(1) Any tax increase imposed by the state requires voter approval.

       (2) For the purposes of this section, "tax" includes, but is not necessarily limited to, sales and use taxes, property taxes, business and occupation taxes, excise taxes, fuel taxes, impact fees, license fees, permit fees, and any monetary charge by government.

       (3) For the purposes of this section, "tax" does not include:

       (a) Higher education tuition; and

       (b) Civil and criminal fines and other charges collected in cases of restitution or violation of law or contract.

       (4) For the purposes of this section, "tax increase" includes, but is not necessarily limited to, a new tax, a monetary increase in an existing tax, a tax rate increase, an expansion in the legal definition of a tax base, and an extension of an expiring tax.

       (5) For the purposes of this section, "state" includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the state itself and all its departments and agencies, any city, county, special district, and other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the state.

       (6) This section does not apply to any specific emergency measure authorized by vote of two-thirds of the members of each house of the legislature and expiring not later than twelve months from the effective date of the emergency act.

       (7) This section is intended to add to, and not replace, the requirements for tax increases set forth in Initiative 601, the Taxpayer Protection Act, RCW 43.135.035.

       NEW SECTION. Sec. 1047. The provisions of this act are to be liberally construed to effectuate the policies and purposes of this act.

       NEW SECTION. Sec. 1048. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected."

      Debate ensued.

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

      The President declared the question before the Senate to be the adoption of the amendment by Senators Benton, Sheahan, Johnson, Rossi, Honeyford and Stevens on page 261, after line 28, to Substitute Senate Bill No. 6404.

ROLL CALL

      The Secretary called the roll and the amendment was not adopted by the following vote: Yeas, 21; Nays, 27; Absent, 0; Excused, 1.

     Voting yea: Senators Benton, Deccio, Finkbeiner, Hale, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Johnson, Long, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Oke, Roach, Rossi, Sheahan, Sheldon, T., Stevens, Swecker, West, Winsley and Zarelli - 21.

     Voting nay: Senators Bauer, Brown, Costa, Eide, Fairley, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Goings, Hargrove, Haugen, Heavey, Horn, Jacobsen, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Loveland, McAuliffe, Patterson, Prentice, Rasmussen, Sheldon, B., Shin, Snyder, Spanel, Thibaudeau and Wojahn - 27.

     Excused: Senator Sellar - 1.

POINT OF ORDER

      Senator Tim Sheldon: “A point of order, Mr. President. There are several members that have expressed a desire to raise this subject. The amendment by Senators Tim Sheldon, Rossi, West and Honeyford on page 86, after line 8, was incorrectly identified on the board. Several members have expressed a desire to change their vote and I think that would be a fair item to do and take up.”

REPLY BY THE PRESIDENT

      President Owen: “Senator Sheldon, the President clearly stated which amendment we were on. Senator Heavey clearly stated which amendment we were on. The members were clear on what amendment we were on. The proper motion would be to move to reconsider, but the body can not just take it up without that motion.”

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

      Senator Hargrove, having voted on the prevailing side, moved to reconsider the vote by which the amendment by Senators Tim Sheldon, Rossi, West and Honeyford on page 86, after line 8, to Substitute Senate Bill No. 6404 failed to pass the Senate.

      Debate ensued.

POINT OF ORDER

      Senator Roach: “A point of order, Mr. President. That point--we don’t know who it was that messed up the vote--okay?”

REPLY BY THE PRESIDENT

      President Owen: “Senator Roach, that has nothing to do with a point of order that is before us right now. We are not discussing whether or not the amendment was appropriately displayed before us. If you want to bring that up in debate, that is fine, but that point of order has been settled.”

      Senator Roach: “But the point of order would be, if a vote was mistaken--miscast--then the members of the Senate can go to the Journal and write in the Journal, for the record, reasons for the inappropriate vote. I have had occasion to do that at least twice in my ten years and maybe someone would want to do that.”

      The President declared the question before the Senate to be the motion by Senator Hargrove to reconsider the vote by which the amendment by Senators Tim Sheldon, Rossi, West and Honeyford on page 86, after line 8, to Substitute Senate Bill No. 6404 failed to pass the Senate earlier today.

      The motion to reconsider failed on a rising vote.

MOTION

      On motion of Senator Loveland, the rules were suspended, Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 6404 was advanced to third reading, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

      Senator Rossi: “Mr. President, I rise to a point of parliamentary inquiry concerning how many votes are necessary to amend Initiative 601. Section 907, on page 219, says that the Legislature may transfer up to three hundred million dollars for the emergency reserve fund to the multi model fund. Mr. President, Article II, Section 1 (c) of the State Constitution provides as follows: ‘No act, law approved by the majority of the electors voting thereon shall be amended or repealed by the legislature within a period of two years following such enactment, except by a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house.’

