Department is going to say, and that is what the law says. But, I would
suggest to you, that if you don't at least have nine, which is right down the
middle, that everyone can see here that that is wrong. And you should not
vote for something that is fundamentally wrong, and I suggest that you
reject this plan.
Rep. Bo Johnson: As a proponent, Representative Lippman, you're
recognized.
Rep. Lippman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, fellow
Members, I've had the opportunity to be on this floor since, I guess, the
election time of 1978. I had the opportunity to debate the issue on this floor
in 1981 as a proponent for single-member districts. I also want you to know
that there have been many people that have preceded me, and many people
will follow me over the years, that probably feel the same way that I do,
but not to any greater extent. I happen to love this floor. I love the people
that work in the process. I do not see you as Republicans or Democrats. I
do not see you as black or whites. I do not see you as hispanics or non-
hispanics. I see you as Members. And, when I had the opportunity to seek
you out, each particular day, when I sat in that Rules chair, to work as a
person that worked for you, I can tell you that I worked for you as a
Member, as a fellow Member. One of the things that I want to bring to the
conversations that come to your mind today is not the acrimony, is not the
advocacy; it's not the willingness or the emotion to want to be right or to
be wrong, but it is the issue of understanding that you must respect one
another, and the respect that you show one another.
We all come from diverse areas of this state. We all are elected by the
same number of people, technically. No one can take away these buttons.
Some are chairmen, some are not. The only thing that I ask of you, as a
person who has stood on this floor for a number of years, is to remember

that we have a process. And the process and the institution is as great as
your ability to make it. So, I beg of you to relate to each other as Members

June 4, 1992

is eminently correct. Legislation is usually made based on compromises of
different thoughts. But, when you're talking rights of people, when you're
talking the rights of people to be represented by those whom they choose
to represent them, when you're talking about the freedom for having their
selected, their best candidate be elected by them. In that, there can be no

E OF REPRESENTATIVES 85

and not as adversaries, but as Members. So, Mr. Speaker, with those few
words, I just would like to say that, hopefully, they would, all the Members
would, find themselves in a position to vote for this bill and come together
for a final action in the very near future. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Representative Banjanin as an opponent, you're
recognized.
Rep. Banjanin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I speak against this plan in
specifically relating to my area of Northwest Florida. This plan is obviously
drawn to minimize and to disenfranchise both black voters and Republican
voters in this part of the state. In Escambia County, the black population
is split between District 2 and District 3. With 19,946 black citizens put in
District 2 and 10,401 black citizens put in District 3-obviously a blatant
attempt to split the black vote and make it ineffective. In Escambia
County, Republicans are split between District 2 and District 3.
Coincidentally, in District 2 there is 31.06 percent Republicans and in
District 3 there is 31.28 percent Republicans. In District 2 there's 64.99
percent Democrats and in District 3, 64.97 percent Democrats. Seems very
coincidental that those percentages should be almost exactly split two to
one, and that even though the community of interest where people live in
that county are compact, that in fact, those votes have been split.
The Republican votes have been obviously split deliberately, I would say,
in order to make their effectiveness diluted by the margin of two to one.
In Santa Rosa County, same thing happens, the Republican voters are
split, almost 50/50, as in Escambia. District 4 there is 8,887 Republican
voters and in District 5, 6,220. There again, instead of putting them
together, as they should have been, they are split. And, in Okaloosa County,
both Republicans and blacks there have their votes diluted and split. In
District 5, 16,407 are placed and in District 7, 13,291 Republican voters are
placed, instead of putting them together in compactness, in accordance to
the way the neighborhoods and the communities are laid out. The black
voters in Okaloosa County likewise are split with 6,022 in one district and
2,042 in another. Obviously, we are dealing with gerrymandering at its
worst, with an intended political purpose and agenda. I would urge a vote
against this bill because it is unfair to the people of Northwest Florida.
Thank you.

THE SPEAKER IN THE CHAIR
Speaker Wetherell: OK. Mr. Lombard. Haven't we beat this dog for
about enough today? Wait a minute. The press wants to vote. How does
the press vote? Vote it down, half says no, half says yes. Why don't we do
this. Why don't we let you close on behalf of the minority, maybe you and
Ms. Mortham?
Rep. Lombard: Mr. Morse and myself would be fine, Sir.
Speaker Wetherell: OK. Mr. Morse and Mr. Lombard to close on
behalf of the minority, and then we'll let Mr. Burke and Mr. Wallace close.
Anybody that feels compelled to have some remarks placed in the Journal,
if you'll write them up, give them to the Clerk. Then we'll just dazzle them
with that. The plan would be to go ahead and get those remarks done. Take
a vote on the bill. Mr. Lawson, are your people here?
Rep. Lawson: Yes, Sir.
Speaker Wetherell: And Mr. Lawson has got one deal to do for some
people that have come all the way here to do it, and we'd like to do that.
Then, give the Members about an hour break to get back to their office,
do some things, then we'll come back and try and get on the special order.
Does that really grieve anybody badly? OK. Mr. Morse.
Rep. Morse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And Mr. Speaker, let me tell
you, I really was not planning on rising on this occasion. I thought the
words tha ave been said up to now, until recently, have been eminently
correct on the part of the opponents of this bill. But, unfortunately, there
is something that hasn't been said that I have to stand up to debate, that
I have to stand up to say, not fair, not true, not correct. And that is, when
you start talking about hispanic representation, and you start talking about
compromises. Compromises in this body are meant for legislation, and that

