The regular property tax levy for each taxing district ((other than the state)) may be set at the amount which would be allowed otherwise under this chapter if the regular property tax levy for the district for taxes due in prior years beginning with 1986 had been set at the full amount allowed under this chapter.

      The purpose of this section is to remove the incentive for a taxing district to maintain its tax levy at the maximum level permitted under this chapter, and to protect the future levy capacity of a taxing district that reduces its tax levy below the level that it otherwise could impose under this chapter, by removing the adverse consequences to future levy capacities resulting from such levy reductions.

      NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. This act applies to taxes levied in 1995 for collection in 1996 and thereafter."

FURTHER REMARKS BY SENATOR WEST

      Senator West: "Thank you, Mr. President and members of the Senate. The underlying bill, Substitute Senate Bill No. 5000 is an excellent bill; it is an excellent concept. The problem is, though, unless we fix it, it is a hollow promise. The underlying bill will amend 601 and it will put a new catch-basin, so to speak, under the revenue. So, the way 601 works now, this cup is like 601. This is all the revenue that the state can spend. Anything that spills over the top of the rim of this cup, the state can't spend, so the sponsor of the bill suggested that anything that spills over the rim--or under 601 currently--anything that spills over the rim, goes into the emergency fund.

      "What the sponsor of this bill suggests is that anything that spills over the rim goes into a new fund called, 'The property tax reduction fund.' Then, as that fund fills up, as we eliminate the property tax, which is three dollars and sixty cents, as we eliminate the state's share of the property tax, once that occurs, then the excess revenue will spill over and fill up the emergency reserve fund. If the emergency reserve fund ever fills up, the money spills off the plate and stays for school construction. The emergency reserve fund would have to be five percent of the value that is cut and that requires us to amend 601.

      "What my amendment says is instead of waiting until the end of the year and seeing how much spills over the top, the Revenue Forecast Council will tell us, as they do every year, how much revenue we expect and how much will go over the top of this cup. Then, the Department of Revenue will have to take the excess out and put it in this property tax before it starts filling up. If you don't do that, what happens is, as it starts filling up, the Legislature will grab a hundred forty seven million dollars and give it away as relief to big business in the form of a sales tax exemption and then the Legislature will reach in and grab one hundred million and give it back to the people in the form of sales tax relief on over-the-counter drugs, and then the Legislature will reach in and grab some more to give back to the B & O tax fund and then they will reach in and grab some more and it never gets to the rim.

      "So, the bill as it stands, the people will have been frauded--a fraud will have been committed on the people, because the revenue will never reach the rim. It will never spill over into this property tax relief. Failure to pass this amendment would cause that to happen. If you pass this amendment, again, the Department of Revenue, the first scoop out of the cup would be into the property tax reduction fund--before you did the one hundred forty seven million for big business--before you did the hundred million for the people through this drug tax relief--before you did the B & O tax relief--before you did the Frank Russell relief--before you did anybody else's tax relief, the people would get their property tax back.

      "I ask you not to perpetuate a hollow property tax relief, but pass this amendment. This amendment will not cost one cent to administer. This amendment will not affect the five hundred million dollar surplus that is projected this year. This amendment will not affect schools negatively. This amendment provides a three hundred and sixty dollar per hundred thousand dollar of assessed dollar reductions when the state tax levies eliminate it. With this amendment, revenue projections indicate that in five years, the property tax levy will be totally eliminated. Without it, it may happen or it may not. With this amendment, it will happen. With this amendment, local government will not be able to backfill. As we lower the state rates, they will not be able to backfill. With this amendment, it only affects the future revenue forecast and this amendment--this amendment--not this bill without this amendment--but this amendment is the only true property tax relief that we will probably see out of this Legislature. Failure to pass this amendment is a hollow promise. It is a--maybe if there is any money left over that gets up as high as the rim, you will get your property tax back.