      “However, in November of 1998, the people passed Referendum 49. Referendum 49 contains the following unequivocal language in Section 14: ‘Initiative Measure 601, Chapter 43.1.35 RCW is hereby reenacted and reaffirmed.’ The word ‘reenacted’ is the operative word, Mr. President. This is the word that needs to be interpreted. In doing so, you need not, and I respectfully submit should not look beyond that word.

      “In determining legislative intent, the court looks first to the language of a statute. The court must give effect to the statute’s clear language. Specifically, in this case, the word ‘reenact’. It is clear, it must therefore be accorded its ordinary meaning. The word’s ordinary meaning can be derived from the dictionary. The American Heritage Dictionary, Second Edition defines the term ‘enact’ as follows: ‘to make, a bill for example, into law.’ The same dictionary defines the term ‘reenact’ as follows: ‘to enact again, re-enact a law.’ Thus, the term ‘reenact’ plainly means to enact a law a second time.

      “I submit that it is clear that in November, 1998, the people enacted Initiative 601 into law a second time. Any amendment to Initiative 601, by this Legislature this session can only be made by two-thirds vote of each house under Article II, Section 1(c) of the State’s Constitution.”

      Debate ensued.

RULING BY THE PRESIDENT

      President Owen: “In ruling upon the parliamentary inquiry by Senator Rossi concerning the number of votes necessary to amend Initiative 601, the President agrees that the issue here is the meaning of the term, ‘I-601 is hereby reenacted.’ In Section 14 of Referendum 49, that is, whether the passage of Section 14 by the voters in November of 1998 insulated 1-601 in its entirety from amendment by the Legislature without a two-thirds vote through November, 2000.

      “The President interpreted the word ‘reenacted’ differently in a 1998 ruling on Senator Snyder’s point of order that the bill that became Referendum 49 contained two subjects in violation of Senate Rule 25. At that time, the President noted that the changes to I -601 referenced in Section 14 of Referendum 49 were made to accommodate the shift of Motor Vehicle Excise Tax funds and did not constitute a second subject in the measure. The President based his ruling, in part, on the fact that the text of I-601 was not set forth in full in Referendum 49.

      “The President believes that he must be consistent in his rulings, so that this body will maintain a degree of certainty in the conduct of its business. For these reasons, the President believes that passage of an amendment to I-601--seven years after that measure’s passage--- requires a simple majority vote.”

POINT OF INQUIRY

      Senator Heavey: “Senator Loveland, state law says that per diem rates for private pay patients in adult family homes will be stated in the contract with the private pay patients. Is it the intent of the Legislature to state that the per diem rate is the monthly rate divided by thirty?”

      Senator Loveland: “No, the intent is that the per diem rate be disclosed in the contract.”

POINT OF INQUIRY

      Senator West: “Senator Zarelli, you participated in the capitol budget discussions in behalf of this caucus?”

      Senator Zarelli: “I did.”

      Senator West: “Does this capital budget contain any money to offset the expenses that might be necessary to cover the directive in Executive Order 00-01, promulgated by the Governor on February 3, 2000? For the information of the members, in Executive Order 00-01, the Governor directs his agencies to require successful bidders on certain public works projects contracted by those agencies to use a percentage of Washington State Apprenticeship Training Council-registered apprentices. Again, Senator Zarelli, is there any accommodation for the extra cost that this might add?”

      Senator Zarelli: “No.”

      Senator West: “That’s what I hoped to hear, because Executive Order 00-01 is merely a directive issued by the Governor to his agency directors. It does not maintain the force of law, and I submit no agency, under the Governor’s control, will be able to rely on the Executive Order for authority in a subsequent lawsuit for failure to follow the competitive bid statute as enacted by this Legislature.

      “RCW 39.04.010 provides that public works contracts are to be competitively bid. The one policy exception to this requirement is the requirement that successful bidders comply with the state’s prevailing wage law. That exception was created through statute, as it had to be. Last session, the Legislature considered and failed to pass a measure which was very similar to the Governor’s Executive Order. The bill would have required a second policy exception to the competitive bid requirement, namely Senate Bill No. 5491, which would have required successful bidders to employ a certain percentage of registered apprentices on public works projects. That policy exception is also a matter for the Legislature, not the Governor.

      “As the Attorney General has stated in a 1991 opinion, ‘In the absence of a statute authorizing the Governor to act...the Governor cannot create obligations, responsibilities, conditions or processes having the force and effect of law by the issuance of an executive order.’ This is true even if the order does not conflict with a statute enacted by the Legislature.