86

compromise. When you talk about the right of a minority to be heard in
the courts of law, in that right there can be no compromise. When you talk
about who is a minority and who is protected under the law, there can be
no compromise. I was shocked to hear we needed to compromise on the
results of districting. I was shocked because that is not what the law says.
That is not what the Constitution says. That is not what the Voting Rights
says. The Voting Rights Act specifies that a redistricting process is not, I
repeat, is not an incumbent protection act. It is the Voting Rights Act. It
protects minorities from the majorities, so that their voices can be heard,
so that they can elect the candidates of their choice.
There is another issue that has been raised, and that is, that if in Dade
County is halfway. We're not talking here about the county commission,
ladies and gentlemen. We're not talking about the City of Miami
Commission. We're not talking about a county government, we're talking
about a statewide plan. And if you want to talk about numbers, hispanics
do make 12 percent of the population of the state. If you want to multiply,
I think really for hispanics, if you really wanted to assign some sort of a
quota, it would be like 14. We're not talking 14, we're talking 11 in Dade
and one in the West Coast. That is only 12 out of the 14 that if you wanted
to do some of obligation, which we're not, because we're only asking for
what is fair for us to have. We cannot, we cannot compromise in front of
our community, and I tell you now, and I tell you tomorrow, and I will tell
you next month, there will be no compromise of the hispanic community,
because, Mr. Speaker, we do not really like Tio Tomas in our community.
Speaker Wetherell: OK. Representative Lombard, to close on
behalf of the Republican Party.
Rep. Lombard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, we've finally reached
the time where you don't have to listen to Jim Lombard anymore, at least
on this subject. That's for this time. As I said before, we're going to be back,
and back about one of the problems that we have. And you know, there are
a lot of caucuses running around; Representative Jennings has an elderly
caucus, and so forth. I, along with Mr. Lippman and some other Members,
I'm on the short person's caucus, and I'd appreciate it if Mr. Wallace could
move a little bit so my little figure could be seen by the Speaker and other
folks. Thank you, Mr. Wallace.
First, I need to address an issue that has come up time and time again
here on the floor. And Mrs. Simone addressed this in her remarks,
specifically in regard to Manatee and Sarasota Counties. And I have
attempted throughout this entire process to keep from being parochial
about Sarasota County. We specifically addressed the committee when it
met in Sarasota City Hall on the issue of community of interest. And we
did say, as Mrs. Simone pointed out, that it was important for these
districts to move east-west and not north-south. I represent a district that
is 26 miles long and two miles wide. I represent people in the northern part
of my district who were from, basically, New York City. In the southern
end of my district, I represent people who are from the Deep South. That
isn't what I considered a good community of interest. Those Northern folks
ought to be in the northern part of the county and there ought to be a
representative for them in corresponding central county, south county.
Well, guess what? Mr. Mackey doesn't believe that Sarasota County
should have three Representatives, as we do now. We have a population of
a quarter of a million people, and under the Mackey plan, we will have one
representative district after this is over. They couldn't get rid of me
because I live in the middle of the county, so my house is smack dab in the
middle of the only district in Sarasota County. The one in the north would
be represented by somebody from Manatee County, the south county
would be represented by somebody from Charlotte and from somebody
from Lee.
Now, let me tell you about the Lee County district. My family has had
a business in Sarasota County since 1923. My grandfather went there in
1918, and bought the business in 1923. It was Manatee County at that time.
That business, which has been my base for my entire life-I first set foot
there in 1942-has been removed from my legislative district, the one that
I would be living in, and has been placed in a district that is separated by
12 miles from Miguel De Grandy's district. Community of interest? That
is a whole new world of double-speak, ladies and gentlemen.
I also heard here on the floor, there's a possibility under the Voting

Rights Act that blacks would win the Democratic primary and then get
defeated by white Republicans. Let me assure you, as I stated earlier, as

June 4, 1992

far as Jim Lombard and my roots and my family are concerned, we in this
caucus are going to have black Republican candidates all over the state of
Florida. That I guarantee.
The next point I'd like to address is, Representative Glickman had some
eloquent remarks about having an experience of his own in dealing with the
Voting Rights Act. And I understand that, Mr. Glickman, because, though
I did not run for City Commissioner in the City of Sarasota, the City of
Sarasota is under the Justice Department, and a judicial review on the
Voting Rights Act. The point Mr. Glickman made was an excellent one, but
I ask him why, after his eloquent remarks, he did not vote for the Reaves-
Brown plan which would have of maximized that effort. That I think, sir,
is an issue. I need to tell you a little bit more about the Voting Rights Act.
On October 5th, 1981, it voted out of the House of Representatives.
I am going to read the names of the congressmen from Florida who voted
for the Voting Rights Act: Congressman Hutto, Congressman Fuqua,
Congressman Bennett, Congressman Chappell, Congressman McCollum,
Congressman Young, Congressman Gibbons, Congressman Ireland,
Congressman Nelson, Congressman Bafalis, Congressman Mica,
Congressman Shaw, Congressman Pepper and Congressman Fascell. On
June 18th, 1982, it passed the United States Senate. These are the
following people that voted yes: Senator Hawkins; here's a familiar name,
Senator Chiles, the very Senator Chiles that was concerned about the
impact that the Voting Rights Act might have on Congressman Bacchus
and Congressman Peterson. My, my, what a difference 10 years makes.
Now, I would like to show you a map here, which I have addressed this
issue several times, and when now we have rendered it in living color for
you. The Senators will move, these two skinny guys here, we can get a good
look at this map. It was said in good fun. Representative Garcia is going
to indicate the districts under the Voting Rights Act here. District 2 is 39
percent black, voting-age population 34 percent black. This, by the way,
is the amendment 205, by Mr. Reaves and Ms. Brown. District 9, 35 percent
black, 31 percent voting age; District 12, 52 percent black, 48 percent voting
age; District 16, 59 percent, 56 percent; 17, 55, 50; 23, 47, 42; 29, 43, 39; 40,
58, 53; 45, 43 percent black, 38 percent voting age; 55, 51 percent black, 46
percent voting age; 63, 61 percent black, 56 percent voting age; District 65,
right there in red, is in Tampa. That's 30 percent hispanic, 30 percent
voting-age population hispanic; District 76, 49 percent black, 43 percent
voting age; District 83, 56 percent black, 49 percent voting age; District 91,
60 percent black, 53 percent voting age; 92, 50 percent, 42. Mr. Speaker,
if some of these gentlemen could get out of the way, maybe other Members
could see what districts we are indicating here. Thank you. District 92, 50
percent black, 42 percent voting age; District 102, 59 percent black, 55
percent voting age. Now, District 103 in Dade County, 65 percent hispanic,
65 percent voting age; District 105, 71 percent hispanic, 70 percent voting
age; District 106, 60 percent black, 54 percent voting age; District 107, 61
percent black, 55 percent voting age; District 108, 59 percent black, 54
percent voting age. The remaining districts are all hispanic numbers that
I am giving you: District 109, 63 percent hispanic, 64 percent voting age;
110, 64 to 65; 111, 75 to 78; 112, 64 to 64; 113, 64 to 65; 114, 64 to 66; 115,
64 to 65; 116, 67 to 68; 117, 65 percent hispanic, 65 percent voting age.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the map drawn by two Members of the
Black Caucus. This is a plan that we voted down. Let me assure you, you
will see this again. The Justice Department will approve a plan either
identical or very close to this plan. Now, what we have tried to do here, and
again, if you could clear away folks, so let the fans in the back see, please.
What I've tried to do is highlight the county lines here, but they are faint,
but you can come back and look at them later. The voting tracts are also
here, I mean the census tracts. Take a good look at that because they
represent communities of interests. Those are the lines that you will end
up seeing. Mr. Mackey and Mr. Wallace's gerrymandering will not occur
after these district lines are drawn. We will have lines that are drawn fairly
and well. Thank you, Mr. Garcia. We can set that up in the back over here.
I am also glad to see that this is such a humorous process because it won't
be funny when we go to court.
Now, I would like to address the issue of legislative impact. The Senate
has had no votes scheduled. They were due to vote today. They do not meet
tomorrow, and next week is the last week of session. We are there, folks,
and that's what we talked about last year. Let me address some of these