      "When you go back to your districts and say, 'I voted to give you property tax relief,' and your voters next year get nothing back, they are going to be mad. They are going to be real mad. If you remember what happened to Danny Rostenkowski after he tricked the little old people into passing his OBRA bill back in 1989, that is what is going to happen to us. They are going to chase us down the street, because we are going to go home and say, 'We passed property tax relief,' but guess what, the budget that will come out of the Senate, the budget that will come out of the House, there will be nothing that spills over the rim--absolutely nothing. Even if it does in the budget that comes out of the Senate, I will guarantee you--the Conference Committee Report--there will be not a dime that flows into the property tax relief unless this amendment passes. Thank you very much. Please pass this amendment."

REMARKS BY SENATOR LOVELAND

      Senator Loveland: "Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to oppose the amendment. That was pretty good, Senator West. I like the cup and the saucer; I should have thought of that. However, there are a few things that the striking amendment does not do. One, it does not protect the school levy where Subsitute Senate Bill No. 5000 directs the money to go into an account and be directly credited to schools. Your striker does not take care of that. In addition to that, your striker talks about revenue projections. I came here three years ago and revenue projections said that we were one point two billion dollars short and I voted to increase taxes and I am here today and there is a five hundred million dollar ending-fund balance.

      "I'm not willing to put this body and the body across from us in a position of taking revenue projections and reducing the state's levy when those projections are so inaccurate. It would put the Legislature in a position of guessing how much money was there and if it wasn't there, require the Legislature to cut below the expenditure limit, fund the reduction of the property tax levy and cut other programs in order to do that. I chose a responsible way to have true property tax reduction. Everyone equally shares in the amount of money and I will give you my one, two, three, and I compliment Senator West for using most of my points of what my bill does to explain his. Remember, the striker does not protect schools; it's based on a guess of how much money is going to be there instead of an actual amount. I urge you to vote against the amendment."

REMARKS BY SENATOR BAUER

      Senator Bauer: "Thank you, Mr. President and members of the Senate. I promised the Governor it would be a little short one, but I can remember a couple three weeks ago Senator West criticized us, because we had a formula by which we would require the Legislature or, you know, give the Legislature a little fund to put real money into higher education as opposed to some other gimmick. He criticized the tuition and tied the tuition to the state corporation and to personal income and said, 'Why don't we just put real money into that?' Well, this is the real money he is talking about. You know, you take three or four hundred million out of that cup that he has there, below the lid, and you have taken it out of higher ed. K-12 is pretty well guaranteed its funding by the court decision in seventy-seven, but what do we have left? Well, we have left about half of the biennial budget that we can bargain with and higher education comes into that piece. So, if you are taking that money out underneath that lid of that cup he had there, it is taking it out of higher ed and other programs. You can't have it both ways; you can't spend it and still have it. I think this amendment here has to be taken in light of 'what are you going to do to have to pass a budget and properly fund higher education?' You can't do both."

FURTHER REMARKS BY SENATOR WEST

      Senator West: "Thank you, Mr. President. Well, the good Senator from Vancouver makes my point. He is not going to vote for the final passage, I guess, or if he does, it is because it really doesn't give back any tax money. That is exactly what 5000, without this amendment, is. It is a false hope; it is a false promise. You are telling people that you are going to give back a tax relief, the property tax relief, and you are not. Frankly, the revenue forecast was not wrong. What was wrong was your guesstimate about how much money you would get off your taxes and that was based on fiscal notes, that wasn't the Revenue Forecasting Council. The Revenue Forecasting Council actually is very accurate, you know, and predicts very well. I would ask for your support on the amendment and Mr. President, I would like for this to be a recorded vote."

REMARKS BY PRESIDENT PRITCHARD

      President Pritchard: "All right, do one-sixth of the members sustain the demand? All right, a recorded vote is ordered. The clerk will call the roll on the striking amendment offered by Senator West."

ROLL CALL

      The Secretary called the roll and the amendment was not adopted by the following vote: Yeas, 22; Nays, 25; Absent, 0; Excused, 2.

      Voting yea: Senators Anderson, A., Cantu, Deccio, Finkbeiner, Hale, Hochstatter, Johnson, Long, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Newhouse, Oke, Palmer, Prince, Schow, Sellar, Strannigan, Swecker, West, Winsley and Wood - 22.

      Voting nay: Senators Anderson, C., Bauer, Drew, Fairley, Franklin, Fraser, Gaspard, Hargrove, Haugen, Heavey, Kohl, Loveland, McAuliffe, Owen, Pelz, Prentice, Quigley, Rasmussen, Rinehart, Sheldon, Smith, Snyder, Spanel, Sutherland and Wojahn - 25.

      Excused: Senators Moyer and Roach - 2.

MOTION BY SENATOR ANN ANDERSON

      Senator Ann Anderson: Thank you, Mr. President, I move that Senator West's remarks be spread upon the Journal."

REPLY BY THE PRESIDENT

      President Pritchard: "All right, hearing no objection. Is it just the remarks on the amendment?"

MOTION BY SENATOR SNYDER

      Senator Snyder: "As long as we are spreading on the Journal, we might as well put all the remarks in the Journal, I think."

REPLY BY THE PRESIDENT

      President Pritchard: "All right, if there is no objection, we will put the remarks in the Journal."

MOTION BY SENATOR LOVELAND

      Senator Loveland: "Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the rules be suspended and Substitute Senate Bill No. 5000 be advanced to third reading, the second reading considered the third and the bill be placed on final passage."

REMARKS BY PRESIDENT PRITCHARD

      President Pritchard: "Senator Loveland moves the bill to third reading and final passage. Hearing no objection, so ordered."

POINT OF ORDER

      Senator West: "A point of order. Would the President rule on whether or not this requires a super majority to pass, because it is an amendment of 601?"

RULING BY THE PRESIDENT

      President Pritchard: "You will have to wait a minute. We'll be just a few minutes. The President's position is that it does affect 601, yes. Do you have any argument with that Senator Loveland? We are all in agreement, just for once. That is amazing. We are in our cups; that is the problem. All right, it takes thirty-three votes to pass the bill."

REMARKS BY SENATOR LOVELAND

      Senator Loveland: "Thank you, Mr. President. I hope that everybody appreciates the fact that I was trying to do something that made a difference for everybody in this state where property taxes were concerned. My background, as most of you know, is I collected property taxes for thirty years. I've heard every excuse; I've seen every sad story; I've seen those who would cheat the system if they possibly could and I believe in the property tax system of this state. People pay taxes based on the value of their property, but we all know that a lot of things have occurred over the years and those occurrences are not within the control of the people who live in their homes or try to run their businesses and that increased property values. You must remember that most people love to have the value of their property increased at all times, except when they have to pay taxes on that value.

      "Having said that, I would like for you to know that I bared my soul, I've provided each one of you a copy of my 1995 property tax statement as an illustration of what Substitute Senate Bill No. 5000 would do if all of us have the courage to actually do tax reform in property taxes in this session. If you will look at the tax statement that I provided you, where it says 'state schools,' five hundred and eighty-three dollars and ninety cents is the share when I pay my property taxes that come to the state to pay state schools. If Substitute Senate Bill No. 5000 isn't enacted and if the Legislature allows those surpluses, in future years, to be put toward state schools to reduce the state levy and if all of this occurs within five years, that five hundred and eighty-three dollars and ninety cents will be an amount that I will no longer pay in property taxes. That's true property tax reduction.

      "If you will turn to the page that I provided that Senator West quoted from, wherever it was convenient, this law--I promised that I would work, not to create some nightmare out there that no one could understand and had smoke and mirrors. That is exactly what I did; it doesn't cost one penny to administer it. It does not affect the five hundred million dollars that Senator West was talking about. His final arguments on the amendment were talking about dipping into the cup and we were all going to give back all these tax breaks and that's the five hundred million ending-fund balance that only exists once, because, ladies and gentlemen, in July 1, 1995, 601 kicks in. My property tax bill deals with monies above the 601 expenditure limits in the future, so I am not touching the five hundred million dollars.