      “With Executive Order 00-01, the Governor appears to be trying to take matters into his own hands. He knows, as the Legislature knows, as the courts and Attorney General have opined, that he cannot validly tread--”

POINT OF ORDER

      Senator Snyder: “A point of order, Mr. President. We are discussing the final passage of the budget bill here today and we’ve given a lot of leeway this session to letting members express their opinions on a lot of different subjects, but I think that Senator West has gone on about an Executive Order that the Governor has issued. Really, it has no correlation with what we are discussing here on final passage. I think his remarks on the Executive Order are out of order at this time.”

REPLY BY THE PRESIDENT

      President Owen: “Senator West, the rules do require that your remarks be relative to the issue before us, which is the budget.”

      Senator West: “Yes, Mr. President, I am trying to establish that the budget makes no accommodation for this Executive Order, as it has been issued and that this is merely a directive on the part of the Governor and not a statutory obligation on the part of the state of Washington and does not have the force of law. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, members of the Senate.”

      Further 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. 6404.

ROLL CALL

      The Secretary called the roll on the final passage of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 6404 and the bill passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 32; Nays, 16; Absent, 0; Excused, 1.

     Voting yea: Senators Bauer, Brown, Costa, Deccio, Eide, Fairley, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Goings, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Heavey, Horn, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Long, Loveland, McAuliffe, McCaslin, McDonald, Patterson, Prentice, Rasmussen, Sheldon, B., Shin, Snyder, Spanel, Thibaudeau, Winsley and Wojahn - 32.

     Voting nay: Senators Benton, Finkbeiner, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Jacobsen, Johnson, Morton, Oke, Roach, Rossi, Sheahan, Sheldon, T., Stevens, Swecker, West and Zarelli - 16.

     Excused: Senator Sellar - 1.

      ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 6404, 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.

      President Pro Tempore Wojahn assumed the Chair.

SECOND READING

      SENATE BILL NO. 6845, by Senators Loveland and Snyder

Reconciling actual revenues and the expenditure limit.

      The bill was read the second time.

MOTION

      Senator Rossi moved that the following amendment by Senators Rossi and McDonald be adopted:

      On page 2, after line 16, strike all material through "immediately" on line 20, and insert the following:

       "NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. The secretary of state shall submit this act to the people for their adoption and ratification, or rejection, at the next general election to be held in this state, in accordance with Article II, section 1 of the state Constitution and the laws adopted to facilitate its operation."

       Renumber the sections consecutively and correct any internal references accordingly.

      Debate ensued.

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

      The President Pro Tempore declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the adoption of the amendment by Senators Rossi and McDonald on page 2, after line 16, to Senate Bill No. 6845.

ROLL CALL

      The Secretary called the roll and the amendment was not adopted by the following vote: Yeas, 22; Nays, 26; Absent, 0; Excused, 1.

     Voting yea: Senators Benton, Deccio, Finkbeiner, Hale, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Horn, Jacobsen, Johnson, Long, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Oke, Roach, Rossi, Sheahan, Sheldon, T., Stevens, Swecker, West and Zarelli - 22.

     Voting nay: Senators Bauer, Brown, Costa, Eide, Fairley, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Goings, Hargrove, Haugen, Heavey, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Loveland, McAuliffe, Patterson, Prentice, Rasmussen, Sheldon, B., Shin, Snyder, Spanel, Thibaudeau, Winsley and Wojahn - 26.

     Excused: Senator Sellar - 1.

MOTION

      On motion of Senator Bauer, the rules were suspended, Senate Bill No. 6845 was advanced to third reading, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

      Debate ensued.

POINT OF ORDER

      Senator Benton: “A point of order, Madam President. Would you please remind the Senator that is speaking to speak to the issue and to the motion? I feel that my motives have been impugned. I would not like to cut higher education or education or any other program in the budget. I don’t think it is necessary to cut any of those things and I don’t like being accused of doing so. So, please ask the Senator speaking to keep his remarks to the issue and not impugn the members motives on this side of the aisle.”

REPLY BY THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

      President Pro Tempore Wojahn: “Senator Kline, would you please keep your remarks to the issue?”

      Senator Kline: “I certainly will.”

      Further debate ensued.

DEMAND FOR THE PREVIOUS QUESTION

      Senators Snyder, Prentice and Spanel demanded the previous question and the demand was sustained.

      The President declared the question before the Senate to be shall the main question be now put.

      The demand for the previous question carried.

      The President Pro Tempore declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the final passage of Senate Bill No. 6845.

ROLL CALL

      The Secretary called the roll on the final passage of Senate Bill No. 6845 and the bill passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 27; Nays, 21; Absent, 0; Excused, 1.

     Voting yea: Senators Bauer, Brown, Costa, Eide, Fairley, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Goings, Hargrove, Haugen, Heavey, Jacobsen, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Loveland, McAuliffe, Patterson, Prentice, Rasmussen, Sheldon, B., Shin, Snyder, Spanel, Thibaudeau, Winsley and Wojahn - 27.