remarks. And by the way, Mr. Speaker, in our exchange of correspondence,
you remarked at one time that you thought that I could serve on the

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE

conference committee due to my considerable knowledge of the law which
must be at least as good as the attorneys for the Republican National
Committee. Well, I appreciated Mr. Burke and Mr. Wallace's exchange
earlier, they sounded like, at least as good as, our former colleague Sam
Bell.
Now, let me establish some of the points that we have tried to do through
correspondence. One, point one is, as Governor Chiles said originally, a lot
of this work could have been done in 1991. The only issues that were
required under the Constitution that had to be dealt with in 1992, were,
the today, the third reading on this joint resolution and the third reading
on the congressional plan. We could have done all the debate, all the
questioning, everything on second reading in 1991, and we pointed that
out time and time again. Here we are at the last minute, and we do not have
a plan yet that the Justice Department can approve. This strategy of delay,
as I pointed out last year, served only to hurt challengers and to protect
incumbents. Well, they don't think that's such a hot idea in the federal
courts, believe me, and especially members of minority groups.
Many times, Mr. Speaker, you and I have discussed the possibility that
next year over 50 percent of the House could be freshmen. That's a distinct
possibility. Many of our Members are going to seek higher office. Nobody
knows what districts they can run in. This process has been prolonged
overly long.
The other item that we had is people have been a little critical of the fact
that this Republican Caucus has had to have some people come in and give
us outside assistance. We had to have our own computer. And I am sorry,
Mr. Geller, we do not get the access that you get, that'sthe problem. We
have had to have our own computer. We've had to have some of our own
consultants come here and help us with this. John Morgan's name came up
in debate. John Morgan is paid for by our caucus. We do not have the
money to pay Kim Brace. The people of Florida paid for Kim Brace to give
the Democratic Caucus advice and counseling. Seven million dollars of the
taxpayers' money has been spent on this issue. Two hundred thousand
dollars of our money has been spent on this. This is not fair. There has not
been a thorough accounting of these expenditures. We have had to find it
out through the newspapers. We can't find it out ourselves. Our request for
a computer terminal, legal assistance and private access, Mr. Geller, to the
redistricting suite have been denied time and time again.
The failure to adopt meaningful policies or criteria to guide this process
have been another problem. We tried to do this in the special session. We
tried to get this procedure established. That was not done. You wanted to
keep them vague in order to have nothing to stand in the way of the
majority party's ability to gerrymander as we have done in this plan. You
padlocked the redistricting suite when things weren't going your way,
denying access to everybody but leadership of the majority party.
A Member of this body was denied her right to vote on a committee and
represent her constituency. There's been an obvious attempt. It happened
yesterday to deny up or down votes on plans by black and hispanic
legislators by the use of procedural gimmicks. There were many hearings
held before any map was produced, but the process is so rushed once the
plans were produced in order to dampen public inspection and input to the
plan.
There has been a refusal to follow what is both the law and proper public
policy in the creation of districts that allow racial minorities the
opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. None of the plans your
caucus has produced comes close to complying with the Voting Rights Act,
as I pointed out here, or providing racial minorities the representation they
deserve. The Democratic plan falls far short by offering only a token 13
districts over 40 percent total population of the black voters of the state.
You saw the plans back here. It's much more, much more there, as
incomprehensible as your clear refusal to empower the hispanic voters as
Mr. Morse just said. The maps passed out in committee illegally packed
hispanic voters into only seven majority districts when 11 had been drawn
in other plans such as this one. In addition, the record you have established
at the subcommittee, committee and floor all demonstrate that the purpose
and intent behind your plan is to protect white incumbents at the expense
of Florida's racial minority, passing political gerrymanders that divide
communities for the simple purposes of protecting white incumbents at the
expense of racial minorities and Republicans. Mr. Mackey's explanation

only emphasizes that, ladies and gentlemen. It is no wonder that your maps
have garnered the editorial derision of virtually all of our state newspapers.

June 4, 1992

plan, particularly for the Senate, is far superior from other plans that we
know are definitely coming to conference, and we are still open because this
is a process, not an event. Our plan has four definite black seats. We will
win in the primary and in the general election. It has three strong hispanic
seats.