      "Under Substitute Senate Bill No. 5000, revenue projections do indicate that within five years, the state's property tax levy would be eliminated. I have watched initiatives in the state of California and the state of Oregon absolutely disrupt the ability of those legislative bodies to do the work of the people. This is my attempt at real property tax reform to avoid an initiative that will be unworkable for all of us and those in the future. It does show that each of us pay three hundred and sixty dollars for one hundred thousand dollars of assessed value. I live in a modest home; my house was built in 1951 and has seventeen hundred square feet in it, nothing to sneeze about, and yet I am paying five hundred and eighty-three dollars a year just in state property taxes. I am one of those, too, who am not going to be able to continue to afford to live in my home.

      "Substitute Senate Bill No. 5000, for those of you who have any doubts about what my credentials or my ability to understand the property tax system, all thirty-nine county assessors in this state, helped me put this piece together. They all support it; they all are encouraging and working with the editorial boards at home and talking to groups explaining what this is. This isn't any flash in the pan. They believe in it; they understand it and it is good tax reform.

      "Finally, the other responsible portion of this bill is that I did not want to harm schools. The reason that we developed this special account to take the excess money above 601 and put into a special account was so that it couldn't be trickled off, dribbled off or grabbed off for something other than schools. It goes into the account, it moves over and it buys the levy and it is gone. I submit to you that this is the only true tax reform that we are looking at this legislative session. We will take the property tax that the state collects, eliminate it, it will be a local tax and the state of Washington can continue its business and they will do their business without property tax out of the taxpayers pockets at home. I urge your support of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5000. Thank you."

POINT OF INQUIRY

      Senator Sellar: "Senator Loveland, as Vice-Chairman of Ways and Means, is this figured into this year's budget and what would be your estimate of the property tax relief as a result of this year's budget?"

      Senator Loveland: "Is this in the future?"

      Senator Sellar: "If this bill were in effect right now."

      Senator Loveland: "If this bill were to pass, my tax statement is already out, so obviously there is no tax reduction in 1995. The tax reduction would be based on the amount of revenue above the expenditure level in 1996 projected to be seventy-nine million dollars. It could be more; it could be less. Property taxes on the state level will be reduced by whatever amount that is."

      Senator Sellar: "So, you are confident, as a result of this budget, there will be a seventy-nine million dollar property tax relief in 1996?"

      Senator Loveland: "I would guess that it is probably going to be more than that, but, yes, I am confident."

      Senator Sellar: "Thank you."

      Further debate ensued.

      The President declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5000.

ROLL CALL

      The Secretary called the roll on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5000 and the bill failed to receive a two-thirds majority by the following vote: Yeas, 25; Nays, 22; Absent, 0; Excused, 2.

      Voting yea: Senators Anderson, C., Bauer, Drew, Fairley, Franklin, Fraser, Gaspard, Hargrove, Haugen, Heavey, Kohl, Loveland, McAuliffe, Owen, Palmer, Pelz, Prentice, Quigley, Rasmussen, Rinehart, Sheldon, Smith, Spanel, Winsley and Wojahn - 25.

      Voting nay: Senators Anderson, A., Cantu, Deccio, Finkbeiner, Hale, Hochstatter, Johnson, Long, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Newhouse, Oke, Prince, Schow, Sellar, Snyder, Strannigan, Sutherland, Swecker, West and Wood - 22.

      Excused: Senators Moyer and Roach - 2.

      SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5000, having failed to receive the constitutional two-thirds majority, was declared lost.

STATEMENT FOR THE JOURNAL

      Explanation of vote: I changed by vote from 'aye' to 'nay' in order to reconsider the vote by which Substitute Senate Bill No. 5000 failed to receive the two-thirds vote that may be required under provisions of Initiative 601.

SENATOR SID SNYDER, District No. 19

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

      Senator Snyder moved that the Senate immediately reconsider the vote by which Substitute Senate Bill No. 5000 failed to pass the Senate.

      The President declared the question before the Senate to be the motion by Senator Snyder to immediately reconsider the vote by which Substitute Senate Bill No. 5000 failed to pass the Senate.

      The motion by Senator Snyder carried and the Senate will immediately reconsider the vote by which Substitute Senate Bill No. 5000 failed to pass the Senate.

MOTION

      Senator West moved that the rules be suspended and Substitute Senate Bill No. 5000 be returned to second reading.

      Debate ensued.

      The President declared the question before the Senate to be the motion by Senator West to return Substitute Senate Bill No. 5000 to second reading.

      The motion by Senator West failed and Substitute Senate Bill No. 5000 was held on the third reading calendar.

SECOND READING

      SENATE BILL NO. 5962, by Senators Rasmussen and Newhouse

Changing dairy products regulations.

      The bill was read the second time.

MOTIONS

      On motion of Senator Rasmussen, the following Committee on Agriculture and Agricultural Trade and Development amendment was adopted:

      On page 1, beginning on line 4, strike all of section 1

      Renumber the remaining section.

      On motion of Senator Rasmussen, the following amendments by Senators Rasmussen, Loveland and Morton was adopted:

      On page 1, after line 3, insert the following:

      "NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The department of agriculture shall develop a proposal to impose a civil penalty that would be in lieu of a degrade or summary suspension for violations of the pasteurized milk ordinance. The department shall inquire as to the acceptability of the proposed civil penalty authority with the federal food and drug administration, with regulatory agencies that implement the requirements of the pasteurized milk ordinance in states to which milk produced in Washington state is shipped, and with other public and private organizations that may be affected by the issue. The department shall provide a written report containing its conclusions and recommendations to the house of representatives and senate committees having jurisdiction over milk quality issues by December 15, 1995."

      Renumber the remaining sections and correct internal references.

MOTIONS

      On motion of Senator Rasmussen, the following title amendments were considered simultaneously and were adopted:

      On page 1, line 1 of the title, strike "15.36.111 and"

      On page 1, beginning on line 1, after "products;" strike the remainder of the title and insert "amending RCW 15.36.111 and 15.36.121; and creating a new section."

MOTION

      On motion of Senator Rasmussen, the rules were suspended, Engrossed Senate Bill No. 5962 was advanced to third reading, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

      Debate ensued.

      The President declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the final passage of Engrossed Senate Bill No. 5962.

ROLL CALL

      The Secretary called the roll on the final passage of Engrossed Senate Bill No. 5962 and the bill passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 47; Nays, 0; Absent, 0; Excused, 2.

      Voting yea: Senators Anderson, A., Anderson, C., Bauer, Cantu, Deccio, Drew, Fairley, Finkbeiner, Franklin, Fraser, Gaspard, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Heavey, Hochstatter, Johnson, Kohl, Long, Loveland, McAuliffe, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Newhouse, Oke, Owen, Palmer, Pelz, Prentice, Prince, Quigley, Rasmussen, Rinehart, Schow, Sellar, Sheldon, Smith, Snyder, Spanel, Strannigan, Sutherland, Swecker, West, Winsley, Wojahn and Wood - 47.

      Excused: Senators Moyer and Roach - 2.

      ENGROSSED SENATE BILL NO. 5962, having received the constitutional majority, was declared passed. There being no objection, the title of the bill will stand as the title of the act.

SECOND READING

      SENATE BILL NO. 5466, by Senators Smith, Oke, Heavey, Winsley and Franklin

Protecting children from sexually explicit films, publications, and devices.

MOTIONS

      On motion of Senator Smith, Substitute Senate Bill No. 5466 was substituted for Senate Bill No. 5466 and the substitute bill was placed on second reading and read the second time.

      Senator Finkbeiner moved that the following amendment by Senators Finkbeiner, Smith and Sutherland be adopted:

      On page 4, after "decisions" on line 19, insert ";

      (3) A provider of on-line services that allows another person access to information stored in an electronic form, such as an electronic bulletin board or the internet. For purposes of this subsection, a "provider" means a person who is in the business of providing access to information stored in an electronic form but who has no ability to control the content of the information and no ability to limit or restrict the viewing or displaying of such information."

      Debate ensued.

      The President declared the question before the Senate to be the adoption of the amendment by Senators Finkbeiner, Smith and Sutherland on page 4, line 19, to Substitute Senate Bill No. 5466.

      The motion by Senator Finkbeiner carried and the amendment was adopted.

MOTION

      Senator Kohl moved that the following amendment by Senators Kohl, Cal Anderson, McAuliffe, Pelz, Fairley, Spanel and Rinehart be adopted:

      On page 4, line 19, after "decisions" insert "; or

      (3) Instructional materials reviewed and recommended by an instructional materials committee and approved by the local school district's board of directors in accordance with RCW 28A.320.230"

      Debate ensued.

      The President declared the question before the Senate to be the adoption of the amendment by Senators Kohl, Cal Anderson, McAuliffe, Pelz, Fairley, Spanel and Rinehart on page 4, line 19, to Substitute Senate Bill No. 5466.

      The motion by Senator Kohl carried and the amendment was adopted.

MOTION

      On motion of Senator Kohl, the following amendment by Senators Kohl, Cal Anderson, Fairley, McAuliffe, Rinehart, Spanel and Pelz was adopted:

      On page 4, line 19, after "decisions" insert ";

      (3) The official distribution or use of material by a health care provider, or health agency under the supervision and control, or funded in whole or in part by the state, county, municipality, or other political division of the state;

      (4) Devices designed for contraceptive purposes; or

      (5) The depiction of a female breast feeding an infant"

MOTION

      On motion of Senator Smith, the rules were suspended, Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5466 was advanced to third reading, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

      Debate ensued.

      The President declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the final passage of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5466.

ROLL CALL

      The Secretary called the roll on the final passage of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5466 and the bill passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 41; Nays, 6; Absent, 0; Excused, 2.

      Voting yea: Senators Anderson, A., Bauer, Cantu, Deccio, Drew, Franklin, Fraser, Gaspard, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Heavey, Hochstatter, Johnson, Long, Loveland, McAuliffe, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Newhouse, Oke, Owen, Palmer, Prentice, Prince, Quigley, Rasmussen, Rinehart, Schow, Sellar, Sheldon, Smith, Snyder, Strannigan, Sutherland, Swecker, West, Winsley, Wojahn and Wood - 41.

      Voting nay: Senators Anderson, C., Fairley, Finkbeiner, Kohl, Pelz and Spanel - 6.

      Excused: Senators Moyer and Roach - 2.

      ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5466, having received the constitutional majority, was declared passed. There being no objection, the title of the bill will stand as the title of the act.

SECOND READING

      SENATE BILL NO. 5305, by Senators Heavey, Schow, Sheldon, Oke, Wood and Winsley

Using county auditors and subagents by the director of licensing.

MOTIONS

      On motion of Senator Owen, Substitute Senate Bill No. 5305 was substituted for Senate Bill No. 5305 and the substitute bill was placed on second reading and read the second time.

      On motion of Senator Owen, the rules were suspended, Substitute Senate Bill No. 5305 was advanced to third reading, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

      Debate ensued.

      The President declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5305.

ROLL CALL

      The Secretary called the roll on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5305 and the bill passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 47; Nays, 0; Absent, 0; Excused, 2.

      Voting yea: Senators Anderson, A., Anderson, C., Bauer, Cantu, Deccio, Drew, Fairley, Finkbeiner, Franklin, Fraser, Gaspard, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Heavey, Hochstatter, Johnson, Kohl, Long, Loveland, McAuliffe, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Newhouse, Oke, Owen, Palmer, Pelz, Prentice, Prince, Quigley, Rasmussen, Rinehart, Schow, Sellar, Sheldon, Smith, Snyder, Spanel, Strannigan, Sutherland, Swecker, West, Winsley, Wojahn and Wood - 47.

      Excused: Senators Moyer and Roach - 2.

      SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5305, having received the constitutional majority, was declared passed. There being no objection, the title of the bill will stand as the title of the act.

SECOND READING

      SENATE BILL NO. 5735, by Senators West, Winsley, McCaslin, Haugen, Deccio, Hochstatter, Palmer, Roach, Schow, Wood, Hale, Strannigan and Fraser

Paying county fees by credit cards.

MOTIONS

      On motion of Senator Haugen, Substitute Senate Bill No. 5735 was substituted for Senate Bill No. 5735 and the substitute bill was placed on second reading and read the second time.

      On motion of Senator Haugen, the rules were suspended, Substitute Senate Bill No. 5735 was advanced to third reading, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

      The President declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5735.

ROLL CALL

      The Secretary called the roll on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5735 and the bill passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 46; Nays, 0; Absent, 1; Excused, 2.

      Voting yea: Senators Anderson, A., Anderson, C., Bauer, Cantu, Deccio, Drew, Fairley, Finkbeiner, Fraser, Gaspard, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Heavey, Hochstatter, Johnson, Kohl, Long, Loveland, McAuliffe, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Newhouse, Oke, Owen, Palmer, Pelz, Prentice, Prince, Quigley, Rasmussen, Rinehart, Schow, Sellar, Sheldon, Smith, Snyder, Spanel, Strannigan, Sutherland, Swecker, West, Winsley, Wojahn and Wood - 46.

      Absent: Senator Franklin - 1.

      Excused: Senators Moyer and Roach - 2.

      SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5735, having received the constitutional majority, was declared passed. There being no objection, the title of the bill will stand as the title of the act.

SECOND READING

      SENATE BILL NO. 5108, by Senators Snyder, Winsley and Palmer

Concerning the hunter education training program.

      The bill was read the second time.

MOTION

      On motion of Senator Drew, the rules were suspended, Senate Bill No. 5108 was advanced to third reading, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

      Debate ensued.

      The President declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the final passage of Senate Bill No. 5108.

ROLL CALL

      The Secretary called the roll on the final passage of Senate Bill No. 5108 and the bill passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 44; Nays, 1; Absent, 2; Excused, 2.

      Voting yea: Senators Anderson, A., Anderson, C., Bauer, Cantu, Deccio, Drew, Finkbeiner, Fraser, Gaspard, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Heavey, Hochstatter, Johnson, Kohl, Long, Loveland, McAuliffe, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Newhouse, Oke, Owen, Palmer, Pelz, Prentice, Prince, Rasmussen, Rinehart, Schow, Sellar, Sheldon, Smith, Snyder, Spanel, Strannigan, Sutherland, Swecker, West, Winsley, Wojahn and Wood - 44.

      Voting nay: Senator Fairley - 1.

      Absent: Senators Franklin and Quigley - 2.

      Excused: Senators Moyer and Roach - 2.

      SENATE BILL NO. 5108, having received the constitutional majority, was declared passed. There being no objection, the title of the bill will stand as the title of the act.

SECOND READING

      SENATE BILL NO. 5214, by Senators Smith, C. Anderson, Winsley, Haugen and Kohl

Making admissible childrens' statements concerning acts of physical abuse.

MOTIONS

      On motion of Senator Smith, Substitute Senate Bill No. 5214 was substituted for Senate Bill No. 5214 and the substitute bill was placed on second reading and read the second time.

      On motion of Senator Smith, the rules were suspended, Substitute Senate Bill No. 5214 was advanced to third reading, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

      The President declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5214.

ROLL CALL

      The Secretary called the roll on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5214 and the bill passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 47; Nays, 0; Absent, 0; Excused, 2.