     Voting nay: Senators Benton, Deccio, Finkbeiner, Hale, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Horn, Johnson, Long, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Oke, Roach, Rossi, Sheahan, Sheldon, T., Stevens, Swecker, West and Zarelli - 21.

     Excused: Senator Sellar - 1.

      SENATE BILL NO. 6845, 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. 6499, by Senators Haugen, Goings, Gardner and Patterson (by request of Governor Locke)

Making supplemental transportation appropriations.

MOTIONS

      On motion of Senator Goings, Substitute Senate Bill No. 6499 was substituted for Senate Bill No. 6499 and the substitute bill was placed on second reading and read the second time.

      Senator Benton moved that the following amendment by Senators Benton, Long and Hochstatter be adopted:

       On page 12, after line 6, strike all of lines 7 & 8 and insert the following:

       "(1) Within available funds, the department shall ensure that all new highway construction is compatible with the use by single-occupant vehicles of high occupancy vehicle lanes during the non-peak hours of 8:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m."

       Renumber the sections consecutively and correct any internal references accordingly.

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

      The President Pro Tempore declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the adoption of the amendment by Senators Benton, Long and Hochstatter on page 12, after line 6, to Substitute Senate Bill No. 6499.

ROLL CALL

      The Secretary called the roll and the amendment was not adopted by the following vote: Yeas, 21; Nays, 27; Absent, 0; Excused, 1.

      Voting yea: Senators Benton, Deccio, Finkbeiner, Hale, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Horn, Johnson, Long, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Oke, Roach, Rossi, Sheahan, Stevens, Swecker, West, Winsley and Zarelli - 21.       Voting nay: Senators Bauer, Brown, Costa, Eide, Fairley, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Goings, Hargrove, Haugen, Heavey, Jacobsen, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Loveland, McAuliffe, Patterson, Prentice, Rasmussen, Sheldon, B., Sheldon, T., Shin, Snyder, Spanel, Thibaudeau and Wojahn - 27.       Excused: Senator Sellar - 1.

MOTION

      Senator Benton moved that the following amendment be adopted:

      On page 12, after line 6, strike all of line 7 and 8 and insert the following:

       "(1) For fiscal year 2001, the department shall issue an annual high occupancy vehicle lane use permit for $250 per vehicle that authorizes that vehicle to be used in the high occupancy vehicle lanes without restriction. All revenue generated by the sale of this permit shall be deposited into the state motor vehicle fund for highway improvement purposes to increase capacity."

       Renumber the sections consecutively and correct any internal references accordingly.

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

MOTION

      Senator Benton moved to withdraw the amendment on page 12, line 6, to Substitute Senate Bill No. 6499.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

      Senator Franklin: “A parliamentary inquiry, Madam President. Can the proponent of the amendment withdraw his amendment once the gavel has fallen and that we will take a roll call vote? I am confused. It doesn’t seem if the rules allow that?”

REPLY BY THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

      President Pro Tempore Wojahn: “Yes, they do allow it.”

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

      Senator Johnson: “A parliamentary inquiry, Madam President. Is this amendment properly before the body? It looks to me like it is under Initiative 695. It is an additional fee and there is no referendum for referral to the people. I would like a ruling on that please, Madam President.”

REPLY BY THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

      President Pro Tempore Wojahn: “In response to your question, Senator Johnson, it is up to the body to make that decision. It is not up to the Chair.”

      The President Pro Tempore declared the question before the Senate to be if the motion by Senator Benton to withdraw the amendment on page 12, line 6, to Substitute Senate Bill No. 6499.

      The motion by Senator Benton failed and the amendment was not withdrawn.

.     The President Pro Tempore declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the adoption of the amendment by Senator Benton on page 12, after line 6, to Substitute Senate Bill No. 6499.

ROLL CALL

      The Secretary called the roll and the amendment was not adopted by the following vote: Yeas, 0; Nays, 48; Absent, 0; Excused, 1.

     Voting nay: Senators Bauer, Benton, Brown, Costa, Deccio, Eide, Fairley, Finkbeiner, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Goings, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Heavey, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Horn, Jacobsen, Johnson, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Long, Loveland, McAuliffe, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Oke, Patterson, Prentice, Rasmussen, Roach, Rossi, Sheahan, Sheldon, B., Sheldon, T., Shin, Snyder, Spanel, Stevens, Swecker, Thibaudeau, West, Winsley, Wojahn and Zarelli - 48.

     Excused: Senator Sellar - 1.

PERSONAL PRIVILEGE

      Senator Benton: “Madam President, a point of personal privilege. It was a good amendment last year.”