E OF REPRESENTATIVES 87

Florida has changed over the past decade. It has become larger. Its racial
minority population continues to be woefully underrepresented and
Republican voter registration has far outpaced Democratic registration.
Rather than acknowledge these changes and produce fair plans that
recognize them, you have chosen to retrench and to try to hang onto a
Florida that no longer exists. It would have been a lot better for Florida
if the process had worked a lot better. But it is not over yet. That's what
Yogi Berra said.
I want to tell you a little personal thing. Mr. Wallace and I attended a
small college in New England, 6,000 undergraduates, and the motto of that
college founded in 1636 is Veritas. In English that's truth. I cannot find
the truth in this bill. I urge a negative vote on this piece of legislation.
Thank you very much.
Speaker Wetherell: OK. Mr. Burke, then Mr. Mackey, then Mr.
Wallace to close, and, by golly, we're going to vote this week.
Representative Burke.
Rep. Burke: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and since there are
three of us, I think we need not take it as long. Let me just say that first
of all, as I've said many times during this process, that reapportionment
is a process. It's not an event. And that includes this vote that we are taking
today. I remind our colleagues that the legislative process is not like Burger
King-you can't always have it your way. That this collegial body which
sometimes I think continually seeks consensus, and when we decide
whether or not there is an issue of whether a plan is better or not is not
decided in a vacuum but is determined by the available options.
Legislatively, that means we've got bills, we've got amendments, we've got
reports. We can't vote on ideas because ideas change as we've seen during
this process. And also, because we have rules in this process, that we and
any other society that wants to avoid chaos must have, like our rule which
has been indicated many times that we are not to make personal comments
on the floor, but we are to stick to ideas of individuals.
Let me say that I believe and accept the sincerity of Members who have
spoken, and I adopt fully the last comments of Representative Reaves, that
this is the place that you come to find a balm in Gilead. I would recommend
to you that this document is a balm and we're continually going to apply
it until we have full relief.
But, let me just say this to my colleagues and especially I heard the
minority leader speaking and he really just doesn't understand why it is
that we, particularly African-American Members, have some hesitancy
about some of the Republican plans. We would not have hesitancy if all the
Republicans were people like Jim Lombard or Sandy Mortham, or Miguel
De Grandy or Mario Diaz-Balart because we can work with those people.
But, I remember this is also the same party of David Duke, the party of
Jesse Helms, the party of Strom Thurmond, and the party of E. Clay Shaw.
So, if you don't understand why it is that we have some concern about
working with the party, you don't understand us. So, what I would suggest
to you is that when we talk about the history of civil rights and what
happened back in '82, remember that during the 80s the only presidents
to ever veto a civil rights bill are Republican presidents, and if you
remember back in early '80, some of the progressive Republicans got
together with the progressive Democrats and overrode a presidential veto
of a civil rights bill.
So, understand that we are looking at this history from our eyes. It is a
little different when you say, "well trust us," and we look at that
background. The Jesse Helms' ad that he ran just two years ago was a
despicable ad, and yet, you say trust us even though this is one of the top
leaders of our party. So, I say it because you need to understand why there
is some hesitancy when one says, well, there is no difference between the
Republican and Democratic Party.
However, what I can say is that at least in Florida, I think we've had some
progress. When you can have two African-Americans who can disagree
firmly without calling names, calling each other names, but can speak from
diverse backgrounds with common elements with a different philosophy
then there's been some progress. I would just suggest to you that our House

88

So finally, Mr. Speaker, let me suggest to you something that I've only
said in committee, but I think people forget about this. That Civil Rights
Bill of 1965 did not come because politicians got together and decided let's
have a good idea. The Civil Rights Bill came up because it was struck down
in Congress, wouldn't go any place, until men, women and children at the
Edmund Pettis Bridge near Selma, Alabama were run over, and all of
America saw it on television and were appalled. Just a couple of weeks later
all of America, black and white, got together and decided to go over that
bridge from Selma to Montgomery, and on the night that they went over
the bridge and heard Dr. King speak, that night coming back a white
housewife from Detroit, Michigan, Viola Luizzo was murdered because she
came to help civil rights and to help African-Americans to have equal
rights. Because of those events, people in Congress decided then that this
was the right thing to do.
So, it didn't come out of a vacuum, it came out of a historical fact. But
I tell you this, one year later after the Civil Rights Bill of 1965, I turned
18, and then in Georgia, Kentucky we could vote at 18, but I suggest to you
that one year later even after that Act, there were still people that would
try to put road blocks to African-Americans to persuade us that it was
dangerous to vote. So, I suggest to you that we take this because it did not
come about from some great commission or some great legislative report,
and we ought to remember that as we vote.
I leave you with the words of somebody who was not an African-
American but still who was a great, great person of literature. Shakespeare
once said when you talk about the philosophy of how you see where you
are today, that there are four things that never return to you: the spoken
word, the past life, the spared arrow and a neglected opportunity. And I
urge of you to not neglect this opportunity, the last opportunity in the 20th
century, for us to put Florida on a course where indeed one day we all are
going to be brothers and sisters without regard to our skin color, our
complexion because we all believe in what's right. I suggest to you that
despite what has been said, look at this bill. Compare it to the others, and
you will see that, in Florida, the House of Representatives is doing the right
thing. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Mackey.
Rep. Mackey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I promise you I
won't be real long in my remarks. But I do want to point out just a few
things that have been said on this floor during this debate. First of all, this
process started a long time ago, and I've always heard, and I was raised on
the premise that you only get out of anything what you put into it. There
have been several Members that have not bothered to work on the plans,
that have not bothered to come to the suite, that have not bothered to look
at the computer and how it works and how to help their constituency. We
heard some remarks earlier by some of the House Members wondering why
they were not called. My question would be: why, if you were interested in
the process, didn't you take the time to get involved in the process so that
you could fairly represent your constituency.
Access in the suite, we've covered that. Everyone knows that it was open
but Members, Members said please give us some privacy while we are
working with the analyst, don't let people walk in on us so that they see
what we are trying to do at this point and time. That's only fair, out of
courtesy, to the other Members.
Negotiable rights-Mr. De Grandy talked about that he was not here to
negotiate the rights of his constituency. Neither is Mr. Logan. I believe in
all fairness what Mr. Logan was saying to you, Mr. De Grandy, is simply
do not create the seats that you desire in Dade County at the expense of
the black community because he is here as well to represent his
constituency, and he was inviting you to please join with him to make sure
that all people of this state are represented as fairly as possible. That's
what negotiable rights are all about. Every person on this floor should be
here to look after their constituency, but to look after one particular group
to run over another for that purpose is not fairness at all, and that's all that
Mr. Logan was asking. When you talk about the number of hispanic seats,
what about Mr. Elvin Martinez? It seems like when you throw your number
out, you keep forgetting that seat. That's also a part of the hispanic
community.
And let me point out one other thing: it's always easy for someone to

throw figures out, but I guess several of you are hoping that no one checks
behind you. We heard Representative Banjanin earlier talk about how

June 4, 1992

deplorable this plan was because it divides the black community in his
area. Mr. Banjanin stood up on the floor yesterday and supported the
Mortham-De Grandy plan, which divided the black community worse,
worse than the plan that we have here, so we are going to give him the
opportunity to do the right thing and be able to vote for this plan as well.
Mr. Speaker, I don't want to take long, but we tried to be fair to everyone
in the process and as open as possible. It is now the time to vote on this
bill and move forward. I think it offers everyone a product that they can
work with. We'll move to conference, and as we've stated before if there are
things that they would like to bring to our attention that we can further
help them or work with them on, we will be willing to do so. Mr. Speaker,
I close with that and urge everyone to vote for the bill.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Wallace, for a final close.
Rep. Wallace: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll be short as well.
Representative Simon made some comments about patience, and I
appreciate those comments, and I want to say that I appreciate the
patience that all the Members have shown in working through this process,
and I think we can all be grateful that we only do this every 10 years. I had
to feel, though, as Representative Lombard was speaking, that his
comments were so riddled with inaccuracies about our process that they
had to have been designed to provoke and to try the patience of anyone who
knows the facts. I am not going to sit here today and work through those
one by one and explain the truth, but I want you to know that I am patient
enough to sit with any one of you or any member of the press or public and
explain the facts and get the truth out, point by point, at some later date.
There were a couple of things though, that I really feel like I do need to
address, and I think it may be symptomatic of those remarks that we heard.
Representative Lombard made the representation to this body that poor
Sarasota County would only elect one representative if this plan passes.
Well, let me tell you what the facts are. Under this plan, District 69 has its
entire population within Sarasota County. District 68 has 2,544 residents
from Manatee County and 106,342 from Sarasota County. Now, it's true
that the residents of that district will have the choice among the candidates
who present themselves next year, and it's true also that if the 106,000
residents from Sarasota County choose to elect one of the 2,544 residents
of Manatee County, then I guess Representative Lombard's statement will
be correct-but certainly the control of that second district, 98 percent in
the hands of the citizens of Sarasota County.
Representative Lombard talked about the question of delay, and I'm
surprised that he would lead with his chin on the question of delay here
on the floor; because before the gavel first fell on this constitutional
legislative session, a session when we had the responsibility of conducting
redistricting, Representative Lombard was party to a little dog and pony
show. A little press conference in which the Chairman of the Republican
National Committee came down from Washington, and for public relations
purposes, announced a suit against this body-litigation, charging that we
were delaying the process. And, we said that day, and we said in the weeks
which followed, right up until the time that the judge ruled that that was
not a legitimate suit, that it was a frivolous suit, that it would be thrown
out, and it was dismissed. It was dismissed. At the time the judge dismissed
it, yes, he did allow the plaintiffs in that suit 10 days in which to refile their
complaint and come back and take another crack at pleading a legitimate
complaint. But, very interesting, before the 10 days had run, the lawyers
representing the Republican plaintiffs in that case came to me and came
to the other defendants in the case, and they asked for an extension of time
in which to respond and file their second complaint. So let's not talk about
delay.
We have a Constitution. We are following the Constitution. We can only
ask the courts to respect that Constitution, and that's what the court did
when it threw out that public relations complaint. We've worked hard, and
I have to commend Representative Burke and Representative Mackey.
They have worked many, many hours, and their patience has been tried,
and it's been tested, and they have responded well. I have to add, beyond
those two: subcommittee members, the members of the committee, and
especially our staff, has worked around the clock to make it possible for us
to bring this bill to the floor today.
Speaker Wetherell: So, Representative Wallace having closed,

Representative Kelly moves that there is an absence of a quorum. The
Clerk will unlock the machine; the Members will proceed to record their

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

presence. Quorum call. Have all Members recorded their presence? Have
all Members recorded their presence? Lombard is here now. The Clerk will
lock the machine and announce the presence of a quorum.
Reading Clerk: 118 Members voting. A quorum is present, Mr.
Speaker.
Speaker Wetherell: Before we vote, there are some pairs that need
to be announced. Mr. Langton.
Rep. Langton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For a purpose of announcing
a pair. If Elaine, Representative Elaine Gordon was here, she would vote
"Yes." I would vote "No."
Speaker Wetherell: OK. Further? So the question recurs on House
Joint Resolution 2491. The Clerk will unlock the machine; the Members
will proceed to vote. Have all Members voted? Have all Members voted?
Have all Members voted? The Clerk will lock the machine and announce
the vote.
Reading Clerk: 69 "Yeas," 48 "Nays," Mr. Speaker.
Speaker Wetherell: By your vote, the bill passes.

Remarks from March 6, 1992

REPRESENTATIVE SILVER IN THE CHAIR
Rep. Silver: Representative Rojas, for what purpose?
Rep. Rojas: For a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker.
Rep. Silver: OK. Let me get the Membership-Representative Rojas
has asked for a moment of personal privilege. Will the Members please take
their seats.
Rep. Rojas: Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, this is the first
time I raise on a point of personal privilege and it's after much hesitation,
but after lots of thought.
Yesterday a statement was made that we were being punished for being
"uppity spics," and I take exception with that statement. I don't think
that-I don't consider myself what that word is. I don't represent people
that are that. I represent Cuban-Americans who are hard-working people,
who are very thankful for the opportunities that this country has given
them, but are very, very proud of their culture, and I think that I am lucky
to be a Cuban-American, and I hope some day you all can become a Cuban-
American because I am very proud of what I am. I take exception with that
statement, and the people back home take exception with that statement.
I also want to say that I know that this body has discriminated against
me because I am a Republican. I feel that this body has been unfair in the
House seats that it has drawn, but at no time have I ever felt any
discrimination from anybody in this House for being a hispanic. I felt that
I've been accepted. I've been a friend, and I just want the record to be real
clear that I am very, very proud of my culture, and I am very proud of the
people I represent; but that derogatory term, when it's said that we are
"uppity spics," does not apply to me.
Rep. Silver: Representative Valdes, for what purpose?
Rep. Valdes: Point of personal privilege.
Rep. Silver: You're recognized.
Rep. Valdes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, rise for the first time
on a point of personal privilege, and I rise to also refute such a derogatory
remark trying to categorize us Cuban-Americans as "uppity spics." In fact,
it brings back to me very ugly memories. Memories that perhaps the
gentleman that said the remark cannot really take side with because he did
not grow up-as I understand he grew up in Spain and not in South
Florida. But I remember that in the early 60s as I was growing up, I had
to many a day fistfight my way through elementary school in order to have
my self-respect and especially to make sure that those people around me
did not call me a "spic" either. I rise today with a lot of concern because
the person that made that remark is a colleague that is also a Cuban-
American. Now, I have many, many, many ugly memories from such days
when I was growing up. In fact, the only scar that I got on my body is a scar

that I got right here fighting one of these same individuals-fistfighting
him in the school yard in order to make sure that I was respected.

