The definition of "cash out" added to RCW 41.50.150(2)(a) by this act is a clarification of the legislature's original intent regarding the meaning of the term. The definition of "cash out" applies retroactively to payments made before the effective date of this act."

      Renumber remaining section consecutively and correct title accordingly., and the same are herewith transmitted.

TIMOTHY A. MARTIN, Chief Clerk

MOTION

      On motion of Senator Snyder, the Senate concurred in the House amendments to Substitute Senate Bill No. 5118.

      The President declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5118, as amended by the House.

ROLL CALL

      The Secretary called the roll on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5118, as amended by the House, and the bill passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 47; Nays, 0; Absent, 0; Excused, 2.

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

      Excused: Senators Anderson, C. and Hochstatter - 2.

      SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5118, as amended by the House, 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.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

April 11, 1995

MR. PRESIDENT:

      The House has passed ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5880 with the following amendment(s):

      On page 1, line 7, strike "under RCW 41.40.185" and insert "and receive a benefit under RCW 41.40.190 actuarially reduced from the earliest age the member could have retired under RCW 41.40.180", and the same are herewith transmitted.

TIMOTHY A. MARTIN, Chief Clerk

MOTION

      On motion of Senator Snyder, the Senate concurred in the House amendment to Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5880.

      The President declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the final passage of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5880, as amended by the House.

ROLL CALL

      The Secretary called the roll on the final passage of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5880, as amended by the House, and the bill passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 47; Nays, 0; Absent, 0; Excused, 2.

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

      Excused: Senators Anderson, C. and Hochstatter - 2.

      ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5880, as amended by the House, 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.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

April 19, 1995

MR. PRESIDENT:

      The Speaker ruled the Senate amendment(s) to SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 1140 beyond the scope and object of the bill. The House does not concur in said amendment(s) and asks the Senate to recede therefrom, and the same are herewith transmitted.

TIMOTHY A. MARTIN, Chief Clerk

MOTION

      On motion of Senator Spanel, the Senate receded from its amendment(s) to Substitute House Bill No. 1140.

      The President declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the final passage of Substitute House Bill No. 1140, without the Senate amendment(s).

ROLL CALL

      The Secretary called the roll on the final passage of Substitute House Bill No. 1140, without the Senate amendment(s), and the bill passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 47; Nays, 0; Absent, 0; Excused, 2.

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

      Excused: Senators Anderson, C. and Hochstatter - 2.

      SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 1140, without the Senate amendment(s), 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.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

April 6, 1995

MR. PRESIDENT:

      The House has passed ENGROSSED SENATE BILL NO. 5269 with the following amendment(s):

      On page 1, line 6, after "are" strike all material through "each" on line 7 and insert "((sold for not more than five dollars each)) each sold for an amount specified in this section"

      On page 1, line 13, after "game." insert "Individual raffle tickets may be sold for up to twenty-five dollars each, or, if authorized by the commission, up to one hundred dollars each.", and the same are herewith transmitted.

TIMOTHY A. MARTIN, Chief Clerk

MOTION

      Senator Spanel moved that the Senate refuse to concur in the House amendments to Engrossed Senate Bill No. 5269 and asks the House to recede therefrom.

      Debate ensued.

POINT OF ORDER

      Senator Wojahn: "A point of order, Mr. President. Would this, in your opinion, expand gambling if it were passed? Would it take a sixty percent vote because of the expansion of gambling?"

REPLY BY THE PRESIDENT

      President Pritchard: "No, I wouldn't interpret it that way."

      Senator Wojahn: "No, I wouldn't think so--from ten dollars to a hundred dollars."

      President Pritchard: "My attorney says that I don't have to answer that question that it is not relevant at this time and that we are on the amendment and we can take it later."

      Further debate ensued.

      Senator West demanded a roll call and the demand was sustained.

      Further debate ensued.

POINT OF INQUIRY

      Senator Morton: "Senator Pelz, if little Susie Q Girl Scout had a raffle ticket booklet and wanted to sell four of those twenty-five dollar tickets, would she be so able to do?"

      Senator Pelz: "I am not an expert on this. Can children sell raffle tickets? I assume they can."

      Senator Morton: "I am wondering, sir, if there are any restrictions in the bill as to how many raffle tickets the seller might be available to, so that they could sell one hundred dollars worth very conveniently by just issuing four tickets?"

      Senator Pelz: "No, sir, there are no such restrictions in the bill."

      Further debate ensued.

      The President declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the motion by Senator Spanel that the Senate refuse to concur in the House amendments to Engrossed Senate Bill No. 5269 and asks the House to recede therefrom.

POINT OF ORDER

      Senator Wojahn: "When do I ask the question on the number of 'yes' votes?"

RULING BY THE PRESIDENT

      President Pritchard: "We have discussed it and we have made a decision that a majority is sufficient."

      Senator Wojahn: "Even though it does expand?"

      President Pritchard: "It is not an expansion of gambling."

      Senator Wojahn: "You sound like the Gambling Commissioner. I think it is an expansion of gambling, Mr. President, but I won't argue with you."

      President Pritchard: "Well, you asked me."

      Further debate ensued.

ROLL CALL

      The Secretary called the roll and the motion by Senator Spanel carried by the following vote: Yeas, 32; Nays, 15; Absent, 0; Excused, 2.

      Voting yea: Senators Bauer, Cantu, Drew, Fairley, Finkbeiner, Franklin, Fraser, Gaspard, Hargrove, Haugen, Heavey, Johnson, Kohl, Loveland, McAuliffe, Morton, Newhouse, Oke, Owen, Pelz, Prentice, Prince, Quigley, Rasmussen, Rinehart, Roach, Sheldon, Smith, Snyder, Spanel, Sutherland and Wojahn - 32.

      Voting nay: Senators Anderson, A., Deccio, Hale, Long, McCaslin, McDonald, Moyer, Palmer, Schow, Sellar, Strannigan, Swecker, West, Winsley and Wood - 15.

      Excused: Senators Anderson, C. and Hochstatter - 2.

      The motion by Senator Spanel carried and the Senate refuses to concur in the House amendments to Engrossed Senate Bill No. 5269 and asks the House to recede therefrom.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

April 20, 1995

MR. PRESIDENT:

      The House does not concur in the Senate amendment(s) to ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 1209 and asks the Senate to recede therefrom, and the same are herewith transmitted.

TIMOTHY A. MARTIN, Chief Clerk

MOTION

      On motion of Senator Heavey, the rules were suspended, Substitute House Bill No. 1209 was returned to second reading and read the second time.

MOTIONS

      On motion of Senator Heavey, the Senate reconsidered the Committee on Transportation amendments on pages 2, 4, and 5, which were adopted April 5, 1995.

      On motion of Senator Heavey, the following amendment by Senators Owen and Prince was adopted to the Committee on Transportation amendments, on reconsideration:

      On page 1, line 19 of the amendments, after "service." insert "These employees will only be transferred upon successful completion of the Washington state patrol background investigation."

      The President declared the question before the Senate to be the adoption of the Committee on Transportation amendments on page 2, 4, and 5, as amended on reconsideration.

      The committee amendments, as amended on reconsideration, were adopted.

MOTION

      On motion of Senator Heavey, the rules were suspended, Engrossed Substitute House Bill No. 1209, as amended by the Senate under suspension of the rules, 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 Engrossed Substitute House Bill No. 1209, as amended by the Senate under suspension of the rules.

ROLL CALL

      The Secretary called the roll on the final passage of Engrossed Substitute House Bill No. 1209, as amended by the Senate under suspension of the rules, and the bill passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 47; Nays, 0; Absent, 0; Excused, 2.

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

      Excused: Senators Anderson, C. and Hochstatter - 2.

      ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 1209, as amended by the Senate under suspension of the rules, 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.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

April 20, 1995

MR. PRESIDENT:

      The House insists on its position regarding the House amendment(s) to ENGROSSED SECOND SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5448 and once again asks the Senate to concur therein, and the same are herewith transmitted.

TIMOTHY A. MARTIN, Chief Clerk

MOTION

      On motion of Senator Spanel, the Senate refuses to concur in the House amendment(s) to Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill No. 5448 and requests of the House a conference thereon.

APPOINTMENT OF CONFERENCE COMMITTEE

      The President appointed as members of the Conference Committee on Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill No. 5448 and the House amendment(s) thereto: Senators Fraser, Swecker and Sutherland.

MOTION

      On motion of Senator Spanel, the Conference Committee appointments were confirmed.

APPOINTMENT OF CONFERENCE COMMITTEE TO ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5885

      The President appointed as members of the Conference Committee on Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5885 and the House amendment(s) thereto: Senators Hargrove, Long and Prentice.

MOTION

      On motion of Senator Spanel, the Conference Committee appointments were confirmed.

MOTION

      At 4:02 p.m., on motion of Senator Spanel, the Senate was declared to be at ease.

      The Senate was called to order at 4:53 p.m. by President Pritchard.

MOTION

      On motion of Senator Spanel, the Senate advanced to the seventh order of business.

STATEMENT FOR THE JOURNAL

      Although I was absent for the vote on Initiative 159 on the Senate floor, I was in a conference with the Governor on health care reform. I supported this initiative's passage out of the Law and Justice Committee, and I would have fully supported passage on the Senate floor. I believe it is absolutely essential that we crack down hard on violent crime.

SENATOR KEVIN QUIGLEY, 39th District

EDITOR'S NOTES:

      The text of Initiative 159 was read in on the first day, January 9, 1995.

On the one hundred-fifth day, April 23, 1995, Senator Roach moved that the complete transcript of the debate on Initiative 159 be spread upon the Journal.

THIRD READING

      INITIATIVE 159 by People of the state of Washington

      Relating to increasing penalties for armed crimes.

      The initiative was read the third time.

REMARKS BY SENATOR GASPARD

      Senator Gaspard: "Mr President and members of the Senate, we now have before us the Initiative to the Legislature, Initiative 159, which is the Initiative for hard time for armed crime, as it has been called. It is an Initiative that has been brought to us by thousands of signatures of citizens across this state that are speaking loudly at this time of need to send a strong message to those who commit crimes and commit those crimes with armed weapons or weapons of other types.

      "It is a serious Initiative, because it makes a commitment by this Legislature to recognize with these increased penalties, we are also going to have increased costs in our Corrections' budget. I think if we make that decision based on public safety, it will be a decision for us to support Initiative 159. Public safety is paramount; it is paramount for us. As far as the responsibilities that we have as a Legislature, with our constitutional requirement to provide for ample education in this state, I believe we have an equal responsibility of providing for public safety. I believe that Initiative 159 will help us provide for public safety. I urge members of the Legislature to cast their vote for Initiative 159."

REMARKS BY SENATOR OKE

      Senator Oke: "Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, urge you to vote for this. We have had three strikes and you're out and some of us disagreed on that one, but you know what is happening in the state of Washington when they hit two, the bad people--they're packing their bags and leaving. They are going to know that Washington State is serious about crime. This gets the focus off the gun. We've argued on the floor about the gun, but this puts it on the person using the gun and I hope we all join together in voting for a resounding 'yes.' Thank you."

REMARKS BY SENATOR KOHL

      Senator Kohl: "Thank you, Mr. President, and members of the Senate. I rise in opposition to Initiative 159. In doing so, I do not rise in opposition to increased penalties for violent crime or for crimes committed with deadly weapons. However, I believe very strongly that this Initiative is flawed. I had introduced an alternative to the Initiative, Senate Bill No. 5752--and you do have a guest column reprinted for you, from the Seattle Times, in which I explain my views. The bill did not get a hearing, but I do believe that it is important to point out some of the flaws and these are also brought out in the Yakima Herald Review, in the Spokane paper--the Spokane Spokesman Review, the Walla Walla Union Bulletin. There have been many newspaper editorials in the last few months calling for legislators to legislate and not pass an Initiative that is flawed.