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

      Senator McCaslin: “A parliamentary inquiry, Madam President. Rule 15 states that we will have ninety minutes for lunch and ninety minutes for dinner. How about breakfast? We are going to be here until breakfast unless we keep going here folks. Drop some of those HOVs and that stuff--unless we are going to be here for breakfast.”

REPLY BY THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

      President Pro Tempore Wojahn: “I have no rule in my book that deals with breakfast, Senator, so I can’t give you a decision.”

MOTION

      Senator Benton moved that the following amendment be adopted:

      On page 12, after line 6, strike all of lines 7 and 8 and insert the following:

       "(1) Up to $200,000 of the high capacity transportation account— state appropriation is provided solely for the department to conduct a study of high occupancy vehicle lane use and report to the senate and house of representatives transportation committees."

       Renumber the sections consecutively and correct any internal references accordingly.

      Debate ensued.

      The President Pro Tempore declared the question before the Senate to be the adoption of the amendment by Senator Benton on page 12, after line 6, to Substitute Senate Bill No. 6499.

      The motion by Senator Benton failed and the amendment was not adopted.

MOTION

      Senator Rossi moved that the following amendment by Senators Rossi, Benton and Patterson be adopted:

       On page 12, strike all of lines 7-8 and insert the following:

       "(1) The department shall institute a pilot program which opens High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes on I-405 to use by all vehicles during the nonpeak hours of 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. The department shall submit a report the senate and the house transportation committees on traffic flow along I-405 resulting from changes made under this pilot program by December 31, 2000."

       Renumber the sections consecutively and correct any internal references accordingly.

      Debate ensued.

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

      Further debate ensued.

      The President Pro Tempore declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the adoption of the amendment by Senators Rossi, Benton and Patterson to Substitute Senate Bill No. 6499.

ROLL CALL

      The Secretary called the roll and the amendment was not adopted by the following vote: Yeas, 23; Nays, 25; Absent, 0; Excused, 1.

     Voting yea: Senators Benton, Deccio, Finkbeiner, Hale, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Horn, Johnson, Long, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Oke, Patterson, Roach, Rossi, Sheahan, Sheldon, T., Stevens, Swecker, West, Winsley and Zarelli - 23.

     Voting nay: Senators Bauer, Brown, Costa, Eide, Fairley, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Goings, Hargrove, Haugen, Heavey, Jacobsen, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Loveland, McAuliffe, Prentice, Rasmussen, Sheldon, B., Shin, Snyder, Spanel, Thibaudeau and Wojahn - 25.

     Excused: Senator Sellar - 1.

MOTION

      Senator Benton moved that the following amendment by Senators Benton and Rossi be adopted:

       On page 12, line 7, delete the following:"(1) The commission is prohibited from using this appropriation for changing the current policy relating to high occupancy vehicle lanes. (2)"

       Renumber the sections consecutively and correct any internal references accordingly.

      Debate ensued

DEMAND FOR THE PREVIOUS QUESTION

      Senators Snyder, Betti Sheldon and Spanel demanded the previous question and the demand was sustained. 

      The President Pro Tempore declared the question before the Senate to be shall the main question be now put.

      The demand for the previous question carried.

      The President Pro Tempore declared the question before the Senate to be the adoption of the amendment by Senators Benton and Rossi on page 12, line 7, to Substitute Senate Bill No. 6499.

      The motion by Senator Benton failed and the amendment was not adopted.

MOTION

      Senator Horn moved that the following amendment by Senators Horn, Rossi, Oke and Benton be adopted:

       On page 12, after line 10, insert the following:

       "(3) For each department of transportation geographic administrative region, the commission shall review the capacity of those highways known to have congestion problems, and determine at what percentage of capacity the highway is operating. Those highways that are closest to capacity or most over capacity shall receive the highest priority. Within each department of transportation geographic administrative region, congestion relief projects shall be completed in the order of their prioritized ranking. The highest priority projects in each region must be completed before starting on lower priority projects.”

      Debate ensued.

      The President declared the question before the Senate to be the adoption of the amendment by Senators Horn, Rossi, Oke and Benton on page 12, after line 10, to Substitute Senate Bill No. 6499.

      The motion by Senator Horn failed and the amendment was not adopted.

MOTION

      Senator Benton moved that the following amendments be considered simultaneously and be adopted:

      On page 12, line 20, delete "151,896,000" and insert "153,396,000"

       On page 12, line 27, delete "158,218,000' and insert "159,318,000"

       Renumber the sections consecutively and correct any internal references accordingly.

      Debate ensued.

      The President Pro Tempore declared the question before the Senate to be the adoption of the amendments by Senator Benton on page 12, lines 20 and 27, to Substitute Senate Bill No. 6499.

      The motion by Senator Benton failed and the amendments were not adopted.

MOTION

      Senator Benton moved that the following amendment be adopted:

      On page 14, line 1, beginning with "The" delete everything through "(12)" on line 27.

       Renumber the sections consecutively and correct any internal references accordingly.

      The President Pro Tempore declared the question before the Senate to be the adoption of the amendment by Senator Benton on page 14, line 1, to Substitute Senate Bill No. 6499.

      The motion by Senator Benton failed and the amendment was not adopted.

MOTION

      On motion of Senator Goings, the following amendments by Senators Goings, Gardner, Benton and Haugen were considered simultaneously and were adopted:

       On page 15, line 1, delete "62,563,000" and insert "62,828,000"

       On page 15, line 7, delete "63,410,000" and insert "63,675,000"

MOTION

      Senator Goings moved that the following amendments by Senators Goings, Gardner, Benton and Haugen be considered simultaneously and be adopted:

       On page 15, line 2, delete "62,563,000" and insert "62,788,000"

       On page 15, line 7, delete "63,410,000" and insert "63,635,000"

      Debate ensued.

      The President Pro Tempore declared the question before the Senate to be the adoption of the amendments by Senators Goings, Gardner, Benton and Haugen on page 15, lines 2 and 7, to Substitute Senate Bill No. 6499.

      The motion by Senator Goings carried and the amendments were adopted.

MOTION

      Senator Johnson moved that the following amendment be adopted:

      On page 26, line 7, after "areas." insert "The secretary shall also determine whether there is TEA-21 funding available for a pilot project privatizing Washington state rest areas."

      Debate ensued.

      The President Pro Tempore declared the question before the Senate to be the adoption of the amendment by Senator Johnson on page 26, line 7, to Substitute Senate Bill No. 6499.

      The motion by Senator Johnson failed and the amendment was not adopted.

MOTION

      Senator Oke moved that the following amendment be adopted:

       On page 35, after line 36, insert the following: "(5) The Washington state ferries may lease or sell passenger-only ferries. The Washington state ferries and the utilities and transportation commission shall not prohibit any ferry operator from providing passenger-only ferry service in Washington."

      Debate ensued.

POINT OF INQUIRY

      Senator Benton asked Senator Heavey to yield to a question, but Senator Heavey did not yield.

      The President Pro Tempore declared the question before the Senate to be the adoption of the amendment by Senator Oke on page 35, line 36, to Substitute Senate Bill No. 6499.

      The motion by Senator Oke failed and the amendment was not adopted.

MOTION

      On motion of Senator Haugen, the following amendment was adopted:

       On page 40, line 16, after "(3)" strike everything through "(4)" on line 21.

MOTION

      Senator McDonald moved that the following amendment by Senators McDonald and West be adopted:

       On page 40, line 21, after "((transportation account))", strike the remainder of line 21 through "provided solely" on line 22, and insert "general fund-- state appropriation is provided solely"

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

      Debate ensued.

      The President Pro Tempore declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the adoption of the amendment by Senators McDonald and West on page 40, line 21, to Substitute Senate Bill No. 6499.

ROLL CALL

      The Secretary called the roll and the amendment was not adopted by the following vote: Yeas, 23; Nays, 25; Absent, 0; Excused, 1.

     Voting yea: Senators Benton, Deccio, Finkbeiner, Hale, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Horn, Johnson, Long, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Oke, Patterson, Roach, Rossi, Sheahan, Sheldon, T., Stevens, Swecker, West, Winsley and Zarelli - 23.

     Voting nay: Senators Bauer, Brown, Costa, Eide, Fairley, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Goings, Hargrove, Haugen, Heavey, Jacobsen, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Loveland, McAuliffe, Prentice, Rasmussen, Sheldon, B., Shin, Snyder, Spanel, Thibaudeau and Wojahn - 25.

     Excused: Senator Sellar - 1.

MOTION

      Senator Roach moved that the following amendments by Senators Roach, McDonald, Benton, Zarelli, Stevens, Deccio, Sheahan, Johnson, McCaslin, Hale, Rossi, Morton, Hochstatter, Swecker and Honeyford be considered simultaneously and be adopted:

       On page 13, line 8, delete "$7,436,000" and insert "$7,799,000"

       On page 13, line 10, delete everything from "This" through "bureau." on line 11.

      Debate ensued.

DEMAND FOR THE PREVIOUS QUESTION

      Senators Snyder, Prentice and Bauer demanded the previous question and the demand was sustained.

      The President Pro Tempore declared the question before the Senate to be shall the main question be now put.

      The demand for the previous question carried.

      Senator Roach closed debate on the amendments.

      The President Pro Tempore declared the question before the Senate to be the adoption of the amendments by Senators Roach, McDonald, Benton, Zarelli, Stevens, Deccio, Sheahan, Johnson, McCaslin, Hale, Rossi, Morton, Hochstatter, Swecker and Honeyford on page 13, lines 8 and 10, to Substitute Senate Bill No. 6499.

      The motion by Senator Roach failed and the amendments were not adopted.

MOTION

      On motion of Senator Goings, the rules were suspended, Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 6499 was advanced to third reading, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

      Debate ensued.

POINT OF INQUIRY

      Senator Roach: “Senators Goings, can you tell us why you won’t be here next year?”

      Senator Goings: “This would probably not be the appropriate time to announce my career plans.”

      Senator Roach: “Okay.”

      Senator Goings: “I’ll be back in some capacity, hopefully.”

      Senator Roach: “You are off the hook.”

      The President Pro Tempore declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the final passage of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 6499.

ROLL CALL

      The Secretary called the roll on the final passage Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 6499 and the bill passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 42; Nays, 6; Absent, 0; Excused, 1.

     Voting yea: Senators Bauer, Benton, Brown, Costa, Deccio, Eide, Fairley, Finkbeiner, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Goings, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Heavey, Horn, Johnson, Kohl-Welles, Long, Loveland, McAuliffe, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Patterson, Prentice, Rasmussen, Roach, Rossi, Sheahan, Sheldon, B., Sheldon, T., Shin, Snyder, Spanel, Stevens, Swecker, Thibaudeau, Winsley, Wojahn and Zarelli - 42.

     Voting nay: Senators Hochstatter, Honeyford, Jacobsen, Kline, Oke and West - 6.

     Excused: Senator Sellar - 1.

      ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 6499, 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. 6856, by Senators Goings, Gardner, Haugen, Prentice and Jacobsen

Revising transportation funding.

MOTIONS

      On motion of Senator Goings, Substitute Senate Bill No. 6856 was substituted for Senate Bill No. 6856 and the substitute bill was placed on second reading and read the second time.

      Senator Benton moved that the following amendment by Senators Benton, Swecker, Johnson, Honeyford, Stevens, McCaslin and West be adopted:

      On page 43, line 28, strike all of Sec. 39.

       Renumber the remaining sections consecutively and correct any internal references accordingly.

      Debate ensued.

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

DEMAND FOR THE PREVIOUS QUESTION

      Senators Snyder, Betti Sheldon and Spanel demanded the previous question and the demand was sustained.

      The President declared the question before the Senate to be shall the main question be now put.

      The demand for the previous question carried.

      The President Pro Tempore declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the adoption of the amendment by Senators Benton, Swecker, Johnson, Honeyford, Stevens, McCaslin and West on page 43, line 28, to Substitute Senate Bill No. 6856.

ROLL CALL

      The Secretary called the roll and the amendment was not adopted by the following vote: Yeas, 19; Nays, 29; Absent, 0; Excused, 1.

     Voting yea: Senators Benton, Deccio, Finkbeiner, Hale, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Horn, Johnson, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Oke, Roach, Rossi, Sheahan, Stevens, Swecker, West and Zarelli - 19.

     Voting nay: Senators Bauer, Brown, Costa, Eide, Fairley, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Goings, Hargrove, Haugen, Heavey, Jacobsen, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Long, Loveland, McAuliffe, Patterson, Prentice, Rasmussen, Sheldon, B., Sheldon, T., Shin, Snyder, Spanel, Thibaudeau, Winsley and Wojahn - 29.

     Excused: Senator Sellar - 1.

MOTION

      Senator Roach moved that the following amendment by Senators Roach, McCaslin, Hale, Horn, Shin, Sheahan, Benton, Johnson, Stevens, West and Honeyford be adopted and then withdrew the amendment:

       On page 49, after line 7, insert the following:

       "NEW SECTION. Sec. 43. A new section is added to chapter 81.112 RCW to read as follows:

       A regional transit authority may acquire private property through condemnation or eminent domain only where it has first demonstrated, following public hearing with an opportunity for public comment, that no suitable government or public land is similarly situated to the land to be condemned."

       Renumber the sections consecutively and correct any internal references accordingly.

MOTION

      Senator Benton moved that the following amendment by Senators Benton, Roach, Rossi, Sheahan, Stevens, Johnson, and Honeyford be adopted:

       On page 63, after line 27 , insert the following:

       "NEW SECTION. Sec. 63. The following acts or parts of acts are each repealed:

       (1) RCW 82.44.010 (Definitions) and 1990 c 42 s 301, 1979 c 107 s 10, 1971 ex.s. c 299 s 54, 1967 c 121 s 4, 1963 c 199 s 1, & 1961 c 15 s 82.44.010;

       (2) RCW 82.44.015 (Ride-sharing passenger motor vehicles excluded--Notice--Liability for tax) and 1996 c 244 s 7, 1993 c 488 s 3, 1982 c 142 s 1, & 1980 c 166 s 3;