89

So, I, too, rise to make sure that this body and also all Floridians make
sure that we are respected the same way that we respect all Floridians in
our state. Thank you.
Rep. Silver: We need to move on. Representative Gutman, you're
recognized.
Rep. Gutman: Thank you. This is also the first time in eight years
that I rise for a point of personal privilege. Mr. Speaker, let me first tell
you that many of us have faced discrimination throughout our lives and
many of us take offense at name callings. My community is composed of
both Cuban-Americans, of which I am one and very proud of, and people
of the Jewish faith, of which I am one and very proud of. Anybody, anybody
who mentions an individual in a derogatory term, I take offense to. I
believe, I believe that as a Republican, the reapportionment process has
discriminated against me. I also believe that as a hispanic, the
reapportionment process has discriminated against me, but terms need to
be limited-terms need to be limited in regard to what we say on the floor.
Statements in regards to what we are need to be limited. I am proud of
representing a community, a Cuban-American and Jewish community.
Thank you.
Rep. Silver: Representative Johnson.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. For the purpose of an
announcement.
(Recognition of guests in the gallery and announcements.)
Rep. Silver: Representative Diaz-Balart, for what purpose?
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker.
Rep. Silver: OK. You're recognized.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just heard some
disturbing comments by my good friends and colleagues a little while ago
criticizing a fellow colleague for a statement that he made yesterday in the
debate where he said that we are being punished for being "uppity spics."
I would like all of you to recall, my good friend Valdes, my good friend
Rojas, my good friend Gutman, that that is precisely what Mr. Clarence
Thomas said in the hearings when he called them a high-tech lynching-
he was being submitted to a high-tech lynching because he had the gall to
be an "uppity black." That's what he was saying, and Mr. De Grandy
referred to that statement. Basically it was a quote of that sort, saying that,
"Here I have the courage to fight to maximize hispanic representation and
you're going to be punishing me like Clarence Thomas said, for being, quote
unquote, an 'uppity spic.'"
It is unfortunate that you all do not understand that statement. I think,
clearly-I also, Mr. Valdes, lived many years in Spain, I think longer than
Representative De Grandy, and I know that you're not questioning because
of exile, because of our tragedy of exile, you're not questioning that if you
live a little bit more time here or there that he is less hispanic, more
hispanic. Obviously not and I see you nodding your head in agreement. It's
unfortunate that some of my good friends and colleagues didn't understand
what he was saying. The statement that he made was very clear, very clear.
If there's been any disrespect in this Chamber, it's been disrespect towards
the hispanic community. Mr. Valdes, you and I; Mr. Gutman, you and I;
and Mr. Rojas, even you and I have agreed that we must demand 11
hispanic seats. The person who's been fighting for 11 hispanic seats, the
point person is Representative De Grandy, and for anybody, anybody to
say that he'd said something offensive when he was fighting for our
community is unacceptable-is totally unacceptable. Mr. De Grandy, in
the debate again quoting something very similar to what Mr. Clarence
Thomas said, said that if you consider us "uppity spics" and you want to
punish us for that go ahead and do that, but we're not going to sell out and
we're not going to bend. And I hope that none of us do sell out and none
of us do bend. Representative De Grandy has had the courage on this floor,
has had the courage in committee, has had the courage anywhere and
everywhere to fight for our rights and our responsibilities and our people.
If they consider us "uppity spics" and they're going to punish us for that,
I join Representative De Grandy in saying, do it and we don't care, but
please, let's not forget what we are here doing. Let's not forget who we

represent. Let's not forget what the issues are. Let's not forget who is
fighting for what. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

June 4, 1992

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

90 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE

Remarks from March 13, 1992 on HJR 2491
Speaker Wetherell: OK. Representative Johnson. All right
Members, if you'd take your seats, please. We'll try and get you through
this as quickly and as expeditiously as possible. We'll give everybody a
chance to do what they're supposed to do and what they've got to do, and
hopefully we'll still have enough time for-pass a few bills before we get
out of here. Mr. Johnson.
Rep. Bo Johnson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We want to take up the
reapportionment bill. I need to get a bill number on that, if I could be
advised.
OK. I move you, Sir, the rules be waived that we might take up, instanter,
House Bill 2491.
Speaker Wetherell: You've heard the motion. All those in favor say
"Yea," opposed "Nay." Show it done, without objection. Read 2491.
Reading Clerk: House Joint Resolution 2491: a joint resolution of
apportionment; providing for the apportionment of the House of
Representatives and the Senate; adopting the federal decen-
Speaker Wetherell: Mr. Wallace. Now, before you do anything, Mr.
Wallace, Members, I'm sure all of this is going to go to court. Therefore,
please, be seated, listen up. If you've got a conversation, take it somewhere
else so the sound system can pick up the appropriate responses in order
that we may spread all this on the record so some lawyer can spend a lot
of time and make a lot of money reading all this stuff later. Mr. Wallace.
Rep. Wallace: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In case anyone wasn't
watching last night, or hasn't participated in a discussion or two today, we
have received the House joint resolution on redistricting back from the
Senate. The Senate amended the House's legislative plan by substituting
Senator Thomas' Senate plan for the House's Senate plan, and substituting
Senator Kiser's House plan for the House plan which was passed out of this
House last week. Thank you. Thank you. We are going to take up a series
of motions which, with respect to these various plans that were sent down
by the Senate, we'll work through them one at a time and explain carefully
where we are at each step so the Members understand.
Mr. Speaker, what I first would move is that we refuse to concur in
Senate Amendment 3, and request the Senate to recede from their Senate
Amendment 3. That is Senator Thomas' plan for the Senate, and our
motion is that we refuse to concur and request the Senate to recede from
Senate Amendment 3.
Speaker Wetherell: The motion is that the House do refuse to
concur in Senate Amendment 3 and ask the Senate to recede. Is there
debate? Representative Webster.
Rep. Webster: I think there is an amendment on the desk, Mr.
Speaker, which will be a higher priority.
Speaker Wetherell: OK. Have we got an amendment? Now, let me
tell you what the game plan is so ya'll can make up your own minds. We
can spend as much time as we need to do this. What Mr. Webster is going
to do is, obviously, offer another Senate plan, at this point in time. We need
to allow for the Republican Party to make certain statements, and I'm sure
Mr. Wallace is going to want to make certain statements. We do have a lot
of other work to do. I want everybody to make sure they get their deals,
but we can spend five or six hours here, or just enough time to get
everybody to do what they need, whatever the will of the House is. I'll hold
off any motions for the previous question on the amendment, and that kind
of stuff, to allow you to get in what you need, and Mr. Wallace to get in
what he needs. But if you could be brief and to the point.
Rep. Webster: Always been a man of few words, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker Wetherell: Great! Have we got the amendment? OK. We
don't have the amendment here, Mr. Webster. Hang on a minute, before
I take that motion.