      Voting yea: Senators Anderson, A., Anderson, C., Bauer, Cantu, Deccio, Drew, Fairley, Finkbeiner, Franklin, Fraser, Gaspard, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Heavey, Hochstatter, Johnson, Kohl, Long, Loveland, McAuliffe, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Newhouse, Oke, Owen, Palmer, Pelz, Prentice, Prince, Quigley, Rasmussen, Rinehart, Schow, Sellar, Sheldon, Smith, Snyder, Spanel, Strannigan, Sutherland, Swecker, West, Winsley, Wojahn and Wood - 47.

      Excused: Senators Moyer and Roach - 2.

      SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5214, having received the constitutional majority, was declared passed. There being no objection, the title of the bill will stand as the title of the act.

SECOND READING

      SENATE BILL NO. 5167, by Senator Smith

Allowing service of process on a marital community by serving either spouse.

MOTIONS

      On motion of Senator Smith, Substitute Senate Bill No. 5167 was substituted for Senate Bill No. 5167 and the substitute bill was placed on second reading and read the second time.

      On motion of Senator Smith, the rules were suspended, Substitute Senate Bill No. 5167 was advanced to third reading, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

      The President declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5167.

ROLL CALL

      The Secretary called the roll on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5167 and the bill passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 46; Nays, 0; Absent, 1; Excused, 2.

      Voting yea: Senators Anderson, A., Anderson, C., Bauer, Cantu, Deccio, Drew, Fairley, Finkbeiner, Franklin, Gaspard, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Heavey, Hochstatter, Johnson, Kohl, Long, Loveland, McAuliffe, McCaslin, Morton, Newhouse, Oke, Owen, Palmer, Pelz, Prentice, Prince, Quigley, Rasmussen, Rinehart, Schow, Sellar, Sheldon, Smith, Snyder, Spanel, Strannigan, Sutherland, Swecker, West, Winsley, Wojahn and Wood - 46.

      Absent: Senator McDonald - 1.

      Excused: Senators Moyer and Roach - 2.

      SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5167, having received the constitutional majority, was declared passed. There being no objection, the title of the bill will stand as the title of the act.

SECOND READING

      SENATE BILL NO. 5403, by Senators Fraser, A. Anderson, Rasmussen, Prince, Spanel, Morton, Loveland, Swecker, Snyder, Palmer, Owen, Quigley and Roach

Establishing the Washington state horse park.

MOTIONS

      On motion of Senator Fraser, Substitute Senate Bill No. 5403 was substituted for Senate Bill No. 5403 and the substitute bill was placed on second reading and read the second time.

      On motion of Senator Fraser, the rules were suspended, Substitute Senate Bill No. 5403 was advanced to third reading, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

      Debate ensued.

MOTION

      On motion of Senator Sheldon, Senator Loveland was excused.

      The President declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5403.

ROLL CALL

      The Secretary called the roll on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5403 and the bill passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 45; Nays, 1; Absent, 0; Excused, 3.

      Voting yea: Senators Anderson, A., Anderson, C., Bauer, Cantu, Deccio, Drew, Fairley, Finkbeiner, Franklin, Fraser, Gaspard, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Heavey, Hochstatter, Johnson, Kohl, Long, McAuliffe, McDonald, Morton, Newhouse, Oke, Owen, Palmer, Pelz, Prentice, Prince, Quigley, Rasmussen, Rinehart, Schow, Sellar, Sheldon, Smith, Snyder, Spanel, Strannigan, Sutherland, Swecker, West, Winsley, Wojahn and Wood - 45.

      Voting nay: Senator McCaslin - 1.

      Excused: Senators Loveland, Moyer and Roach - 3.

      SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5403, having received the constitutional majority, was declared passed. There being no objection, the title of the bill will stand as the title of the act.

MOTION

      At 3:51 p.m., on motion of Senator Spanel, the Senate adjourned until 9:00 a.m., Monday, March 13, 1995.

JOEL PRITCHARD, President of the Senate

MARTY BROWN, Secretary of the Senate