      "The Initiative calls for increased time for crimes committed that are violent. I don't take that lightly at all. Under the Initiative, somebody who commits a very violent act, such as rape, with a knife being held at a victim's throat would have two years additional time imposed. But, a person who burglarizes an empty warehouse, for example, and is apprehended and has a gun in his pocket, would get an additional five years sentence. To me, that human being, that live victim who has absolutely terrorized, raped at knife point, and has her attacker given a two year extra penalty compared to the other person going into an empty warehouse where no human being is present, getting a five year penalty, makes no sense.

      "The Initiative, I believe, is soft on common sense. It will cost taxpayers twelve point five million dollars over the next two years and fill our already over-crowed prisons with too many non-violent offenders for too long. I know this Initiative will pass and I applaud most of what it is in it, but it is flawed and I think we have relinquished our responsibility."

REMARKS BY SENATOR ROACH

      Senator Roach: "Thank you, Mr. President. Well, there was an easier way, a more direct way, a less expensive way, a quicker way to get tough on armed crime. Last year, we had an opportunity to vote on Senate Bill No. 6599, which was entitled, 'Hard Times for Armed Crime,' and Senate Bill No. 5871, which is the 'Drive-by Shooting Bill.' Both of those make up what we see before us today in this Initiative. I prime-sponsored both of those bills last year and on this floor, while the drive-by shooting bill went to the House where it failed, hard times failed here on the floor of the Senate.

      "Now, we get a chance to see it again. Look at the prime-sponsors, take a look at your bill report, it says, 'Sponsors of 159.' It says, 'The people of the state of Washington.' The people of the state of Washington needed to get involved in this process themselves, because we failed to do it here last year. I am happy they did, very, very glad that we are going to now address armed crime in Washington State. We are going to be getting tough on those who use a crime or use an armed weapon or use a weapon in the commission of a crime. We're going to be giving them additional time; we are going to make sure all of those plea bargains that are given, are made public record, so that we can take a look at those.

      "We're going to say that if you commit murder by drive-by shooting or to gain access to a gang or an association that you will be able to be charged under the aggravated first degree murder statutes of the state of Washington. I believe the people should be complimented. Some of those people who are forefront on this are people like John Carlson and Dave LaCourse, the widow of Todd Musselman and others who had to come to this Legislature to work, in addition to the work that was done here as legislators, to get this passed. It is a proud day for us all; I applaud the people of the state of Washington for their courage and their effort in bringing this before this Legislature again. Thank you."

REMARKS BY SENATOR FRANKLIN

      Senator Franklin: "Thank you, Mr. President. Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, everyone of us is entitled to safety in our homes, in our streets and our neighborhoods, but crime and violence has made us prisoners in our own homes. I know that within my home, we have bars on our windows, one of the last things that I thought we would ever do. The crime and violence is all around us. Walking through my street seeing all the barred doors and windows, the alarm systems, overflowing jails, new prisons on line, we are a society gone mad.

      "I 159 really makes me sad. I want that money spent on children, families in crisis, education, and educating them for the work force of tomorrow. Twenty-five thousand dollars on each prisoner is far, far too much. This is truly, truly a sad day when we Mothers, Grandmothers, will shed tears for our children and children to come. I fear, I fear that they may have only to look toward prison--what is in it for them? We must, we must make a safe place for our children and for future generations, although, we must also educate, spend money on our children--keep our children from entering a life of crime. If this would happen, we would not be having--we should not be making prisons--but full opportunity, employment opportunity. Our jails are overflowing. We are spending so much money, but what are we spending on our children? What are we spending to keep them from entering a life of crime? As we debate this, and I support I 159, and I signed it, but I signed it in support of the sadness. We must, we must spend money on our children. We must educate our children; we must prepare them for the work force of tomorrow. This is a sad day. We must begin to prioritize what we spend our money on. Thank you."

REMARKS BY SENATOR HEAVEY

      Senator Heavey: "Thank you, Mr. President. I voted against this crime bill last year and the reason why, very simply, if you are behind bars and you are violent, you can't hurt anybody. Thank you."

POINT OF INQUIRY

      Senator Pelz: "Would Senator Roach yield to a question?"

      Senator Roach: "Yes, Senator Pelz."

      Senator Pelz: "Page twenty-four, Section 17, subsection (6)--this is on First Degree Murder. It says, 'The persons committed the murder to obtain or maintain his or her membership or to advance his or her position in the hierarchy of an organization, association, or identifiable group.' This is on the section on First Degree Murder. Now, suppose, as a member of the Senate, I aspire to the position of Chair of Ways and Means and I had that person assassinated, so that I can move up to the position of Chairman of Ways and Means. Would that constitute a first degree murder under this statute?"

      Senator Roach: "We are talking about aggravated first degree murder, Senator Pelz, and if it is an established group, then the answer in my opinion, would be 'yes.' Aggravated first degree murder, Senator Pelz, is the only charge that, when found guilty, an individual can be executed. When we are found guilty of first degree murder, we can have life imprisonment, but we can't be executed. The crime of murder, to gain access to any kind of an organization, is an aggravating factor and should be punishable by the death penalty."

      Senator Pelz: "Also, say a stock brokerage firm or a law firm, would that also apply here?"

      Senator Roach: "If you can prove that you are doing this to gain access, and in my opinion, the answer would be 'yes.'"

      Senator Pelz: "This is sort of aimed at white collar crime. Is that what we can say?"

      Senator Roach: "I would say it is specifically aimed at the gangs and gang-related activity, because we have seen in the recent past, this specific new crime, if you will, of killing to gain access to an organization or association."

      Senator Pelz: "My point is that this could be speaking to a gang or a law firm or some such other pernicious association."

      Senator Roach: "Senator Pelz, some would think that a law firm is a gang."

      Senator Pelz: "That is my first point and my second point is that one of the things that I find really upsetting about this Initiative is that it was somewhat the product of a radio talk show host who was seeking to boost his rating and would take a pander to peoples' fears so much as to put this out there on the airwaves in an attempt to get more people to listen to a radio show. You know, we have this sort of state of Initiatives that are either rhymes--hard time for armed crime--or baseball allegories You know, three strikes and your're out. I just wish that the next sort of right-wing Initiative would have a haiku."

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

      President Pritchard: "The clerk will call the roll on the final passage of Initiative 159."

ROLL CALL

      The Secretary called the roll and the Initiative passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 39; Nays, 5; Absent, 3; Excused, 2.

      Voting yea: Senators Anderson, A., Bauer, Cantu, Drew, Finkbeiner, Franklin, Gaspard, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Heavey, Johnson, Long, Loveland, McAuliffe, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Newhouse, Oke, Owen, Palmer, Prince, Rasmussen, Rinehart, Roach, Schow, Sellar, Sheldon, Smith, Snyder, Spanel, Strannigan, Sutherland, Swecker, West, Winsley, Wojahn and Wood - 39.

      Voting nay: Senators Fairley, Fraser, Kohl, Pelz and Prentice - 5.

      Absent: Senators Deccio, Moyer and Quigley - 3.

      Excused: Senators Anderson, C. and Hochstatter - 2.

      At 5:13 p.m., there being no objection, the President declared the Senate to be at ease.

      The Senate was called to order at 5:21 p.m. by President Pritchard.

MOTION

      At 5:21 p.m., on motion of Senator Spanel, the Senate adjourned until 9:00 a.m., Friday, April 21, 1995.

JOEL PRITCHARD, President of the Senate

MARTY BROWN, Secretary of the Senate