       (3) RCW 82.44.020 (Basic and clean air excise tax imposed--Exceptions--Liability of residents for out-of-state licensing) and 1998 c 321 s 3 (Referendum Bill No. 49), 1993 sp.s. c 23 s 61, 1993 c 123 s 2, 1991 c 199 s 220, 1990 c 42 s 302, & 1988 c 191 s 1;

       (4) RCW 82.44.022 (Credit on personal-use motor vehicle) and 1998 c 321 s 2 (Referendum Bill No. 49);

       (5) RCW 82.44.023 (Exemption--Rental cars--Alteration of license plate month and year tabs--Rules--Taxes upon sale) and 1998 c 321 s 38 (Referendum Bill No. 49), 1998 c 145 s 1, 1994 c 227 s 3, & 1992 c 194 s 8;

       (6) RCW 82.44.025 (Exemption--Vehicles of Taipei Economic and Cultural Office) and 1998 c 321 s 39 (Referendum Bill No. 49) & 1996 c 139 s 3;

       (7) RCW 82.44.030 (Tax on motor vehicle dealers) and 1971 ex.s. c 299 s 51 & 1961 c 15 s 82.44.030;

       (8) RCW 82.44.041 (Valuation of vehicles) and 1998 c 321 s 4 (Referendum Bill No. 49) & 1990 c 42 s 303;

       (9) RCW 82.44.060 (Payment of tax based on registration year--Transfer of ownership) and 1990 c 42 s 304, 1981 c 222 s 12, 1979 c 158 s 233, 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 54 s 2, 1975 1st ex.s. c 118 s 14, 1963 c 199 s 4, & 1961 c 15 s 82.44.060;

       (10) RCW 82.44.065 (Appeal of valuation) and 1990 c 42 s 305;

       (11) RCW 82.44.080 (Tax additional) and 1961 c 15 s 82.44.080;

       (12) RCW 82.44.090 (Penalty for issuing plates without collecting tax) and 1961 c 15 s 82.44.090;

       (13) RCW 82.44.100 (Tax receipt) and 1961 c 15 s 82.44.100;

       (14) RCW 82.44.110 (Disposition of revenue) and 1998 c 321 s 5 (Referendum Bill No. 49), 1997 c 338 s 68, & 1997 c 149 s 911;

       (15) RCW 82.44.120 (Refunds, collections of erroneous amounts--Claims--False statement, penalty) and 1993 c 307 s 3, 1990 c 42 s 307, 1989 c 68 s 2, 1983 c 26 s 3, 1979 c 120 s 2, 1975 1st ex.s. c 278 s 95, 1974 ex.s. c 54 s 4, 1967 c 121 s 2, 1963 c 199 s 5, & 1961 c 15 s 82.44.120;

       (16) RCW 82.44.130 (Ad valorem taxation barred) and 1961 c 15 s 82.44.130;

       (17) RCW 82.44.140 (Director of licensing may act) and 1979 c 158 s 237, 1967 c 121 s 3, & 1961 c 15 s 82.44.140;

       (18) RCW 82.44.150 (Apportionment and distribution of motor vehicle excise taxes generally) and 1999 c 94 s 30, 1998 c 321 s 6 (Referendum Bill No. 49), 1995 2nd sp.s. c 14 s 538, 1994 c 241 s 1, & 1993 c 491 s 2;

       (19) RCW 82.44.155 (City police and fire protection assistance account--Distribution to cities and towns--Apportionment) and 1998 c 321 s 40 (Referendum Bill No. 49), 1993 c 492 s 254, 1991 c 199 s 223, & 1990 c 42 s 309;

       (20) RCW 82.44.157 (Transfer of funds pursuant to government service agreement) and 1994 c 266 s 14;

       (21) RCW 82.44.160 (Distribution to municipal research council) and 1999 c 309 s 931 & 1995 c 28 s 1;

       (22) RCW 82.44.170 (Computation of excise taxes when commingled with licensing fees) and 1990 c 42 s 311, 1987 c 244 s 56, & 1985 c 380 s 22;

       (23) RCW 82.44.180 (Transportation fund--Deposits and distributions) and 1999 c 402 s 5, 1999 c 94 s 31, 1998 c 321 s 41 (Referendum Bill No. 49), & 1995 c 269 s 2601;

       (24) RCW 82.44.190 (Transportation infrastructure account--Deposits and distributions--Subaccounts) and 1996 c 262 s 2;

       (25) RCW 82.44.195 (Transportation infrastructure account--Highway infrastructure account--Finding--Intent--Purpose--1996 c 262) and 1996 c 262 s 1; and

       (26) RCW 82.44.900 (Severability--Construction--1961 c 15) and 1961 c 15 s 82.44.900.

       NEW SECTION. Sec. 64. A new section is added to chapter 84.36 RCW to read as follows: