>> WE ARE HOPING TO CONNECT WITH F I WANT OF THE U EPIDEMIOLOGIST EILEEN MARLEY 99 MINUTES BY
SKYPE.
NOBLE GETTING IN THE WAY RIGHT
NOW BUT MOVE ALONG.
>> MOVE ALONG TO STATE
LEGISLATURE.
WHERE, YOU KNOW, WATCHING
LEGISLATURE IS SORT OF LIKE
WATCHING, I THINK, NBA-GAME OF
THE ALMOST EVERYTHING HAPPENS IN
THE FINAL TWO MINUTES.
>> ALRIGHT.
SO TOMORROW, BEGINS THE FINAL
TWO WEEKS OF SESSION.
SO WE HAVE SOME SOUTH FLORIDA
LAWMAKERS HERE TO TALK ABOUT
REALLY SOME OF THE MOST
CONTROVERSIAL BILLS IN PLAY.
THEY ARE HUNDREDS OF THOSE.
WE WILL FOCUS ON A FEW.
SENATOR THURSTON DEMOCRAT FROM
FT. LAUDERDALE PART OF PARTY
LEADERSHIP.
AND ALONG WITH SENATOR THURSTON
WE HAVE REPRESENTATIVE TOM
FABRICIO, A REPUBLICAN FROM
MIRAMAR ELECTED LAST NOVEMBER.
TO HAVE YOU BOTH WITH US TODAY.
>> WELCOME.
GLAD YOU ARE HERE.
>> GOOD MORNING.
GOOD TO BE HERE.
>> TOM FABRICIO.
LET ME DATE MYSELF AND SAY YOUR
FATHER AND I WORKED TOGETHER AT
THE MIAMI HERALD.
TERRIFIC JOURNALIST.
GOOD WIFE.
OF, AND NICE TO MEET YOU EVEN
VIRTUALLY.
>> MICHAEL THANK YOU FOR SAYING
THAT.
APPRECIATE IT.
>> SENATOR THURSTON 50.
MAY.
LET’S BEGIN WITH HOUSE BILL ONE.
WHICH IS NOW IN GOVERNORS DESK.
DEBATE IN SENATE FRIDAY.
YOU WERE ONE OF THE LEADING
VOICES AGAINST PASSAGE OF THE
BILL, WHICH REALLY STIFFENS
CRACKS DOWN ON PROTESTORS.
MAKES THIRD-DEGREE FELONIES OUT
OF THINGS WHICH WERE
MISDEMEANORS.
IF YOU COULD SPEAK TO GOVERNOR
DESANTIS RIGHT NOW.
IN A SENSE YOU ARE.
WHAT WOULD YOU TELL HIM?
WHAT ARE YOUR REASONS FOR HIM
NOT TO SIGN THIS BILL?
WHICH IT LOOKS LIKE HE WILL DO.
>> WELL, I THINK, THE TIME TO
SPEAK TO GOVERNOR DESANTIS HAS
ALMOST PAST US BY MICHAEL.
IT IS CLEAR THIS IS A RESULT OF
THE GOVERNOR HEEDING THE THEN
FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CALL TO
GOVERNOR’S CALLING THEM WEAK.
AND SAYING THEY ARE POOLS.
WHEN LOOKING AT THE BLACK LIVES
MATTER MOVEMENT MARCHS ACROSS
THE NATION.
AND ACROSS THE WORLD.
HE CALLED UPON GOVERNORS TO DO
THIS.
CLEARLY, GOVERNOR DESANTIS HEARD
THE DOG WHISTLE.
WAS MORE THAN READY TO IMPLEMENT
THIS UNNECESSARY
UNCONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION.
WHICH WE REALLY DO NOT NEED.
THERE IT IS.
NO NEED FOR THIS.
BUT WE ARE PAST THAT POINT.
I THINK IT IS TIME FOR THE
BUSINESS COMMUNITY TO WEIGH IN.
TO SEE IF THIS IS WHAT THEY
WOULD LIKE TO SEE HAPPENING IN A
STATE WHERE THEY ARE AT.
I THINK YOU SEE SOME OF THAT OUT
OF GEORGIA.
YOU WILL SEE MORE COMING FROM
FLORIDAMENT THERE WILL BE
DEMANDS FOR THEM TO GET OFF SIDE
LINE AND TAKE A POSITION.
REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE POSITION
IS.
>> SENATOR ACTUALLY I WAS ON
CONFERENCE CALL WITH A NUMBER OF
REPRESENTATIVES FROM CIVIL
RIGHTS GROUPS CALLING FOR THAT.