Rep. Webster: Our staff filed that amendment-
Speaker Wetherell: Pardon?
Rep. Webster: Our staff filed that amendment. We could come up
and check it out.

I1

--- --- -- -- --

risk as to whether that black candidate, once nominated, can prevail in a
general election contest. And when you create that situation, you can call
it a black district or an African-American district, it isn't necessarily so.
And in fact, you've created a substantial risk that the candidate who is
elected will not be the candidate of choice of the black community but

E OF REPRESENTATIVES June 4, 1992

Speaker Wetherell: OK. Mr. Wallace.
Rep. Wallace: Mr. Speaker. It's my understanding, I thought it had
been corrected, but there is an amendment which bears Senator Langley's
name, and I believe that since Senator Langley is not in a position to offer
that here, I believe-
Speaker Wetherell: OK. So, it's the Langley amendment that Mr.
Webster wishes to offer. I think that's it. Correct, Mr. Webster?
Rep. Webster: Yes, Mr. Speaker. What we had to do was-because
the language was difficult to reproduce to get it on the House computer,
the time would have never allowed that-we had checked with the
Chairman to make certain that would be OK to use the actual amendment
that was offered in the Senate here, and that seemed to be agreeable.
Speaker Wetherell: Is that agreeable, Mr. Wallace? OK? Mr.
Wallace?
Rep. Wallace: Mr. Speaker, yes, and let me just make sure that the
Members know there are two plans for the Senate which were on your desk
when we reconvened at 1:30 p.m. One of them is numbered 188, and that
is the Senator Thomas amendment that we are seeking to have rejected
from the Senate. The second is numbered 180, and that is the Senator
Langley amendment which Representative Webster is offering here.
Speaker Wetherell: So you'll-we want to take up, then, this
amendment, Mr. Wallace, and you're OK, Mr. Webster, this is the one
you're looking for?
Rep. Webster: Yes, that's correct.
Speaker Wetherell: OK. Read the amendment.
Reading Clerk: Representative Webster offered the following
amendment: on page 267, lines 17 through page 351, line 2, strike all of
those lines and insert-
Speaker Wetherell: Mr. Webster, to explain the amendment.
Rep. Webster: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment is one that
I have worked closely-actually it is the original Brown-Reaves
amendment. There were some modifications and discussion with
Representatives Brown and Reaves of how this amendment would come
about. There was some criticism when it was originally offered here: one,
in that it wasn't perfectly or technically correct. Today it's before you as
technically correct. But what I want to explain is that this particular
amendment would expand, I believe to the maximum extent feasible, the
opportunities for minorities to run and be elected in the State Senate. This
particular plan, compared to the plan that's actually the Thomas plan,
which is on the bill now, is far superior. The Thomas plan has one seat for-
with a black population over 60. This amendment that's before you has
two. He has one, this plan that's before you-that's the Senate
amendment-has one seat that's over 50. This plan that's before you has
four. This plan has three seats that are over 60 that are hispanic. The
amendment that we're offering has four.
I think the choice is very clear here, if you're interested in maximizing
the Voting Rights Act, if you're interested in putting forth a plan that
would be a plan that would be equitable to all people, if you're interested
in putting forth a plan that would actually change the system. I think,
again, here is the plan we are offering. I know it is far superior to the
amendment that is before us, the Senate amendment. I think it goes well
beyond what they tried to do in the Senate, as far as putting forth a plan
that even came close to maximizing the Voting Rights Act. I would
encourage you to vote for this amendment.
Speaker Wetherell: Mr. Wallace.
Rep. Wallace: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As Mr. Webster says, this is
an amendment, in its essence, which was debated on this floor previously
and rejected by this House. There are some small changes, and there are
technical corrections. The essence of it is, again, that it creates districts
where there is a significant enough black percentage for the black
community to control the nomination process, but it raises a substantial

instead a white candidate who is likely to be Republican and likely,
therefore, based on historic voting patterns, not to be the candidate of
choice of the black community. And therefore, I urge your defeat of this
amendment.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Burke.
Rep. Burke: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, for the record, and just
so we can compare. On this particular amendment, I want to indicate that
I think it is an amendment superior to what the Senate sent down. But I
would suggest to you it is not superior to the product that we have. In the
plan, if we refuse to recede-I'm sorry, refuse to accept the Senate plan,
then we would have the House's plan which had three districts that were
50 percent-over 50 percent black population; and they were 55 percent,
58 percent and 59 percent. Also, in the weakest district, which was 55
percent, which was only-I mean, 49.6 percent voting-age population-62
percent of the voters were black in that district. So, I would just suggest
to you there are three real black districts in there. In addition, there is the
district in Duval County which is 48 percent. In this plan that is before you,
let me indicate that there are only two districts that have the voting-age
population in excess of 50 percent. In fact, the District number 3 under this
plan, which has the population of 51.8 percent, has a voting-age population
of 47 percent; District 7, under this plan, which has a black population of
52 percent has a voting-age population of 48 percent; District 23, under this
plan, which has a 50.8 percent district, has a voting-age population of 45.5
percent; District 28, under this plan, which has a 52.9 percent population,
has a voting-age population of 47 percent. Now, the other two districts:
District 32, under this plan, which has a 64 percent population, has a
voting-age population of 58.8 percent; and District 36, which has a 64.5
percent population, has a voting-age population of 59.7 percent.
Now, the point is, under this plan there are only two districts that are
58 percent above and-voting-age population-and that are out really to
produce a black Senator. And one of those districts, in District 32, which
is 64 percent, has the kind of dubious distinction of coming to northwest
Dade, taking in the only black city, the municipality, in South Florida,
which is Opa-locka, and putting it into a district which is-actually, has
a major population based in Fort Lauderdale. So, I would suggest to you
that this is not the kind of district that would be submitted by the people
from that area. So, I would just suggest to you, just to put this on the
record, that this-although the press and others have said there are six or
seven black districts-there are actually two black districts in this plan.
I would suggest to you that the House's plan, which has three black
districts, of a majority, and also which has another district that's 48
percent, which is the same as they had 10 years ago, is a superior product.
So, I would urge you to vote "No" on this amendment and to vote, as Mr.
Wallace indicated, to refuse to accept the Senate product.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Corrine Brown.
Rep. Brown: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House.
First of all, I will admit to Representative Burke: Representative Burke,
your plan is a good plan. But clearly, this plan is a better plan. And while
you can expound about Miami, your plan has less than a 50 percent
population in District 7, which is my district. And this plan, in District 7,
is 52.4 percent. In this plan, and of course, Mr. Wallace was incorrect,
because this House did not vote on this plan when it came before the House
because of technical problems. But now we've gotten the technical
problems straightened out in the Senate-I had to have the plan
introduced in the Senate. So, I want you to know that this is the Brown-
Reaves plan. First of all, there are two seats in this plan that is over 60
percent. District 32 has 60.0 percent; District 36 has 64.5; District 3 has
51.8; and District 7, that I know quite well, is 52.4; District 23 is 50.8; and
District 28 is 52.9. Now, I know that Representative Wallace knows what's
best for the black community. And I know that he sincerely feels that
blacks cannot win a district that is over 50 percent, but I can tell you,
Representative Wallace and the rest of this House, all we need is 50 percent
plus one and then we are coming. Give us a chance. That's all I ask. Vote
for the plan.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Reaves.
Rep. Reaves: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to make it very,

very clear and have the information correct to you, that in this plan there
are indeed two black Senate seats that are 60 percent plus, and there are

91

four black Senate seats that are 50 percent plus. Now, my mathematics are
not the best, but I would suggest that two plus four equals six-six black
Senate seats. You know, you can talk about the merits of individual
districts, you can talk about lines, and communities, and interests and that
kind of wonderful stuff, but the bottom line is, in my book, six is more than
four, and four is more than one. And this plan has six black districts where
the people of those areas can select the candidate of their choice. That is
very simple, bottom line. Thank you.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Diaz-Balart.
Rep. Diaz-Balart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to address the
hispanic seats that have not been touched on tonight. Clearly, clearly, four
hispanic Senate seats can be drawn-four hispanic Senate seats that
perform, four hispanic Senate seats in Dade County that can elect
candidates of their choice. It's been demonstrated, the Reaves-Brown plan,
the R&B plan did that-had four clearly hispanic seats. Now, we've heard
different debates about what percentage is a hispanic seat. Well, if we are
to listen to, for example, Representative Wallace, he clearly believes that
a hispanic seat-and that's his argument on the floor of this House,
regarding congressional-he clearly believes that a hispanic seat is 63
percent. Well, that is the threshold. If that is a threshold, the Reaves plan,
the Corrine Brown plan, clearly demonstrates that there are clearly, easily,
four hispanic Senate seats in Dade County.
Currently, today, we have three hispanic-American Senators in the
Senate, the chamber right across. Nobody can argue that, they're there.
And clearly, also, we have a fourth seat that is 55 percent hispanic. Ladies
and gentlemen, when you get that seat, and it becomes a 20-percenter or
25 percent-in other words, it's no longer even a access seat for hispanics
and never will be an access seat for hispanics-you're clearly retrogressing.
You cannot do that. Especially when you can demonstrate, as the R&B
plan does, that you can draw four. And if you can't draw four, which they're
demonstrating you can, you can at least draw three and one 55 percent,
which is what we have today, today. So, not only does this not maximize
hispanic representation, this is retrogressive for the representation of the
hispanic community in the Florida Senate.
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Lewis.
Rep. Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just have a question of
Representative Wallace. And I would like to ask Representative Wallace,
how many of the black representatives in this House have been elected
from districts with less than these districts that are apportioned right now
in this plan?
Speaker Wetherell: Representative Wallace, to respond.
Rep. Wallace: I don't know the answer to that question.
Rep. Lewis: Well, I think if you were to research it, you'd find that
at least four of our black representatives have been elected from much less
than a 50 percent district, and we need to give the blacks access to the
system. I can't understand why some of you black representatives would
even begin to support another plan when you can have all these seats in
this plan. And I would urge you to vote on the good amendment.
Speaker Wetherell: OK, Mr. Wallace, why don't you-actually,
you're on the motion-you're OK, Mr. Webster? Why don't you close-Ms.
Mortham?
Rep. Mortham: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to speak for the amendment.
Speaker Wetherell: OK. You're recognized. And then I'll get Mr.
Webster to close.
Rep. Mortham: Thank you. Very quickly, Members. I think that the
message is very clear on this amendment; very, very clear. In the Thomas
amendment that's before you, there are three black districts, three. There
are three hispanic districts drawn. In the plan, the Brown-Reaves plan
which Mr. Webster has offered, there are six, six black districts drawn, and
four hispanic districts. Now, it's very simple. Do you want to allow more
representation of minorities or do you want to decrease representation?
And all of you know, the voting statistics are in there and you know that
they will perform, so who are we trying to kid here? I've got a quote I'd like
to read to you very quickly, from Leon Russell, first Vice President of the

Florida State Conference of NAACP branches, and I'm going to start after
the comments regarding House districts. And it says, and I quote, "It is

June 4, 1992

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

	Title Page
	Members of the House of Repres...
	June 1992
	July 1992
	Index

MILLISECOND	CLASS.METHOD	MESSAGE
0	sobekcm_page_globals.constructor
0	sobekcm_page_globals.constructor	Application State validated or built
0	sobekcm_database.verify_item_lookup_object
0	sobekcm_page_globals.constructor	Navigation Object created from URI query string
0	sobekcm_database.verify_item_lookup_object
0	sobekcm_page_globals.display_item	Retrieving item or group information
0	sobekcm_page_globals.get_entire_collection_hierarchy	Retrieving hierarchy information
0	sobekcm_assistant.get_entire_collection_hierarchy
0	cached_data_manager.retrieve_item_aggregation
0	cached_data_manager.retrieve_item_aggregation	Found item aggregation on local cache
0	item_aggregation_builder.get_item_aggregation	Found 'all' item aggregation in cache
0	system.web.ui.page.page_load (ufdc.page_load)
0	sobekcm_page_globals.constructor.on_page_load
0	html_echo_mainwriter.add_style_references	Adding style references to HTML
0	html_echo_mainwriter.add_text_to_page	Reading the text from the file and echoing back to the output stream
171	html_echo_mainwriter.add_text_to_page	Finished reading and writing the file