The Florida House of Representatives tackled a series of conforming bills Friday as members engaged in a lengthy 'final day' of session that extended, with recesses, for more than 14 hours. The House joined the Senate in extending the legislative session until Saturday.

Rules and Calendar Chairman Gary Aubuchon, R-Cape Coral, and Democratic parliamentary point man Rep. Jim Waldman of Coconut Creek established a structured system for debate and questions on the various budget and conference issues. They gave the House 116 minutes for questions and 218 minutes for debate on the 45 bills the House faced on the final day of the session.

After less than an hour and a half into the final meeting, Aubuchon and Waldman agreed that the House was making excellent progress and they added more time to the schedule.

“We created a bank of 30 anytime minutes,” said Aubuchon.

The House engaged in limited debate on conference reports, once again covering matters that had been before the chamber all session: the deregulation efforts led by Rep. Dorothy Hukill, R-Port Orange, of mold inspection and the interior design industry; moving the Cybercrime Office from the Department of Legal Affairs to the Department of Law Enforcement; and state employee pension reform.

At least one House Democrat took aim at the new procedures.

“House Republicans’ new rules for debating on the floor are a blatant attack on my freedom of speech and my ability to represent the citizens in my district,” said Rep. Luis Garcia, D-Miami. “Even though they already hold a supermajority in the House and the Senate, as well as the governorship, they now feel it is necessary to stymie all debate on the floor. Floridians should know that legislation is being cooked in back rooms, then rammed through the process under limited debate, unable to receive a thorough vetting. Florida is an autocracy not a democracy at this point.”

House Majority Leader Carlos Lopez-Cantera, R-Miami, fired back at Garcia.

“It’s unfortunate that Representative Garcia has not been paying attention this session,” said Lopez-Cantera. “The procedures adopted last night were before the entire body and adopted unanimously without questions, debate, or objections from any member, including Rep. Garcia. He’s attacking the good-faith negotiations of the Rules leaders in both parties to provide equitable debate and apparently not performing his due diligence as a representative to read the information before him, prior to a vote.

“Structured debate procedures are adopted after agreement between the Rules chair and Democratic ranking member on the Rules Committee. They also provide the minority party 50 percent of the debate time, when they comprise less than one-third of the membership,” added Lopez-Cantera. “There has been an open and transparent rules process from day one. We have used structured debate, which allows for equitable debate for both sides of the aisle, throughout this entire session to make the best use of our time and resources. I hope Representative Garcia can now see the wisdom in this efficient use of floor time, as his Democratic colleagues do.”

“Our constitutional rights have been trampled and eroded during this 2011 session,” Garcia responded. “Because I am paying close attention to the proceedings of this session and because my formative years took place under dictatorial regimes, I know what freedom is. Leader Lopez-Cantera might not be able to tell the difference since he was not born in Cuba.”

During the lengthy debate and questioning process on the various budgetary conforming bills, most of the measures passed with little conflict, but there were some exceptions.

Rep. Ritch Workman, R-Melbourne, took to the floor to speak to the final version of the state employee pension reform plan which would require new employees to contribute up to 3 percent of their salaries into the pension plans. Democrats continued their opposition to the measure with their caucus leader, Rep. Ron Saunders of Key West, repeating his line of attack that this measure was an “income tax” while Republicans defended the measure, insisting that it put state employee pension plans in line with those of workers in the private sector.