FROM BUSINESS COMMUNITY, AND
SPECIFICALLY SEVEN FLORIDA
COMPANIES.
I DON’T KNOW IF THEY HAVE HEARD
ANYTHING.
BUT WE CALLED AND HEARD CRITICS
ON THAT ACCOUNT.
BUT BRING IN REPRESENTATIVE
FABRICIO.
WELCOME YOUR FIRST TIME WITH US.
I HOPE ONE OF MANY.
PROTEST BILL.
ANTI-RIOT BILL.
SUCH A PARTY LINE BILL.
I WONDER IF REPUBLICANS IN HOUSE
AND SENATE UNDERSTAND WHY
PARTICULARLY BLACK AMERICANS ARE
SEEING THIS ALONG, AS A RACIST
BILL.
PROTEST IS DISTINCTLY AMERICAN
VEHICLE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
PROGRESS.
WOULD YOU SPEAK -- I DON’T
EXPECT TO YOU SPEAK ON BEHALF OF
ALL REPUBLICANS BUT YOURSELF.
DO YOU CITY PERSPECTIVE?
>> SURE GLENNA.
THANK YOU.
I HEAR WHAT IS BEING SAID ON
OTHER SIDE.
IT IS UNFORTUNATE IT IS BING SO
POLITICALLY CHARGED.
THIS IS A BILL ABOUT WRITING AND
PROTESTS.
IT IS NOT ABOUT PEACEFUL
PROTESTS WHICH THIS DOES NOT
VALIDATE OR QUASH IN ANY WAY.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE OF
BEING ABLE TO PROTEST IS
ABSOLUTELY PROTECTED.
THIS IS A BILL ABOUT WRITING.
DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY.
ABOUT HARMING PEOPLE.
THAT’S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THAT ISSUE IS
BEING SPOKEN TO IN THIS BILL.
>> REPRESENTATIVE FABRES YET, IT
IS SORT OF AFTER THE FACT.
I NEED TO SAY ALREADY A COUPLE
OF PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL.
I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY.
MR. THURSTON IS.
BUT ONE PROVISION HERE I FIND
TROUBLESOME.
WHICH IS REALLY PROVIDES A STAND
YOUR GROUND DEFENSE FOR A DRIVER
THAT FINDS HIMSELF, HERSELF,
CAUGHT UP ON A ROAD THAT IS
SHUTDOWN BY DEMONSTRATORS AND
ESSENTIALLY GIVES THEM A FREE
PASS TO DRIVE-THRUS
DEMONSTRATORS HURTING THEM.
EVEN KILLING THEM.
PRESENTED A DEFENSE.
THAT SAID, WELL, I WAS
FRIGHTENED AND IT PROVIDES A
JUSTIFICATION.
LEGAL JUSTIFICATION.
NOW DO YOU THINK THAT IS A
ACCEPTABLE PROVISION?
>> IF I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE
ASKING.
I THINK YOU ARE REFERRING TO
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SECTION OF
THE BILL.
>> YES.
>> THAT IS A PROVISION IN THE
BILL.
AS YOU KNOW IN CIVIL LITIGATION.
WHEN CIVIL LAWSUIT IS FILED
AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL OR ERNST
TEE FOR EITHER NEGLIGENT OR
INTENTIONAL HARM.
IN RESPONSE, IN THE ANSWER,
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE CAN BE
FILED, THIS CREATES AN
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FOR A RIOT
SITUATION.
SO AS FAR AS -- I DON’T BELIEVE
T I AM NOT SHUSH IF YOU COUCHED
IT IN THESE TERMS.
BUT I DON’T BELIEVE THERE IS A
SITUATION FOR FREE SPASTO DRIVE
OTHER PEOPLE.
I BELIEVE IT IS A SITUATION
WHERE SOMEBODY CAN ASSERT
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WEIGHED BY
COURT.
THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO PRESENT
EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE.
LIKE PLAINTIFF COULD ASSERT IN
BRINGING FORTH THEIR CAUSE OF
ACTION.
>> DO YOU ALONG THOSE LINES.
SEE ANY ISSUE WITH FLORIDA’S
STAND YOUR GROUND LAW, OTHERWISE
AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW?
>> I DON’T.
THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY PART OF
THE BILL DIRECTLY.
I DON’T LEAVE AND WHAT IT IS NO.
IT IS NOT.
>> SENATOR THURSTON DO YOU WANT
TO ADDRESS THAT?
>> I DO.
LIKE STAND YOUR GROUND.
WITHSTAND YOUR GROUND, IT WAS
IMPLEMENTED WE ALWAYS HAD SELF
DEFENSE CALLED JUSTIFIABLE USE
OF FORCE.
THAT MADE STAND YOUR GROUND
UNNECESSARY.
STAND YOUR GROUND WAS AN
INVITATION TO DO VIOLENT.
HAD PROVISION IN THIS BILL
GIVING CIVIL PROTECTION FOR
INDIVIDUALS IF SHE COMMIT THESE
ACTS IS AN INVITATION.
ALMOST LIKE SAYING YOU CAN DO
THIS.
IT IS LIKE THERE IS A RIOT OR
BETTER YET IF THERE IS PROTEST.
THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THE ROAD.
YOU HAVE A FREE REIGN TO JUST
RUN THROUGH THEM AND YOU ARE
GOING TO PROTECTED.
THIS BILL IS A HORRIBLE
REFLECTION ON FLORIDA.
I CANNOT BELIEVE SENATE EVEN
TOOK UP THIS BILL.
BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT FLORIDA’S
HISTORY.
IN TERMS OF THE THINGS THAT WE
HAVE DONE HERE IN FLORIDA.
THIS BILL IS TOTALLY
UNNECESSARY.
AND WE SHOULD REALLY THINK BACK
TO -- WE SHOULD HARKIN ON DO WE
NEED THIS?
>> WELL, IT APPEARS THAT
GOVERNOR DESANTIS THAT ASKED FOR
BILL WAS CHIEF ADVOCATE.
PROBABLY WILL SIGN T LET’S MOVE
ON IF WE CAN TO ANOTHER REALLY
HOT BILL N LEGISLATURE.
THAT IS THE SO-CALLED ELECTION
REFORM BILL.
REPRESENTATIVE FEBREZIO.
THIS LOOKS LIKE A SOLUTION IN
SEARCH OF A PROBLEM IN MANY
WAYS.
I THINK YOU WOULD AGREEMENT OF
YOU WERE ELECTED LAST NOVEMBER.
IN AN ELECTION THAT WAS JUST
ABOUT PICTURE PERFECT.
SO WHY IS -- ARE THESE
PROVISIONS IN THIS BILL.
WHICH IS STILL BEING WORKED ON.
WHY IS THIS ELECTION REFORM BILL
NEED?
>> THANK YOU MICHAEL.
THIS BILL ACTUALLY HAS NOT COME
IN FRONT OF NEWEST COMMITTEES I
SIT IN FRONT OF.
I THINK IT IS GOING TO STATE
AFIRST SOON.
BUT IT TRIES TO DO SEVERAL
THINGS THAT I THINK, ARE
POSITIVE.
TRIES ON INCREASE TRANSPARENT
SEE.
AND I IMAGINE YOU WOULD AGREE
TRANSPARENCY IS A GOOD THING.
AND IT JUST WANTS TO MAKE SURE
PEOPLE VOTING ARE ACTUAL VOTERS.
THE FOUR YEAR SIGNATURE
LIMITATION.
I THINK IT WILL CREATE MORE
WORK.
BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THESE
ISSUES WITH SIGNATURES ARE GOOD.
I WILL TELL YOU THAT FOR A FACT.
I STOOD AT POLLS PRIMARY
ELECTION AND GENERAL ELECTION
LAST YEAR.
ON ELECTION DAY.
THERE WERE PEOPLE THAT HAD
ISSUES WITH -- ACTUALLY THROUGH
THE VOTE BY MAIL PROCESS.
FOLKS THAT HAD ISSUES WITH THEIR
HAVING OLD SIGNATURES ON FILE.
SO UPDATING SIGNATURES WOULD NOT
BE A BAD THING.
THE QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH NOT
NECESSARILY FREQUENCY BUT
UPDATING SIGNATURES NOT A BAD
THING.
I DON’T THINK TRANSPARENCY IS
BAD.
>> THERE IS SOMEONE, A REPORTER
FROM TAMPA BAY TIMES COMPARED
GOVERNOR’S SIGNATURES FROM PAST
COUPLE OF ELECTIONS AND FOUND
THEY WERE QUITE DIFFERENT.
SENATOR THURSTON THIS SB 90 IS
BILL NUMBER IN SENATE.
TO MICHAEL’S POINT.
IT IS BEING LIKE CHEFS ARE COOK
INIT.
RIGHT NOW IT LOOKS LIKE DROP
BOXES MIGHT BE BACK.
THAT WAS A HUGE BONE CONTENTION.
THOSE DROP BOXES LAST NOVEMBER
PROVED TO BE REALLY GREAT FOR A
LOT OF PEOPLE.
WHERE DOES THAT STAND NOW?
>> WELL EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS
BILL IS PROBLEMATIC.
THE REASON IT IS PROBLEMATIC IS
BECAUSE THE LEGISLATIVE VERSION
OF VOTER SUPPRESSION.
THE REASON WE KNOW IS THAT IS
LIKE YOU SAID.
ELECTION JUST HELD WAS DEEMED
PERFECT.
AND IT WAS HELD UP AS GOLD
STANDARD.
BUT YOU SEE THE INDIVIDUALS THAT
ARE BEHIND ME ON THE WALL.
THE REASON THEY ARE PROTESTORS
AND DEMONSTRATORS IS BECAUSE
THEY WERE TRYING TO SECURE THE
RIGHT TO VOTE.
SO WHEN YOU HAVE A SORTED
HISTORY.
LIKE FLORIDA THAT GOES BACK TO
NINE PEOPLE RIGHT TO VOTE TO FOR
AGES.
RATHER THAN JIM CROW OR COLD
TAXES.
THIS IS A CONTINUATION.
OF COURSE IT DOESN’T SAY WE WANT
TO STOP PEOPLE FROM VOTING.
BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE
PARTICULARS.
INCLUDING DROP BOX YOU TALKED
ABOUT.
THERE WAS NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.
BUT WHY IS IT IN BILL?
WHY WAS IT IN BILL?
WHY IS IT BROUGHT UP HERE AND IN
GEORGIA AND ANOTHER 37 STATES
DOING T THIS IS A NATIONAL
POLICY.
TO SAY HOW DO WE STOP PEOPLE
FROM VOTING?
ONE THING WE SHOULD DO IS
ENCOURAGE MORE PEOPLE TO VOTE.
BUT THE DROP BOXES WERE, GREAT
PEOPLE THAT WERE CONCERNED ABOUT
THE PANDEMIC.
PEOPLE THAT WERE CONCERNED ABOUT
MAIL DELIVERY SYSTEM.
ALL OF THAT WAS THERE, THE VOTE
BY MAIL WORKED PERFECTLY.
>> YOU WILL RECALL WE HAD PETE
IN BROWARD COUNTY LASTSOME CYCLE
IT WENT WELL NO.
LONGER BROWARD SUPERVISOR OF
ELECTION.
WE HOPE AND EXPECT THINGS WILL
GO WELL BUT SORTED HISTORY IN
BROWARD COUNTY WITH ELECTIONS.
>> PREVIOUS ELECTION SUPERVISOR
DID HAVE PROBLEMS AND ONE BEFORE
HER.
SO WE UNDERSTAND WHAT HISTORY
HAS BEEN.
ALRIGHT.
EVERYONE STICK WHERE YOU ARE.
WE WILL TAKE A BRIEF BREAK.
AND BACK WITH MORE WITH THESE
LEGISLATORS IN A MOMENT.
LEGISLATORS IN A MOMENT. IT >> WE ARE BACK TAKING THE
TEMPERATURE OF TALLAHASSEE WITH
SENATOR PERRY THURSTON, DEMOCRAT
FROM FT. LAUDERDALE.
AND STATE REP TOM FEBREZIO IF
MIRAMAR.
SHORT TIME WE HAVE.
WITH ALL THE CONTROVERSIAL BILLS
IN HEADLINES WE ARE REALLY NOT
TALKING ABOUT AUTO INSURANCE
THAT AFFECTS EVERYBODY WATCHING
TODAY.
SENATOR THURSTON.
ARE YOU GOING TO ELIMINATE NO
ASSAULTS AND MANDATE THAT
EVERYONE HAVE PERSONAL INJURY
COVERAGE?
AND WHAT ARE RAMIFICATIONS TO
THAT TO EVERYONE LISTENING?
>> I THINK CLEARLY WE HAVE AN
ISSUE WITH AUTO INSURANCE.
WE NEED FOR ALL THE DRIVERS THAT
ARE OUT THERE.
ON THE STREETS.
WE WANT THEM TO BE COVERED.
THERE IS A BILL THAT HAS BEEN
BREWING IN SENATE FOR ENTIRETY
OF THE SESSION.
WE DID GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO
ADDRESS THAT BILL.
WE PASSED IT.
THERE WILL BE, RIGHT NOW
MANDATORY BI ON BILL.
AND, I THINK, IT WILL BE A LOT
MORE MOVEMENT ON THIS BILL
BEFORE THE FINAL VERSION.
I EXPECT IT TO BOUNCE BACK AND
GO TO HOUSE AND BOUNCE BACK.
PROBABLY WILL MAKE MORE CHANGES.
I THINK, THIS IS PROBABLY THE
BEST OPPORTUNITY IN YEARS.
AND IT MAY LEAD TO ELIMINATION
OF PI.
>> REPRESENTATIVE FEBREZIO.
YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE
COMMERCE COMMITTEE.
THIS IS REALLY IN YOUR WHEEL
HOUSE.
WHAT IS THE -- HOW ARE YOU GOING
TO IMPROVE AUTO INSURANCE
SITUATION IN STATE BY
ELIMINATING NO FAULT?
>> WELL, WE HAVE REALLY LOOKED
AT THIS ISSUE IN SEVERAL WAYS.
AND ONE VIEW I HAVE TAKEN ON
FROM EARLY ON.
IS PERHAPS CONTINUING TO WORK TO
FIX THE PIP.
NO FAULT SYSTEM.
AND THAT -- BEING THAT IT SEEMS
THAT WE ARE MOVING BEYOND THAT.
THE ISSUE IS WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT OUR CONSTITUENTS
THROUGHOUT THE STATE IN
PARTICULAR WITH FOLKS IN HIALEAH
MIAMI LAKES AND THROUGHOUT.
MYANMAR.
MAKE SURE AUTO PREMIUMS ARE IN
LINE.
LIKE SENATOR THURSTON SAID.
WE HAVE BEEN HAVING QUITE A BIT
OF TROUBLE STATE WIDE WITH AUTO
INSURANCE.
BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
ARE GETTING APPROPRIATE
COVERAGES THEY WILL NEED.
>> REPRESENTATIVE FEBREZIO YOU
SPONSORED A BILL IN THE HOUSE
THAT I AM GOING TO PUT MY
HEADLINE ON IT.
HAVING READ IT.
IT PROTECTS THE FUEL INDUSTRY.
AND POSSIBLY AT THE EXPENSE OF
SOME GREEN ENERGY PROGRESS.
AM I READING IT RIGHT?
WHAT IS THAT?
>> I WILL TELL YOU HOUSE BILL
839.
THAT’S AN TRANSPORTATION FUEL
ENERGY PREEMPTION.
THE REASON WHY WE FILED THIS
BILL IS BECAUSE OF A COUPLE OF
THINGS.
THERE IT IS.
AN ORDINANCE FILED IN
CALIFORNIA.
AND THEN ACTUAL TOWARD NANCE
FILED IN TAMPA.
THAT SPOKE TOWARD GETTING -- NOT
ALLOWING TRANSACTIONS OF
NON-RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES BY
2030.
WHILE I BELIEVE THOSE ARE
LAUDABLE AND IMPORTANT.
WE WANT TO GO TO RENEWABLE
ENERGY SOURCES AS QUICK AS
POSSIBLE.
I DON’T THINK WE ARE THERE TOO
YES.
TO SAY WE CANNOT HAVE GAS
STATIONS IN A MUNICIPALITY OR A
K WOULD BE CAUSING A STATE WIDE
REGIONAL ISSUE.
IF YOU LIMIT, FOR EXAMPLE, IN
TAMPA.
IF YOU DO NOT ALLOW PETROLEUM TO
BE IMPORTED THROUGH PORT OF
TAMPA.
THAT COULD CAUSE A MASSIVE
PROBLEM WITH TRANSPORTATION IN
CENTRAL FLORIDA.
SAME THING FOR MIAMI-DADE
COUNTY.
I DON’T EXPECT THESE ISSUES TO
OCCUR.
I SPOKE TO MANY OF THE MAYORS IN
MY DISTRICT.
AND THEY SAY THAT THEY WOULD NOT
SUPPORT AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD
BY DE FACTO ELIMINATE ALL
TRANSPORTATION ENERGY.
BUT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS
POTENTIAL ISSUE.
SOMETHING BEING DISCUSSED AND
SOMETHING WE NEED TO MAKE SURE
DOESN’T HAPPEN.
WHEN BILL -- IT IS VERY
IMPORTANT WE CLARIFY AND MOVE
BEYOND HEADLINE.
WHAT BILL DOES IS SAY --
>> REPRESENTATIVE.
FORGIVE ME I WILL HAVE TO
INTERRUPT YOU HERE.
SENATOR THURSTON.
THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US.
WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT.