NOTICE: Formatting and page numbering in this document may be different

from that in the original published version.

THIRTY-SEVENTH DAY

------------

MORNING SESSION

------------

Senate Chamber, Olympia, Tuesday, February 19, 2002

The Senate was called to order at 8:30 a.m. by President Owen. The Secretary called the roll and announced to the President that all Senators were present except Senator McDonald. The Sergeant at Arms Color Guard, consisting of Pages Elyse Bell and Matthew Eide, presented the Colors. Senator Bob Morton offered the prayer.

MOTION

On motion of Senator Betti Sheldon, the reading of the Journal of the previous day was dispensed with and it was approved.

MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE

February 16, 2002

MR. PRESIDENT:

The House has passed:

HOUSE BILL NO. 1248,

ENGROSSED HOUSE BILL NO. 2319,

ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 2323,

ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 2326,

SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 2364,

ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 2385,

HOUSE BILL NO. 2391,

HOUSE BILL NO. 2404,

ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 2411,

ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 2419,

ENGROSSED HOUSE BILL NO. 2440,

HOUSE BILL NO. 2605,

ENGROSSED SECOND SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 2854,

ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 2866,

HOUSE JOINT MEMORIAL NO. 4027, and the same are herewith transmitted.

CYNTHIA ZEHNDER, Chief Clerk

February 16, 2002

MR. PRESIDENT:

The House has passed:

SECOND SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 1011,

HOUSE BILL NO. 1612,

SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 2015,

HOUSE BILL NO. 2289,

SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 2294,

HOUSE BILL NO. 2313,

HOUSE BILL NO. 2345,

ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 2353,

SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 2416,

ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 2505,

ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 2518,

SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 2661,

ENGROSSED SECOND SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 2671,

ENGROSSED SECOND SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 2847,

SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 2853,

SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 2879,

HOUSE JOINT MEMORIAL NO. 4022,

HOUSE JOINT MEMORIAL NO. 4023, and the same are herewith transmitted.

CYNTHIA ZEHNDER, Chief Clerk

February 17, 2002

MR. PRESIDENT:

The House has passed:

SECOND SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 1531,

SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 1741,

SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 2389,

SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 2395,

ENGROSSED HOUSE BILL NO. 2491,

SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 2632,

HOUSE BILL NO. 2639,

HOUSE BILL NO. 2649,

HOUSE BILL NO. 2657,

SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 2741,

SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 2800,

SECOND SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 2867,

SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 2914,

ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 2941, and the same are herewith transmitted.

CYNTHIA ZEHNDER, Chief Clerk

INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING

SCR 8434 by Senator Sheahan

Making exceptions to cutoff dates.

HOLD.

INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING OF HOUSE BILLS

2SHB 1011 by House Committee on Finance (originally sponsored by Representatives Campbell, Conway, Benson, Mielke, Skinner, Pennington, DeBolt, Delvin, Ogden, Esser, Reardon, Linville, Pearson, Alexander, Barlean, Ericksen, Carrell, Morell, Dunn, Van Luven, O'Brien, Ahern and Talcott)

Providing a property tax exemption to veterans with severe disabilities.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

HB 1248 by Representatives Kessler, Hankins, Conway, Ballasiotes, Ogden, Cody, Woods, Edmonds, O'Brien, Keiser, Mitchell, Darneille, Santos, Kenney, Linville, Tokuda, Ruderman, Rockefeller, Hurst, Van Luven, Lovick, McIntire, Schual-Berke, Poulsen, Kagi, Wood and Haigh

Providing unemployment insurance benefits for victims of domestic violence or stalking.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Financial Institutions.

2SHB 1531 by House Committee on Finance (originally sponsored by Representatives Morris and Cairnes)

Modifying the taxation of lodging.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

HB 1612 by Representative Romero (by request of Washington State Patrol)

Adding an ex officio member to the building code council.

Referred to Committee on State and Local Government.

SHB 1741 by House Committee on Health Care (originally sponsored by Representatives Hunt, Fromhold, Alexander and Armstrong)

Providing a plan of health insurance for blind vendors.

Referred to Committee on Health and Long-Term Care.

SHB 2015 by House Committee on Financial Institutions and Insurance (originally sponsored by Representatives McIntire, Hatfield, Benson, Bush, Ruderman, Schual-Berke, Conway, Kenney, Keiser and Hurst)

Protecting personal information.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Financial Institutions.

HB 2289 by Representatives Linville and Schoesler (by request of Department of Agriculture)

Regulating planting stock certification and nursery improvement programs.

Referred to Committee on Agriculture and International Trade.

SHB 2294 by House Committee on Appropriations (originally sponsored by Representatives Hatfield, Doumit, Kessler, Eickmeyer, Lantz, Rockefeller, Wood, Mielke, Boldt, Benson, Edwards, Upthegrove and Dunn)

Allowing the department of natural resources to seek volunteers to maintain recreation sites.

Referred to Committee on Natural Resources, Parks and Shorelines.

HB 2313 by Representatives Lantz, Anderson, Rockefeller, Kenney, Ogden, Upthegrove, Kagi, Dunn and Esser (by request of Secretary of State Reed)

Allowing electronic filing and registration for charities, corporations, and partnerships.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Financial Institutions.

EHB 2319 by Representatives Buck, Jackley, Lisk, O'Brien, Barlean, Kessler, Schmidt, Ballasiotes, Morris, Benson, Anderson, Haigh and Esser

Revising provisions for emergency management.

Referred to Committee on State and Local Government.

ESHB 2323 by House Committee on Natural Resources (originally sponsored by Representatives Hatfield, Buck, Doumit and Linville)

Establishing the direct retail endorsement for commercial fishers.

Referred to Committee on Natural Resources, Parks and Shorelines.

ESHB 2326 by House Committee on Agriculture and Ecology (originally sponsored by Representatives Linville, Romero, Lantz, Rockefeller, Cooper, Hunt, Simpson, Kagi and Ruderman)

Establishing the Washington climate and rural energy development center.

Referred to Committee on Environment, Energy and Water.

HB 2345 by Representatives Lovick, Delvin, O'Brien, Morell, Berkey, Casada, Conway and Wood

Allowing noninjury accidents to clear the roadway.

Referred to Committee on Transportation.

ESHB 2353 by House Committee on Judiciary (originally sponsored by Representatives Alexander, Lantz, Miloscia and Esser) (by request of Governor Locke and Attorney General Gregoire)

Providing for loss prevention review teams.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

SHB 2364 by House Committee on Commerce and Labor (originally sponsored by Representatives Dickerson, Kenney, Conway, Fisher, Rockefeller, Kagi, Cody, Darneille, Chase, Tokuda, Kirby, Edwards, Santos, Lysen, Wood, Simpson, Schual-Berke and Jarrett)

Allowing sick leave to care for family members.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Financial Institutions.

ESHB 2385 by House Committee on State Government (originally sponsored by Representatives Jackley, Schmidt, Simpson, Barlean, Hurst, Ballasiotes, Benson, Haigh, Morell and Miloscia)

Adding members to the emergency management council.

Referred to Committee on State and Local Government.

SHB 2389 by House Committee on Appropriations (originally sponsored by Representatives Conway, Doumit, Cooper, Delvin, Talcott, Lovick, Lysen, Haigh and Simpson) (by request of Joint Committee on Pension Policy)

Qualifying for a transfer payment under the public employees' retirement system plan 3.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

HB 2391 by Representatives Conway, Doumit, Delvin, Morell, Linville, Talcott, Edwards, Lovick, O'Brien, Haigh, Simpson, Esser and Jackley (by request of Joint Committee on Pension Policy)

Authorizing part-time leaves of absence for law enforcement members of the law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' retirement system plan 2.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

SHB 2395 by House Committee on Appropriations (originally sponsored by Representatives Doumit, Alexander, Cooper, Conway, Delvin, Dickerson, Ogden, Rockefeller, Linville, Talcott, Hunt, Lovick, Lysen, Kagi, McIntire, Haigh, Simpson, Chase and Jackley) (by request of Joint Committee on Pension Policy)

Providing a death benefit for certain state employees.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

HB 2404 by Representatives Berkey, Gombosky, Morris and McIntire (by request of Department of Revenue)

Implementing the federal mobile telecommunications sourcing act.

Referred to Committee on Economic Development and Telecommunications.

ESHB 2411 by House Committee on Select Committee on Community Security (originally sponsored by Representatives Haigh, Schmidt, Hurst and Buck) (by request of Governor Locke and Attorney General Gregoire)

Protecting certain domestic security records.

Referred to Committee on State and Local Government.

SHB 2416 by House Committee on Select Committee on Community Security (originally sponsored by Representatives Hurst, Lisk, O'Brien, Ballasiotes, Buck, Kirby, Lovick and Haigh)

Authorizing additional investigative tools to deter terrorism.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

ESHB 2419 by House Committee on Select Committee on Community Security (originally sponsored by Representatives Simpson, Conway, Morris, Cooper, Schmidt, Kirby, Lovick, Wood, Haigh, Kenney, Chase, Schual-Berke and Jackley) (by request of Governor Locke and Attorney General Gregoire)

Prohibiting price gouging during significant disruption, emergency, or disaster.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Financial Institutions.

EHB 2440 by Representatives Romero, Cooper, Fisher, Mitchell, Murray, Sullivan, Wood, Ogden and McIntire

Integrating transportation and land use planning.

Referred to Committee on Transportation.

EHB 2491 by Representatives Chandler, Clements, Lisk, Skinner, Schoesler, Holmquist and Mulliken

Authorizing inspection of facilities used for temporary storage and processing of agricultural commodities.

Referred to Committee on Agriculture and International Trade.

ESHB 2505 by House Committee on Criminal Justice and Corrections (originally sponsored by Representatives O'Brien, Ballasiotes, Lantz, Haigh, Lovick, Ruderman, Schual-Berke, Crouse, Campbell, Delvin, Hurst, Lisk, Buck, Benson and Bush)

Providing criminal penalties for training in furtherance of civil disorders.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

ESHB 2518 by House Committee on Local Government and Housing (originally sponsored by Representatives Edwards, Dunshee, Lovick, Berkey and Kirby)

Establishing a one hundred dollar per day limit on civil penalties for violations of health statutes, rules, and regulations relating to environmental health.

Referred to Committee on Health and Long-Term Care.

HB 2605 by Representatives O'Brien, Morell, Jackley and Lovick

Changing provisions relating to aggregating value for purposes of determining the degree of theft.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

SHB 2632 by House Committee on Appropriations (originally sponsored by Representatives Sommers, Cox, Kenney and McIntire)

Pertaining to the higher education retirement plan.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

HB 2639 by Representatives Ruderman, Crouse, Bush, Nixon, Casada, Carrell, Anderson, Hunt, Van Luven, Talcott, Benson, Murray, Miloscia and Esser

Continuing a moratorium that prohibits a city or town from imposing a specific fee or tax on an internet service provider.

Referred to Committee on Economic Development and Telecommunications.

HB 2649 by Representatives Carrell, Anderson, Crouse and McMorris

Requiring county assessors to submit an annual property tax report to the department of revenue.

Referred to Committee on State and Local Government.

HB 2657 by Representatives Hunt, Armstrong, Linville, Schoesler, O'Brien, Holmquist, Chase, Roach, Ogden, Clements, Cox, Mulliken, Barlean, Sehlin, Conway and Rockefeller

Requiring the purchase of Washington grown commodities for state institutions.

Referred to Committee on Agriculture and International Trade.

SHB 2661 by House Committee on Select Committee on Community Security (originally sponsored by Representative Hurst) (by request of Governor Locke and Attorney General Gregoire)

Licensing and regulating money transmitters and currency exchangers.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Financial Institutions.

E2SHB 2671 by House Committee on Appropriations (originally sponsored by Representatives Linville, Romero, Reardon, Simpson, Gombosky, Grant, Veloria, Kessler, Conway, Doumit, Hatfield, Ogden, Morris, Kenney, Dickerson, Edwards, Chase, Schual-Berke, Wood, Rockefeller, Jackley, Kagi and McDermott)

Creating the permit assistance center in the department of ecology.

Referred to Committee on Environment, Energy and Water.

SHB 2741 by House Committee on Juvenile Justice and Family Law (originally sponsored by Representatives Nixon, Bush, DeBolt, Morell, Crouse, Esser, Van Luven, Schmidt, Delvin, Pflug, Casada, Roach, Schoesler, Anderson, Benson and Pearson)

Revising driving privileges for juveniles convicted of motor vehicle felonies.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

SHB 2800 by House Committee on Capital Budget (originally sponsored by Representatives Hunt, Alexander, Romero, Hankins, Murray, Skinner, Woods, Reardon and Casada)

Removing the capital projects surcharge on certain department of services for the blind vendors.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

E2SHB 2847 by House Committee on Appropriations (originally sponsored by Representatives Cooper, Roach, Berkey, Cairnes, Linville, Esser, Kirby, Reardon, Casada, Doumit, Ogden, Chase and Pearson)

Improving water quality through sound storm water management.

Referred to Committee on Environment, Energy and Water.

SHB 2853 by House Committee on Appropriations (originally sponsored by Representatives Morris, Hurst, Schmidt, Barlean, Buck, Simpson, Schual-Berke, Cooper, Haigh, Benson, Ballasiotes, O'Brien, Anderson, Chase, Upthegrove, Linville and Rockefeller)

Requiring the emergency management council to identify critical infrastructure in the state.

Referred to Committee on State and Local Government.

E2SHB 2854 by House Committee on Appropriations (originally sponsored by Representatives Schual-Berke, Haigh, Morris, Barlean, O'Brien, Hurst, Hatfield, Anderson, Chase, Upthegrove and Rockefeller)

Creating a plan to improve preparedness in response to a bioterrorist event.

Referred to Committee on Health and Long-Term Care.

ESHB 2866 by House Committee on Natural Resources (originally sponsored by Representatives Doumit, Sump, Reardon, Schoesler, Linville, Kessler, Morris, Mulliken, Hatfield, Pearson, Grant, Armstrong and McMorris)

Limiting overlapping jurisdiction regarding the permitting of storm water projects.

Referred to Committee on Natural Resources, Parks and Shorelines.

2SHB 2867 by House Committee on Agriculture and Ecology (originally sponsored by Representatives Fromhold, Ogden, McMorris, Grant, Haigh and Delvin)

Mitigating the effects of the aquatic pesticide national pollutant discharge elimination system permit required as the result of a recent court decision.

Referred to Committee on Environment, Energy and Water.

SHB 2879 by House Committee on Select Committee on Community Security (originally sponsored by Representatives Hurst, Lisk, Mulliken, Woods, Buck, Kirby, Simpson, Barlean, Fromhold, Edwards, Haigh, Morris, Kessler, Jackley, O'Brien, Sullivan, Lovick, Berkey, Pflug, Ballasiotes, Campbell, Esser, Alexander, Chase and Conway) (by request of Governor Locke and Attorney General Gregoire)

Providing penalties and remedies for terrorism offenses.

Referred to Committee on Judiciary.

SHB 2914 by House Committee on Appropriations (originally sponsored by Representatives Kenney, Fromhold, Cox, Morell, Haigh and Wood)

Creating the state financial aid account.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

ESHB 2941 by House Committee on Finance (originally sponsored by Representatives Delvin, Hankins, Grant and Kessler)

Creating a special impact mitigation program to offset the impact of construction of a nuclear waste treatment and immobilization plant.

Referred to Committee on Ways and Means.

HJM 4022 by Representatives Linville, Morris, Barlean, Schual-Berke, Kessler, Conway, Lysen, O'Brien, Benson, Schmidt, Ballasiotes, Kenney and Ericksen

Urging Canadian and United States authorities to address border issues.

Referred to Committee on Agriculture and International Trade.

HJM 4023 by Representatives Morris, Barlean, Schual-Berke, Kessler, Conway, Schmidt, Lysen, Wood, Ballasiotes, O'Brien, Upthegrove, Edwards, Kenney, Anderson and Kagi

Supporting the development of an action plan for regional infrastructure security.

Referred to Committee on Environment, Energy and Water.

HJM 4027 by Representatives Hurst, Jackley, Morris, Schmidt, Simpson, O'Brien, Barlean, Hatfield, Santos, Cooper, Buck, Schual-Berke, Haigh, Lisk, Campbell, Ballasiotes, Kenney, Morell, Pflug, Chase and Linville

Petitioning the federal government for assistance for the property and casualty insurance market.

Referred to Committee on Labor, Commerce and Financial Institutions.

MOTION

On motion of Senator Betti Sheldon, Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 8434 was held at the desk.

MOTION

At 8:42 a.m., on motion of Senator Betti Sheldon, the Senate was declared to be at ease.

The Senate was called to order at 10:11 a.m. by President Owen.

SECOND READING

SENATE BILL NO. 6444, by Senators Gardner, Prentice, McDonald, Oke, Deccio, Rasmussen, Regala and Horn

Licensing vehicles transporting persons on stretchers.

MOTIONS

On motion of Senator Gardner, Substitute Senate Bill No. 6444 was substituted for Senate Bill No. 6444 and the substitute bill was placed on second reading and read the second time.

On motion of Senator Gardner, the rules were suspended, Substitute Senate Bill No. 6444 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. 6444.

ROLL CALL

The Secretary called the roll on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 6444 and the bill passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 43; Nays, 3; Absent, 3; Excused, 0.

Voting yea: Senators Benton, Brown, Carlson, Costa, Deccio, Fairley, Finkbeiner, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Hewitt, Hochstatter, Horn, Jacobsen, Johnson, Kastama, Keiser, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Long, McAuliffe, McCaslin, Morton, Oke, Poulsen, Prentice, Rasmussen, Regala, Roach, Rossi, Sheahan, Sheldon, B., Sheldon, T., Shin, Spanel, Stevens, Swecker, Thibaudeau, Winsley and Zarelli - 43.

Voting nay: Senators Honeyford, Parlette and West - 3.

Absent: Senators Eide, McDonald and Snyder - 3.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 6444, 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.

MOTIONS

On motion of Senator Betti Sheldon, Senator Snyder was excused.

On motion of Senator Honeyford, Senators Deccio and McDonald were excused.

SECOND READING

SENATE BILL NO. 6234, by Senators Winsley, Prentice, Regala, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Benton, Rasmussen, Gardner, Deccio, Roach, Morton, Franklin and Hewitt

Requiring a date certain for the payment of insurance premiums.

MOTIONS

On motion of Senator Winsley, Substitute Senate Bill No. 6234 was substituted for Senate Bill No. 6234 and the substitute bill was placed on second reading and read the second time.

On motion of Senator Winsley, the rules were suspended, Substitute Senate Bill No. 6234 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. 6234.

ROLL CALL

The Secretary called the roll on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 6234 and the bill passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 46; Nays, 0; Absent, 0; Excused, 3.

Voting yea: Senators Benton, Brown, Carlson, Costa, Eide, Fairley, Finkbeiner, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Hewitt, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Horn, Jacobsen, Johnson, Kastama, Keiser, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Long, McAuliffe, McCaslin, Morton, Oke, Parlette, Poulsen, Prentice, Rasmussen, Regala, Roach, Rossi, Sheahan, Sheldon, B., Sheldon, T., Shin, Spanel, Stevens, Swecker, Thibaudeau, West, Winsley and Zarelli - 46.

Excused: Senators Deccio, McDonald and Snyder - 3.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 6234, 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

On motion of Senator Rasmussen, the following resolution was adopted:

SENATE RESOLUTION 8752

By Senators Rasmussen, Swecker, Parlette, Morton, Honeyford, Roach, Finkbeiner, Fairley, Prentice, Johnson, Spanel, Haugen, and Fraser

WHEREAS, Washington produces one-third of all potatoes exported from the United States; and

WHEREAS, The state produced 160,000 acres of potatoes in 2000 and is first in the nation in per-acre yield; and

WHEREAS, Washington is the second largest producer of potatoes in the United States with a farmgate value of nearly $500 million; and

WHEREAS, Ninety percent of all potatoes grown in Washington are marketed out of the state, with a significant portion going to Asia and Latin America via the ports of Seattle and Tacoma; and

WHEREAS, Washington’s potato industry generates $3 billion in sales annually and adds approximately 28,000 jobs to the state economy; and

WHEREAS, Washington potato growers have won “environmentally friendly” national awards three years in a row for their efficient use of water and fertilizer; and

WHEREAS, The reputation of Washington’s potatoes is such that they are also referred to as “Watatoes”; and

WHEREAS. Potato Day has become an anticipated and appreciated event in Olympia and has more than doubled in size between 1995 when 1,000 baked potatoes were served to the present level of at least 2,000 potatoes to be served today;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Washington State Senate recognizes the men and women in the state who have helped make Washington’s potato industry as successful as it is, and thanks the Washington State Potato Commission for the opportunity to sample its product today in the Capitol Rotunda; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That copies of this resolution be immediately transmitted by the Secretary of the Senate to Pat Boss, Executive Director of the Washington State Potato Commission.

Senators Rasmussen, Hochstatter, Prentice, Hale, Haugen, Shin, Jacobsen and Deccio spoke to Senate Resolution 8752.

INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS

The President welcomed and introduced Ed Schneider, Chairman of the Washington State Potato Commission, as well as other members of the Commission, who were seated in the gallery.

MOTION

On motion of Senator Betti Sheldon, the Senate reverted to the sixth order of business.

SECOND READING

SENATE JOINT MEMORIAL NO. 8030, by Senators Jacobsen, Poulsen, Kline and Spanel

Requesting recognition of the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project.

The joint memorial was read the second time.

MOTION

On motion of Senator Jacobsen, the rules were suspended, Senate Joint Memorial No. 8030 was advanced to third reading, the second reading considered the third and the joint memorial was placed on final passage.

The President declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the final passage of Senate Joint Memorial No. 8030.

ROLL CALL

The Secretary called the roll on the final passage of Senate Joint Memorial No. 8030 and the joint memorial passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 46; Nays, 0; Absent, 1; Excused, 2.

Voting yea: Senators Benton, Carlson, Costa, Deccio, Eide, Fairley, Finkbeiner, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Hewitt, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Horn, Jacobsen, Johnson, Kastama, Keiser, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Long, McAuliffe, McCaslin, Morton, Oke, Parlette, Poulsen, Prentice, Rasmussen, Regala, Roach, Rossi, Sheahan, Sheldon, B., Sheldon, T., Shin, Spanel, Stevens, Swecker, Thibaudeau, West, Winsley and Zarelli - 46.

Absent: Senator Brown - 1.

Excused: Senators McDonald and Snyder - 2.

SENATE JOINT MEMORIAL NO. 8030, having received the constitutional majority, was declared passed.

SECOND READING

SENATE BILL NO. 6589, by Senators Keiser and Long

Authorizing advance directives for mental health treatment.

MOTIONS

On motion of Senator Keiser, Substitute Senate Bill No. 6589 was substituted for Senate Bill No. 6589 and the substitute bill was placed on second reading and read the second time.

Senator Keiser moved that the following striking amendment by Senators Keiser, Hargrove and Long be adopted:

Strike everything after the enacting clause and insert the following:

"NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The legislature declares that a person with capacity has the ability to control decisions relating to his or her own mental health care. The legislature recognizes that a mental health advance directive can be an essential tool for a person to express his or her choices before the effects of mental illness deprive the person of the power to express his or her instructions and preferences for mental health treatment. The legislature affirms that, pursuant to other provisions of law, a mental health advance directive created under this chapter is to be respected by health care providers and mental health professionals, guardians, attorneys-in-fact, and other surrogate decision makers acting on behalf of the person who created it.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise.

(1) "Adult" means any person who has attained the age of majority as defined in RCW 26.28.010 or an emancipated minor.

(2) "Agent" means an attorney-in-fact or agent as provided in chapter 11.94 RCW and shall include any alternative agent appointed.

(3) "Court" means a superior court under chapter 2.08 RCW.

(4) "Health care information" has the meaning in RCW 70.02.010 and includes mental health, sexually transmitted diseases and human immunodeficiency virus/AIDS, and alcohol and substance abuse information.

(5) "Health care provider" means a person licensed under chapter 18.57, 18.57A, 18.71, or 18.71A RCW or RCW 18.79.050.

(6) "Incapacitated person" or "incapacitated" means a person who is not a person with capacity.

(7) "Informed consent" means consent that conforms to the elements of RCW 7.70.060.

(8) "Mental disorder" has the meaning given in RCW 71.05.020.

(9) "Mental health advance directive" or "directive" means a written document in which the person makes a declaration of instructions or preferences or appoints an agent to make decisions on behalf of the person regarding the person's mental health treatment and that is consistent with the provisions of this chapter.

(10) "Mental health professional" has the meaning given in RCW 71.05.020.

(11) "Person with capacity" means an adult who is able to give informed consent under RCW 7.70.065.

(12) "Professional person" has the meaning given in RCW 71.05.020.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. (1) For the purposes of this chapter, an adult is presumed to be a person with capacity.

(2) For the purposes of this chapter, no adult may be declared an incapacitated person except by:

(a) A court order;

(b) One mental health professional and one health care provider; or

(3) When a court has found that the person is a person with capacity and there is a subsequent change in the person's condition, subsequent determinations whether the person is incapacitated may be made by any of the provisions of subsection (2) of this section.

(4)(a) A principal, agent, professional person, or health care provider may seek a determination whether the principal is incapacitated.

(b) The determination shall be made within forty-eight hours of the request for a determination. If no determination has been made within forty-eight hours, the principal shall be considered to have been a person with capacity at the time in question.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. (1) A person with capacity may create a mental health advance directive.

(2) A declaration executed in accordance with this chapter is presumed to be valid. The inability to honor one or more provisions of a directive does not affect the validity of the remaining conditions.

(3) A directive may include any provision relating to mental health treatment or the care of the person or the person's personal affairs. Without limitation, a directive may include:

(a) The person's preferences and instructions for mental health treatment;

(b) Consent to specific types of mental health treatment;

(d) Consent to admission to and retention in a facility for mental health treatment;

(e) Descriptions of situations that may cause the person to experience a mental health crisis;

(f) Suggested alternative responses that may supplement or be in lieu of direct mental health treatment, such as treatment approaches from other providers;

(g) Appointment of an agent to make mental health treatment decisions on the person's behalf, including authorizing the agent to provide consent on the person's behalf to voluntary admission to inpatient mental health treatment consistent with section 8 of this act and to consent to or authorize the uses and disclosures in (h) and (i) of this subsection;

(h) Consent to release of the person's health care information used for purposes of treatment, payment, and operations;

(i) Authorization to have the person's health care information released to third parties; and

(j) The person's nomination of a guardian or limited guardian for consideration by the court if guardianship proceedings are commenced.

(4)(a) A directive may be combined with or be independent of the power of attorney authorized in chapter 11.94 RCW or guardianship authorized in chapter 11.88 RCW, so long as the processes for each are executed in accordance with its own statutes.

(b) Unless provided otherwise in either document, the directive or power of attorney most recently created shall be construed to be the person's mental health treatment preferences and instructions.

(c) Where a directive executed under this chapter is inconsistent with a directive executed under chapter 70.122 RCW, the most recently created directive controls as to the inconsistent provisions.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. (1) A directive shall:

(a) Be in writing;

(b) Contain language that clearly indicates that the person intends to create a directive;

(d) Be witnessed in writing by at least two adults, each of whom shall certify that he or she personally knows the person, was present when the person dated and signed the directive, and that the person did not appear to be an incapacitated person or acting under fraud, undue influence, or duress.

(2) A witness may not be any of the following:

(a) A person designated to make health care decisions on the person's behalf;

(b) A health care provider or professional person directly involved with the provision of care to the person at the time the directive is executed;

(c) An owner, operator, employee, or relative of an owner or operator of a health care facility or long-term care facility in which the person is a patient or resident;

(d) A person who is related by blood, marriage, or adoption to the person or with whom the person has a dating relationship, as defined in RCW 26.50.010;

(e) A person who is declared to be an incapacitated person;

(f) A person who would benefit financially if the person making the directive undergoes mental health treatment; or

(g) A minor.

(3) A directive may:

(a) Become operative upon execution or at a later time as designated in the directive;

(b) Be revoked, in whole or in part, by the person who created it;

(d) Expire under its own terms;

(e) Be superseded or revoked by a court order, including a criminal sentence. To the extent a directive is not in conflict with a court order, the directive remains effective. A declaration shall not be interpreted in a manner that interferes with incarceration or detention by the department of corrections, a city or county jail, or the juvenile rehabilitation administration or with supervision of a person who is subject to involuntary treatment pursuant to chapter 10.77, 70.96A, 71.05, 71.09, or 71.34 RCW.

(4) A directive may not:

(a) Create an entitlement to treatment;

(b) Obligate any health care provider to pay the costs associated with the treatment requested; or

(c) Obligate any health care provider to be responsible for the nontreatment personal care of the person or the person's personal affairs; or

(d) Be revoked by an incapacitated person.

(5) A directive that would have otherwise expired but is operative because the person is an incapacitated person remains operative until the person is no longer an incapacitated person.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. (1) If a directive authorizes the appointment of an agent, the provisions of chapter 11.94 RCW and RCW 7.70.065 shall apply unless otherwise stated in this chapter.

(2) An agent must act in good faith.

(3) An agent who has accepted the appointment in writing may make decisions on behalf of the principal only pursuant to the terms of the directive. The decisions must be consistent with the instructions and preferences the principal has expressed in the directive, or if not expressed, as otherwise known to the agent. If the principal's instructions or preferences are not known, the agent shall make the decision he or she, in good faith, determines the principal would make if capable to do so.

(4) The agent has the same right as the person to receive, review, and authorize the release of the person's health care information when the agent is acting on behalf of the principal and to the extent required for the agent to carry out his or her duties. This subsection shall be construed to be consistent with chapters 70.02, 70.24, 70.96A, 71.05, and 71.34 RCW, and with federal law regarding health care information.

(5) Unless otherwise provided in the directive and agreed to in writing by the agent, the agent is not, as a result of acting in the capacity of agent, personally liable for the cost of treatment provided to the principal.

(6) An agent may not use or threaten physical force, abuse, neglect, financial exploitation, or abandonment of the principal, as those terms are defined in RCW 74.34.020, to enforce or carry out the directive.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 7. (1)(a) Upon receiving a directive, a health care provider or professional person treating the person, or personnel acting under the direction of the health care provider or professional person, shall make the directive a part of the person's medical record and shall be deemed to have actual knowledge of the directive's contents. Whenever possible, the health care provider or professional person shall inform a person or the person's agent if he or she may be precluded from honoring all or part of the directive based on the reasons in subsection (2) of this section.

(b) If no physician-patient relationship has previously been established, nothing in this statute requires the establishment of a physician-patient relationship.

(2)(a) A health care provider or professional person who has been presented with or has obtained a person's directive and who is treating the person shall act in accordance with the provisions of the directive to the fullest extent possible unless, in the determination of the health care provider or professional person:

(i) Compliance with the provision would violate the accepted standard of care established in RCW 7.70.040;

(ii) The requested treatment is not available;

(iii) Compliance with the provision would violate applicable law;

(iv) It is an emergency situation and compliance would endanger any person's life or health; or

(v) The principal, without the benefit of the specific treatment measure, is incapable of participating in any available treatment plan that will give the principal a realistic opportunity of improving his or her condition.

If the health care provider or professional person is at any time unable to comply, the health care provider or professional person shall offer to withdraw from treating the person unless no other treatment provider is reasonably available. A health care provider or professional person who withdraws shall promptly notify the principal and the agent, if any, and shall document the notification in the principal's medical record.

(b) If the person consents in the directive to having his or her health care information released to other providers or third parties, or provides for an agent who authorizes such disclosure, the professional person's disclosure of health care information shall not be a violation of chapter 70.02 RCW.

(3) The health care provider or professional person shall obtain the person's informed consent regarding all mental health treatment decisions unless the person has waived the right to informed consent.

(4) Treatment under chapters 71.05 and 71.34 RCW shall be provided pursuant to the provisions of those chapters. A professional person who is treating a person involuntarily detained or committed under chapter 71.05 or 71.34 RCW shall act in accordance with the provisions of the person's directive to the fullest extent possible and as permitted by the applicable involuntary treatment laws, consistent with accepted standard of care and the availability of treatment.

(5) For purposes of this section, "accepted standard of care" is the standard established in RCW 7.70.040.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 8. (1) If a principal consents in his or her directive, or authorizes an agent to consent on the principal's behalf, to voluntary admission to inpatient mental health treatment, and at the time of admission the principal refuses treatment, the principal may only be admitted to inpatient psychiatric treatment if a physician member of the treating facility's professional staff:

(a) Evaluates the principal's mental condition, including a review of reasonably available psychiatric and psychological history, diagnosis, and treatment needs, and determines, in conjunction with another health care provider or mental health professional, that the principal is incapacitated;

(b) Obtains the informed consent of the agent, if any, designated in the directive;

(c) Makes a written determination that the principal needs an inpatient evaluation or is in need of inpatient treatment and that the evaluation or treatment cannot be accomplished in a less restrictive setting; and

(d) Documents in the principal's medical chart a summary of the physician's findings and recommendations for treatment.

(2) In the event the admitting physician is not a psychiatrist, the principal shall receive a complete psychological assessment by a mental health professional within twenty-four hours of admission to determine the continued need for inpatient evaluation or treatment.

(3)(a) A person authorized in section 3 of this act may seek a determination of the person's capacity to revoke. If it is determined that the person has the capacity to revoke, then the person's refusal of voluntary admission shall be a revocation of that provision of the directive.

(b) If a person who is determined by two health care providers or one mental health professional and one health care provider to lack the capacity to revoke the directive, the person may immediately seek injunctive relief for release from the facility. The sole issue to be decided is the person's capacity to revoke the directive.

(4) If, after a seventy-two hour period, the principal has not regained capacity or has regained capacity but refuses to consent to remain for additional treatment, the principal must be released during reasonable daylight hours, unless detained under chapter 70.96A, 71.05, or 71.34 RCW.

(5) Any principal who is voluntarily admitted to inpatient mental health treatment under this chapter, or who consents to remain for additional treatment after the initial seventy-two hour period, shall have all the rights provided to individuals who are voluntarily admitted to inpatient treatment under chapter 71.05, 71.34, or 72.23 RCW. The continuing need for treatment of a principal who consents to remain for additional treatment under this chapter shall be reviewed by the professional staff of the treating facility, and the person's agent if any, at least as frequently as set forth for voluntary patients under chapter 71.05, 71.34, or 72.23 RCW.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 9. A person with capacity may revoke a directive in whole or in part by written statement at any time. The notice need not follow any specific form so long as it is written and the intent of the principal can be discerned. The written statement of revocation is effective when signed by the person and delivered to the agent, if one is appointed, and the health care provider or professional person who is responsible for the delivery of mental health treatment to the person. The health care provider or professional person shall make the revocation part of the person's medical record.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 10. (1) For the purposes of this section, "provider" means a private or public agency, government entity, health care provider, professional person, person acting under the direction of a health care provider or professional person, health care facility, or long-term care facility.

(2) A provider is not subject to civil liability or professional conduct sanctions when, in good faith:

(a) The provider provides treatment to a principal in the absence of actual knowledge of the existence of a directive, or provides treatment pursuant to a directive in the absence of actual knowledge of the revocation of the directive, unless the absence of actual knowledge resulted from the negligence of the provider;

(b) A health care provider or mental health professional determines in good faith that the principal is or is not incapacitated for the purpose of deciding whether to proceed or not to proceed according to a directive, and acts upon that determination;

(c) The provider administers or does not administer mental health treatment according to the principal's directive in good faith reliance upon the validity of the directive and the directive is subsequently found to be invalid;

(d) The provider does not provide treatment according to the directive for one of the reasons authorized under section 7 of this act; or

(e) The provider provides treatment according to the principal's directive.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 11. Any person with good reason to believe that a directive has been created or revoked under circumstances amounting to fraud, duress, or undue influence, may petition the court for appointment of a guardian for the person or to review the actions of the agent or person alleged to be involved in the improper conduct under RCW 11.94.090 or 74.34.110.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 12. The fact that a person has executed a directive does not constitute an indication of mental disorder or that the person is not capable of providing informed consent.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 13. A person shall not be required to execute or to refrain from executing a directive as a criterion for insurance, as a condition for receiving mental or physical health services, or as a condition of admission or discharge from a health care facility or long-term care facility.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 14. A directive does not limit any authority otherwise provided in Title 71 or 10 RCW, or any other applicable state or federal laws to detain a person, take a person into custody, or to admit, retain, or treat a person in a health care facility.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 15. Where a person consents in a directive, or authorizes his or her agent to consent to electroconvulsive therapy, the professional person must document, in the person's medical record, the reasons the professional person elected to use electroconvulsive therapy.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 16. The directive may, but is not required to, be in the following form:

"PART I. STATEMENT OF INTENT TO CREATE A MENTAL HEALTH ADVANCE DIRECTIVE

I, . . . . . ., being a person with capacity, willfully and voluntarily execute this mental health advance directive so that my choices regarding my mental health care will be carried out in circumstances when I am unable to express my intent regarding my mental health care. If a guardian or other decision maker is appointed by a court to make mental health decisions for me, I intend this document to take precedence over all other means of ascertaining my intent.

The fact that I may have left blanks in this mental health advance directive should not affect its validity in any way. I intend that all completed sections be followed. If I have not expressed a choice, my agent should make the decision that he or she determines is the decision I would make if I were capable to do so.

I intend this mental health advance directive to take precedence over any and all durable powers of attorney for health care documents and/or other mental health advance directives I have previously executed, to the extent that they are inconsistent with this document, or unless I expressly state otherwise in this mental health advance directive.

I understand that I may revoke this mental health advance directive in whole or in part only if I am a person with capacity. I understand that I cannot revoke this mental health advance directive if a court, two health care providers, or one mental health professional and one health care provider find that I am an incapacitated person. I understand that, except as otherwise provided in law, revocation must be in writing.

I understand that nothing in this mental health advance directive, or in my refusal of treatment to which I consent in this mental health advance directive, authorizes any agent designated by this mental health advance directive to use or threaten to use physical force, abuse, neglect, financial exploitation, or abandonment to enforce or carry out my mental health advance directive.

PART II. STATEMENT OF INTENT REGARDING WHEN THIS MENTAL HEALTH ADVANCE DIRECTIVE BECOMES OPERATIVE

I intend that this mental health advance directive become operative (initial only one):

. . . Immediately upon my signing of this mental health advance directive

. . . When the following circumstances, symptoms, or behaviors occur:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

If I become incapacitated.

PART III. STATEMENT OF INTENT REGARDING PREFERENCES OR INSTRUCTIONS ABOUT TREATMENT, FACILITIES, AND PHYSICIANS

A. Preferences or Instructions About Physician(s) to Be Involved in My Treatment

I would like the physician named below to be involved in my treatment decisions: Dr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Telephone . . . . .

Dr. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Telephone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I do not wish to be treated by: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B. Preferences or Instructions About Other Providers

I am receiving other treatment or care from providers who I feel have an impact on my mental health care. I would like the following additional service provider(s) to be contacted when this mental health advance directive is operative:

Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Profession . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Telephone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C. Preferences or Instructions About Medications for Psychiatric Treatment (initial all that apply):

. . . I consent, and authorize my agent (if appointed) to consent, to the following medications: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . I specifically do not consent and I do not authorize my agent (if appointed) to consent to the administration of the following medications: . . . . . . . .

. . . I am willing to take the medications excluded above if my only reason for excluding them is the side effects which include . . . . . . and these side effects can be eliminated by dosage adjustment or other means.

. . . I am willing to try any new medication the hospital doctor recommends.

. . . I am willing to try any new medications my outpatient doctor recommends.

. . . I do not want to try any new medications.

Medication Allergies

I have allergies to, or severe side effects from, the following medications: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other Medication Preferences or Instructions

I have the following other preferences or instructions about medications: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

D. Preferences or Instructions About Hospitalization and Alternatives (initial all that apply and, if desired, rank "1" for first choice, "2" for second choice, and so on):

. . . In the event my psychiatric condition is serious enough to require 24-hour care and I have no physical conditions that require immediate access to emergency medical care, I prefer to receive this care in programs/facilities designed as alternatives to psychiatric hospitalizations.

I would also like the interventions below to be tried before hospitalization is considered:

. . . Calling someone or having someone call you when needed

. . . Staying overnight with someone

Name: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Telephone: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . Having a mental health service provider come to see you

. . . Going to a crisis triage center or emergency room

. . . Staying overnight at a crisis respite (temporary) bed

. . . Seeing a service provider for help with psychiatric medications

. . . Other, specify. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Authority to Consent to Inpatient Treatment

I consent, and authorize my agent (if appointed) to consent, to voluntary admission to inpatient mental health treatment for a period not to exceed 72 hours (initial one if desired):

. . . If deemed appropriate by my agent (if appointed) and treating physician

. . . Under the following circumstances (specify symptoms, behaviors, or circumstances that indicate the need for hospitalization)

. . . I do not consent, or authorize my agent (if appointed) to consent to inpatient treatment.

Hospital Preferences or Instructions

If hospitalization is required, I prefer the following hospitals:

I do not wish to be admitted to the following hospitals:

E. Preferences or Instructions About Pre-Emergency Interventions

I would like the interventions below to be tried before use of seclusion or restraint is considered (initial all that apply):

. . . "Talk me down" one-on-one

. . . More medication

. . . Time out/privacy

. . . Show of authority/force

. . . Shift my attention to something else

. . . Set firm limits

. . . Help me to discuss/vent feelings

. . . Decrease stimulation

. . . Offer to have neutral person settle dispute

. . . Other, specify . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

F. Preferences or Instructions About Seclusion, Restraint, and Emergency Medications

If it is determined that I am engaging in behavior that requires seclusion, physical restraint, and/or emergency use of medication, I prefer these interventions in the following order (rank "1" for first choice, "2" for second choice, and so on):

. . . Seclusion

. . . Physical restraints

. . Seclusion and physical restraint (combined)

. . . Medication by injection

. . . Medication in pill or liquid form

In the event that my attending physician decides to use medication in response to an emergency situation after due consideration of my preferences or instructions for emergency treatments stated above, I expect the choice of medication to reflect any preferences or instructions I have expressed in Part III C of this form. The preferences or instructions I express in this section regarding medication in emergency situations do not constitute consent to use of the medication for nonemergency treatment.

G. Preferences or Instructions About Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT or Shock Therapy)

My wishes regarding electroconvulsive therapy are (initial one):

. . . I do not consent, nor authorize my agent (if appointed) to consent, to the administration of electroconvulsive therapy

. . . I consent, and authorize my agent (if appointed) to consent, to the administration of electroconvulsive therapy

. . . I consent, and authorize my agent (if appointed) to consent, to the administration of electroconvulsive therapy, but only under the following conditions: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

H. Additional Instructions About My Mental Health Care

Other instructions about my mental health care: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In case of emergency, please contact:

Name: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Address: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Work telephone: . . . . . . . . . . . .

Home telephone: . . . . . . . . . . . .

Relationship: . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Physician: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Telephone: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The following may help me to avoid a hospitalization:

I generally react to being hospitalized as follows:

Staff of the hospital or crisis unit can help me by doing the following:

PART IV. STATEMENT OF INTENT TO APPOINT AN AGENT

I authorize an agent to make mental health treatment decisions on my behalf. The authority granted to my agent includes the right to consent, refuse consent, or withdraw consent to any mental health care, treatment, service, or procedure, and to obtain and to authorize disclosure of health care information, as defined in section 2 of this act, and other information relevant to such health care, treatment, service, or procedure consistent with any instructions and/or limitations I have set forth in this mental health advance directive. I intend that those decisions should be made in accordance with my expressed wishes as set forth in this document. If I have not expressed a choice in this document, I authorize my agent to make the decision that my agent determines is the decision I would make if I were capable to do so.

A. Designation of an Agent

I hereby appoint the following person as my agent to make mental health treatment decisions for me as authorized in this document and request that this person to be notified immediately when this mental health advance directive becomes operative:

Name: . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Relationship: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Day Telephone: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evening Telephone: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Agent's Acceptance

I hereby accept the designation as the agent for purposes described in this document (agent's signature) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B. Designation of Alternate Agent

If the person named above is unavailable, unable, or refuses to serve as my agent, or I revoke that person's authority to serve as my agent, I hereby appoint the following person as my alternate agent and request that this person be notified immediately when this mental health advance directive becomes operative:

Alternate Agent's Acceptance

I hereby accept the designation as the alternate agent for purposes described in this document (alternate's signature) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C. When My Spouse is My Agent (initial if desired)

. . . If my spouse is my agent, I desire that person to remain as my agent even if we become legally separated or our marriage is dissolved.

D. Limitations on My Agent's Authority

I do not grant my agent the authority to consent on my behalf to the following: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

E. Agent Authorized During Principal's Incapacity (initial if desired)

. . . This agency shall not be affected by the disability or incapacity of the principal.

F. Preference as to Court-Appointed Guardian

In the event a court decides to appoint a guardian who will make decisions regarding my mental health treatment, I desire the following person to be appointed:

The appointment of a guardian of my estate or my person or any other decision maker shall not give the guardian or decision maker the power to revoke, suspend, or terminate this mental health advance directive or the powers of my agent, except as authorized by law.

PART V. OTHER DOCUMENTS

(Initial all that apply):

. . . I have executed the following documents that include the power to make decisions regarding health care services for myself:

. . . Health care power of attorney (chapter 11.94 RCW)

. . . Advance directive or "living will" (chapter 70.122 RCW)

. . . I authorize my agent appointed under this directive and the agent appointed under the other documents to serve:

. . . Jointly with consent of each other as to my mental health treatment

. . . Separately without each other's consent as to my mental health treatment

In the event a decision about health care treatment impacts both mental health and physical health treatment and the agents appointed under my health care power of attorney, advance directive, and mental health advance directive cannot reach a consensus, the agent appointed under the following document will control (check only one):

. . . Health care power of attorney (chapter 11.94 RCW)

. . . Advance directive or "living will" (chapter 70.122 RCW)

. . . Mental health advance directive (chapter 71.-- RCW (sections 1 through 16 of this act))

. . . I have also executed a general or financial power of attorney that does not include the power to make decisions regarding health care services for me.

PART VI. PREFERENCES OR INSTRUCTIONS ABOUT NOTIFICATION OF OTHERS, CARE OF PERSONAL AFFAIRS,

AND CONSENTS TO RELEASE TREATMENT INFORMATION

I acknowledge that state and federal law may require that I be notified of my rights to limit disclosure of health information. I hereby waive any specific type of notification of such rights and authorize disclosure as set forth in detail herein or as authorized by my agent.

A. Who Should Be Notified

I desire staff to notify the following individuals, in addition to my agent (if appointed) immediately when this mental health advance directive becomes operative:

B. Who May Not be Permitted to Visit

If I have been admitted to a mental health treatment facility, the following people may not be permitted to visit me there:

C. Authorization to Release Previous Treatment Records

I authorize the release of health care information, as defined in section 2 of this act, from the following previous treatment providers upon request by treatment providers acting under this mental health advance directive:

Provider(s): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

D. Authorization to Release Treatment Information

I authorize the release of relevant health care information, as defined in section 2 of this act, to the following individuals in addition to my agent and current treatment providers:

E. Preferences or Instructions About Personal Affairs

I have the following preferences or instructions about my personal affairs (e.g., care of dependents, pets, household) if I am admitted to a mental health treatment facility: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

F. Additional Preferences and Instructions:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PART VII. DURATION OF MY MENTAL HEALTH ADVANCE DIRECTIVE

(Initial one):

. . . I want this mental health advance directive to remain valid and in effect for an indefinite period of time.

. . . I want this mental health advance directive to automatically expire . . . years from the date it was created.

PART VIII. SIGNATURE

By signing here, I indicate that I understand the purpose and effect of this document and that I am giving my informed consent to the treatments and/or admission to which I have consented or authorized my agent to consent in this directive. I intend that my consent in this directive be construed as being consistent with the elements required under RCW 7.70.060.

Signature Date

The mental health advance directive above was signed and declared by the "Declarant," . . . . . . to be his or her mental health advance directive, in our presence who, at his or her request, have signed names below as witness. We declare that, at the time of the creation of this instrument, the Declarant is personally known to us, and, according to our best knowledge and belief, was a person with capacity at the time and did not appear to be acting under duress, undue influence, or fraud. We further declare that none of us is: (1) A person designated to make medical decisions on the person's behalf; (2) a health care provider or professional person directly involved with the provision of care to the person at the time the mental health advance directive is executed; (3) an owner, operator, employee, or relative of an owner or operator of a health care facility or long-term care facility in which the person is a patient or resident; (4) a person who is related by blood, marriage, or adoption to the person, or with whom the person has a dating relationship as defined in RCW 26.50.010; (5) an incapacitated person; (6) a person who would benefit financially if the principal undergoes mental health treatment; or (7) a minor.

Dated at . . . . . . . . . . . (county, state),

this . . . . . . day of . . . . . . of . . . ..

Witness 1 Witness 2

. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Signature Signature

. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Printed Name Printed Name

. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Address Address

. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Telephone Telephone

PART IX. RECORD OF MENTAL HEALTH ADVANCE DIRECTIVE

I have given a copy of this mental health advance directive to the following persons: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PART X. REVOCATION OF MY MENTAL HEALTH ADVANCE DIRECTIVE

(Initial any that apply):

. . . I am revoking the following part(s) of this mental health advance directive (specify):

. . . I am revoking all of this mental health advance directive.

By signing here, I indicate that I understand the purpose and effect of my revocation and that no person is bound by any revoked provision(s).

Signature Date"

Sec. 17. RCW 11.94.010 and 1995 c 297 s 9 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) Whenever a principal designates another as his or her attorney in fact or agent, by a power of attorney in writing, and the writing contains the words "This power of attorney shall not be affected by disability of the principal," or "This power of attorney shall become effective upon the disability of the principal," or similar words showing the intent of the principal that the authority conferred shall be exercisable notwithstanding the principal's disability, the authority of the attorney in fact or agent is exercisable on behalf of the principal as provided notwithstanding later disability or incapacity of the principal at law or later uncertainty as to whether the principal is dead or alive. All acts done by the attorney in fact or agent pursuant to the power during any period of disability or incompetence or uncertainty as to whether the principal is dead or alive have the same effect and inure to the benefit of and bind the principal or the principal's guardian or heirs, devisees, and personal representative as if the principal were alive, competent, and not disabled. A principal may nominate, by a durable power of attorney, the guardian or limited guardian of his or her estate or person for consideration by the court if protective proceedings for the principal's person or estate are thereafter commenced. The court shall make its appointment in accordance with the principal's most recent nomination in a durable power of attorney except for good cause or disqualification. If a guardian thereafter is appointed for the principal, the attorney in fact or agent, during the continuance of the appointment, shall account to the guardian rather than the principal. The guardian has the same power the principal would have had if the principal were not disabled or incompetent, to revoke, suspend or terminate all or any part of the power of attorney, mental health advance directive, or agency.

(2) Persons shall place reasonable reliance on any determination of disability or incompetence as provided in the instrument that specifies the time and the circumstances under which the power of attorney document becomes effective.

(3)(a) A principal may authorize his or her attorney-in-fact to provide informed consent for health care decisions on the principal's behalf. If a principal has created both a power of attorney and a mental health advance directive, pursuant to chapter 71.-- RCW (sections 1 through 16 of this act), authorizing an agent to make mental health care decisions on the person's behalf, the mental health advance directive or power of attorney most recently created shall be construed to contain the person's mental health treatment preferences and instructions, unless provided otherwise in either document. An agent appointed under a mental health advance directive has the same right as the principal to receive and review the principal's health care information, including mental health, sexually transmitted diseases and human immunodeficiency virus/AIDS, and alcohol and substance abuse information. If the principal so states in the mental health advance directive, an agent may provide consent on behalf of the principal to voluntary admission to inpatient mental health treatment for a period not to exceed seventy-two hours.

(b) Unless he or she is the spouse, or adult child or brother or sister of the principal, none of the following persons may act as the attorney-in-fact for the principal or as an agent in a mental health advance directive: Any of the principal's physicians, the physicians' employees, or the owners, administrators, or

employees of the health care facility or long-term care facility where the principal resides or receives care. Except as provided in (a) of this subsection, this authorization is subject to the same limitations as those that apply to a guardian under RCW 11.92.043(5) (a) through (c).

Sec. 18. RCW 11.88.010 and 1991 c 289 s 1 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) The superior court of each county shall have power to appoint guardians for the persons and/or estates of incapacitated persons, and guardians for the estates of nonresidents of the state who have property in the county needing care and attention.

(a) For purposes of this chapter, a person may be deemed incapacitated as to person when the superior court determines the individual has a significant risk of personal harm based upon a demonstrated inability to adequately provide for nutrition, health, housing, or physical safety.

(b) For purposes of this chapter, a person may be deemed incapacitated as to the person's estate when the superior court determines the individual is at significant risk of financial harm based upon a demonstrated inability to adequately manage property or financial affairs.

(c) A determination of incapacity is a legal not a medical decision, based upon a demonstration of management insufficiencies over time in the area of person or estate. Age, eccentricity, poverty, or medical diagnosis alone shall not be sufficient to justify a finding of incapacity.

(d) A person may also be determined incapacitated if he or she is under the age of majority as defined in RCW 26.28.010.

(e) For purposes of giving informed consent for health care pursuant to RCW 7.70.050 and 7.70.065, an "incompetent" person is any person who is (i) incompetent by reason of mental illness, developmental disability, senility, habitual drunkenness, excessive use of drugs, or other mental incapacity, of either managing his or her property or caring for himself or herself, or both, or (ii) incapacitated as defined in (a), (b), or (d) of this subsection.

(f) For purposes of the terms "incompetent," "disabled," or "not legally competent," as those terms are used in the Revised Code of Washington to apply to persons incapacitated under this chapter, those terms shall be interpreted to mean "incapacitated" persons for purposes of this chapter.

(2) The superior court for each county shall have power to appoint limited guardians for the persons and estates, or either thereof, of incapacitated persons, who by reason of their incapacity have need for protection and assistance, but who are capable of managing some of their personal and financial affairs. After considering all evidence presented as a result of such investigation, the court shall impose, by order, only such specific limitations and restrictions on an incapacitated person to be placed under a limited guardianship as the court finds necessary for such person's protection and assistance. A person shall not be presumed to be incapacitated nor shall a person lose any legal rights or suffer any legal disabilities as the result of being placed under a limited guardianship, except as to those rights and disabilities specifically set forth in the court order establishing such a limited guardianship. In addition, the court order shall state the period of time for which it shall be applicable.

(3) Venue for petitions for guardianship or limited guardianship shall lie in the county wherein the alleged incapacitated person is domiciled, or if such person resides in a facility supported in whole or in part by local, state, or federal funding sources, in either the county where the facility is located, the county of domicile prior to residence in the supported facility, or the county where a parent or spouse of the alleged incapacitated person is domiciled.

If the alleged incapacitated person's residency has changed within one year of the filing of the petition, any interested person may move for a change of venue for any proceedings seeking the appointment of a guardian or a limited guardian under this chapter to the county of the alleged incapacitated person's last place of residence of one year or more. The motion shall be granted when it appears to the court that such venue would be in the best interests of the alleged incapacitated person and would promote more complete consideration of all relevant matters.

(4) Under RCW 11.94.010 or chapter 71.-- RCW (sections 1 through 16 of this act), a principal may nominate, by a durable power of attorney or the mental health advance directive, the guardian or limited guardian of his or her estate or person for consideration by the court if guardianship proceedings for the principal's person or estate are thereafter commenced. The court shall make its appointment in accordance with the principal's most recent nomination in a durable power of attorney or mental health advance directive except for good cause or disqualification.

(5) When a court imposes a full guardianship for an incapacitated person, the person shall be considered incompetent for purposes of rationally exercising the right to vote and shall lose the right to vote, unless the court specifically finds that the person is rationally capable of exercising the franchise. Imposition of a limited guardianship for an incapacitated person shall not result in the loss of the right to vote unless the court determines that the person is incompetent for purposes of rationally exercising the franchise.

Sec. 19. RCW 11.88.030 and 1996 c 249 s 8 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) Any person or entity may petition for the appointment of a qualified person, trust company, national bank, or nonprofit corporation authorized in RCW 11.88.020 as the guardian or limited guardian of an incapacitated person. No liability for filing a petition for guardianship or limited guardianship shall attach to a petitioner acting in good faith and upon reasonable basis. A petition for guardianship or limited guardianship shall state:

(a) The name, age, residence, and post office address of the alleged incapacitated person;

(b) The nature of the alleged incapacity in accordance with RCW 11.88.010;

(c) The approximate value and description of property, including any compensation, pension, insurance, or allowance, to which the alleged incapacitated person may be entitled;

(d) Whether there is, in any state, a guardian or limited guardian, or pending guardianship action for the person or estate of the alleged incapacitated person;

(e) The residence and post office address of the person whom petitioner asks to be appointed guardian or limited guardian;

(f) The names and addresses, and nature of the relationship, so far as known or can be reasonably ascertained, of the persons most closely related by blood or marriage to the alleged incapacitated person;

(g) The name and address of the person or facility having the care and custody of the alleged incapacitated person;

(h) The reason why the appointment of a guardian or limited guardian is sought and the interest of the petitioner in the appointment, and whether the appointment is sought as guardian or limited guardian of the person, the estate, or both;

(i) A description of any alternate arrangements previously made by the alleged incapacitated person, such as trusts, mental health advance directives, or powers of attorney, including identifying any guardianship nominations contained in a power of attorney, and why a guardianship is nevertheless necessary;

(j) The nature and degree of the alleged incapacity and the specific areas of protection and assistance requested and the limitation of rights requested to be included in the court's order of appointment;

(k) The requested term of the limited guardianship to be included in the court's order of appointment;

(l) Whether the petitioner is proposing a specific individual to act as guardian ad litem and, if so, the individual's knowledge of or relationship to any of the parties, and why the individual is proposed.

(2)(a) The attorney general may petition for the appointment of a guardian or limited guardian in any case in which there is cause to believe that a guardianship is necessary and no private party is able and willing to petition.

(b) Prepayment of a filing fee shall not be required in any guardianship or limited guardianship brought by the attorney general. Payment of the filing fee shall be ordered from the estate of the incapacitated person at the hearing on the merits of the petition, unless in the judgment of the court, such payment would impose a hardship upon the incapacitated person, in which case the filing shall be waived.

(3) No filing fee shall be charged by the court for filing either a petition for guardianship or a petition for limited guardianship if the petition alleges that the alleged incapacitated person has total assets of a value of less than three thousand dollars.

(4)(a) Notice that a guardianship proceeding has been commenced shall be personally served upon the alleged incapacitated person and the guardian ad litem along with a copy of the petition for appointment of a guardian. Such notice shall be served not more than five court days after the petition has been filed.

(b) Notice under this subsection shall include a clear and easily readable statement of the legal rights of the alleged incapacitated person that could be restricted or transferred to a guardian by a guardianship order as well as the right to counsel of choice and to a jury trial on the issue of incapacity. Such notice shall be in substantially the following form and shall be in capital letters, double-spaced, and in a type size not smaller than ten-point type:

IMPORTANT NOTICE

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY

A PETITION TO HAVE A GUARDIAN APPOINTED FOR YOU HAS BEEN FILED IN THE . . . . . . COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT BY . . . . . . IF A GUARDIAN IS APPOINTED, YOU COULD LOSE ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING RIGHTS:

(1) TO MARRY OR DIVORCE;

(2) TO VOTE OR HOLD AN ELECTED OFFICE;

(3) TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT OR MAKE OR REVOKE A WILL;

(4) TO APPOINT SOMEONE TO ACT ON YOUR BEHALF;

(5) TO SUE AND BE SUED OTHER THAN THROUGH A GUARDIAN;

(6) TO POSSESS A LICENSE TO DRIVE;

(7) TO BUY, SELL, OWN, MORTGAGE, OR LEASE PROPERTY;

(8) TO CONSENT TO OR REFUSE MEDICAL TREATMENT;

(9) TO DECIDE WHO SHALL PROVIDE CARE AND ASSISTANCE;

(10) TO MAKE DECISIONS REGARDING SOCIAL ASPECTS OF YOUR LIFE.

UNDER THE LAW, YOU HAVE CERTAIN RIGHTS.

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED BY A LAWYER OF YOUR OWN CHOOSING. THE COURT WILL APPOINT A LAWYER TO REPRESENT YOU IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO PAY OR PAYMENT WOULD RESULT IN A SUBSTANTIAL HARDSHIP TO YOU.

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK FOR A JURY TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU NEED A GUARDIAN TO HELP YOU.

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT IN COURT AND TESTIFY WHEN THE HEARING IS HELD TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU NEED A GUARDIAN. IF A GUARDIAN AD LITEM IS APPOINTED, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THE COURT TO REPLACE THAT PERSON.

(5) All petitions filed under the provisions of this section shall be heard within sixty days unless an extension of time is requested by a party or the guardian ad litem within such sixty day period and granted for good cause shown. If an extension is granted, the court shall set a new hearing date.

Sec. 20. RCW 7.70.065 and 1987 c 162 s 1 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) Informed consent for health care for a patient who is not competent, as defined in RCW 11.88.010(1)(((b))) (e), to consent may be obtained from a person authorized to consent on behalf of such patient. Persons authorized to provide informed consent to health care on behalf of a patient who is not competent to consent shall be a member of one of the following classes of persons in the following order of priority:

(a) The appointed guardian of the patient, if any;

(b) The individual, if any, to whom the patient has given a durable power of attorney that encompasses the authority to make health care decisions;

(d) Children of the patient who are at least eighteen years of age;

(e) Parents of the patient; and

(f) Adult brothers and sisters of the patient.

(2) If the physician seeking informed consent for proposed health care of the patient who is not competent to consent makes reasonable efforts to locate and secure authorization from a competent person in the first or succeeding class and finds no such person available, authorization may be given by any person in the next class in the order of descending priority. However, no person under this section may provide informed consent to health care:

(a) If a person of higher priority under this section has refused to give such authorization; or

(b) If there are two or more individuals in the same class and the decision is not unanimous among all available members of that class.

(3) Before any person authorized to provide informed consent on behalf of a patient not competent to consent exercises that authority, the person must first determine in good faith that that patient, if competent, would consent to the proposed health care. If such a determination cannot be made, the decision to consent to the proposed health care may be made only after determining that the proposed health care is in the patient's best interests.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 21. Nothing in this act creates a legal right or cause of action. Nothing in this act denies or alters any existing legal right or cause of action nor may it be relied upon to compel the establishment of any program or special entitlement.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 22. Sections 1 through 16 of this act constitute a new chapter in Title 71 RCW.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 23. 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.

The President declared the question before the Senate to be the adoption of the striking amendment by Senators Keiser, Hargrove and Long to Substitute Senate Bill No. 6589.

The motion by Senator Keiser carried and the striking amendment was adopted.

MOTIONS

On motion of Senator Keiser, the following title amendment was adopted:

On page 1, line 1 of the title, after "directives;" strike the remainder of the title and insert "amending RCW 11.94.010, 11.88.010, 11.88.030, and 7.70.065; adding a new chapter to Title 71 RCW; and creating a new section."

On motion of Senator Keiser, the rules were suspended, Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 6589 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 Senate Bill No. 6589.

ROLL CALL

The Secretary called the roll on the final passage of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 6589 and the bill passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 46; Nays, 1; Absent, 0; Excused, 2.

Voting yea: Senators Benton, Brown, Carlson, Costa, Deccio, Eide, Fairley, Finkbeiner, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Hewitt, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Horn, Jacobsen, Johnson, Kastama, Keiser, Kline, Long, McAuliffe, McCaslin, Morton, Oke, Parlette, Poulsen, Prentice, Rasmussen, Regala, Roach, Rossi, Sheahan, Sheldon, B., Sheldon, T., Shin, Spanel, Stevens, Swecker, Thibaudeau, West, Winsley and Zarelli - 46.

Voting nay: Senator Kohl-Welles - 1.

Excused: Senators McDonald and Snyder - 2.

ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 6589, 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. 6568, by Senators Finkbeiner, Benton, Gardner, Poulsen, T. Sheldon, Winsley, Oke, Hale and Rasmussen

Requiring the sender of commercial electronic mail to identify itself as a commercial message.

MOTIONS

On motion of Senator Finkbeiner, Substitute Senate Bill No. 6568 was substituted for Senate Bill No. 6568 and the substitute bill was placed on second reading and read the second time.

On motion of Senator Finkbeiner, the following amendment by Senators Finkbeiner, Kastama and Tim Sheldon was adopted:

On page 2, beginning on line 2, after "address" strike all material through "resident" on line 5, and insert "or from directories of Washington residents that are readily available on-line and reasonably reliable"

MOTION

On motion of Senator Finkbeiner, the rules were suspended, Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 6568 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. 6568.

ROLL CALL

The Secretary called the roll on the final passage of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 6568 and the bill passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 49; Nays, 0; Absent, 0; Excused, 0.

Voting yea: Senators Benton, Brown, Carlson, Costa, Deccio, Eide, Fairley, Finkbeiner, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Hewitt, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Horn, Jacobsen, Johnson, Kastama, Keiser, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Long, McAuliffe, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Oke, Parlette, Poulsen, Prentice, Rasmussen, Regala, Roach, Rossi, Sheahan, Sheldon, B., Sheldon, T., Shin, Snyder, Spanel, Stevens, Swecker, Thibaudeau, West, Winsley and Zarelli - 49.

ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 6568, 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

On motion of Senator Sheahan, the Senate returned to the fifth order of business.

MOTION

Senator Sheahan moved that the Senate immediately consider Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 8434, which was held on the desk this morning.

Senator Snyder requested that copies of the concurrent resolution be distributed to the members before any debate takes place.

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 8434

WHEREAS, Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 8424 established cutoff dates for consideration of legislation during the 2002 Regular Session of the Fifty-Seventh Legislature;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Senate of the State of Washington, the House of Representatives concurring, That the cutoff dates established in Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 8424, with the exception of the March 8, 2002, cutoff date, shall not apply to the following measures:

Senate Bill No. 6251 (administrative rule adoption)

Senate Bill No. 6252 (rule-making authority)

Senate Bill No. 6384 (business and occupation tax)

Senate Bill No. 6564 (significant legislative rules)

Senate Bill No. 6749 (invalidity agency rules)

Senate Bill No. 6793 (public water systems)

MOTION

On motion of Senator Sheahan, the Senate advanced to the sixth order of business.

SECOND READING

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 8434, by Senator Sheahan

Making exceptions to cutoff dates.

The concurrent resolution was read the second time.

MOTION

On motion of Senator Sheahan, the rules were suspended, Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 8434 was advanced to third reading, the second reading considered the third and the concurrent resolution was placed on final passage.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Senator Snyder: “A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. I would like the President to rule on whether this concurrent resolution be passed by both houses of the Legislature before one of the houses can act on the bills referenced in the resolution. I would like to give some reasons why I think that it has to be passed by both houses and acted on. The concurrent resolution would amend the cutoff resolution, a change which can take effect only upon passage by both houses. I would also ask that the President consider Joint Rule No. 11 in evaluating this issue.

“Joint Rule 11 provides that joint resolutions shall be subject to the rules governing the course of bills, ‘up to and including the signing thereof by the presiding officer of each house.’ Since bills are not ‘passed’ until approved by both houses and signed by their respective presiding officers, the same should be true with respect to concurrent resolutions.

“It is true that past practice has been inconsistent on this issue, but the body always has the ability to waive or suspend adherence to its rules. The question is whether, in the absence of such a waiver or suspension, a concurrent resolution must pass both houses before the Senate can act on a bill referred to in a resolution amending the cutoff. I know in the past we have sent a resolution just ahead of the measure that we have acted on, but I think if you could go back in history, we used to have the resolution passed by both houses and signed by the presiding officers of the respective houses before we took action on those measures that we had just passed.”

REMARKS BY SENATOR WEST

Senator West: “Thank you, Mr. President. I think that the practice in recent times has been to send the concurrent resolution with the legislation that is referenced. Recognizing that the Legislature is under time constraints, to adhere to a rule suggested by the good Senator from the Nineteenth District–I could think of any number of examples where there may be a desire on the part of the Legislature to pass a bill on the last day of session, exempting from the cutoffs, and then because of timing not be able to. The majority of the Legislature would be frustrated in their desire to do that. I think the most recent practice and the most recent rulings by the Lieutenant Governor allowing this custom of the Senate should continue to stand.”

FURTHER REMARKS SENATOR SNYDER

Senator Snyder: “Thank you, Mr. President. Just to continue the argument, I think the rules of the Senate and the Joint Rules of the Senate and House should be the paramount consideration and it is not the way practices go. We do a lot of things around here that aren’t according to the rules–even little things like getting up and making speeches before you make a motion. I could have raised a point of order and said, ‘The person is out of order because they made a speech before they made a motion.’ Just because it isn’t challenged at the time doesn’t mean that the rule isn’t still in effect.”

REPLY BY THE PRESIDENT

President Owen: “The President is not prepared to rule at this moment. He needs a little time to take a look at the rules.”

MOTION

On motion of Senator Sheahan, further consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 8434 was deferred.

President Pro Tempore Franklin assumed the Chair.

MOTION

On motion of Senator Betti Sheldon, the Senate advanced to the sixth order of business.

SECOND READING

SENATE BILL NO. 5568, by Senators Prentice and Benton

Clarifying business location requirements for tow truck operators.

The bill was read the second time.

MOTION

On motion of Senator Haugen, the rules were suspended, Senate Bill No. 5568 was advanced to third reading, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

The President Pro Tempore declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the final passage of Senate Bill No. 5568.

ROLL CALL

The Secretary called the roll on the final passage of Senate Bill No. 5568 and the bill passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 48; Nays, 0; Absent, 1; Excused, 0.

Voting yea: Senators Benton, Brown, Carlson, Costa, Deccio, Eide, Fairley, Finkbeiner, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Hale, Haugen, Hewitt, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Horn, Jacobsen, Johnson, Kastama, Keiser, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Long, McAuliffe, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Oke, Parlette, Poulsen, Prentice, Rasmussen, Regala, Roach, Rossi, Sheahan, Sheldon, B., Sheldon, T., Shin, Snyder, Spanel, Stevens, Swecker, Thibaudeau, West, Winsley and Zarelli - 48.

Absent: Senator Hargrove - 1.

SENATE BILL NO. 5568, 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. 6719, by Senators Winsley, Prentice and Eide

Modifying municipal court provisions.

MOTIONS

On motion of Senator Winsley, Substitute Senate Bill No. 6719 was substituted for Senate Bill No. 6719 and the substitute bill was placed on second reading and read the second time.

On motion of Senator Winsley, the rules were suspended, Substitute Senate Bill No. 6719 was advanced to third reading, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

The President Pro Tempore declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 6719.

ROLL CALL

The Secretary called the roll on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 6719 and the bill passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 48; Nays, 1; Absent, 0; Excused, 0.

Voting yea: Senators Benton, Brown, Carlson, Costa, Deccio, Eide, Fairley, Finkbeiner, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Hewitt, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Horn, Jacobsen, Johnson, Kastama, Keiser, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Long, McAuliffe, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Oke, Parlette, Poulsen, Prentice, Rasmussen, Regala, Rossi, Sheahan, Sheldon, B., Sheldon, T., Shin, Snyder, Spanel, Stevens, Swecker, Thibaudeau, West, Winsley and Zarelli - 48.

Voting nay: Senator Roach - 1.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 6719, 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

On motion of Senator Eide, Senator Fairley was excused.

SECOND READING

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5078, by Senate Committee on Transportation (originally sponsored by Senator Haugen)

Revising the disposition of vehicle license fees.

MOTIONS

On motion of Senator Haugen, Second Substitute Senate Bill No. 5078 was substituted for Substitute Senate Bill No. 5078 and the second substitute bill was placed on second reading and read the second time.

On motion of Senator Haugen, the rules were suspended, Second Substitute Senate Bill No. 5078 was advanced to third reading, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

The President Pro Tempore declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the final passage of Second Substitute Senate Bill No. 5078.

ROLL CALL

The Secretary called the roll on the final passage of Second Substitute Senate Bill No. 5078 and the bill passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 45; Nays, 3; Absent, 0; Excused, 1.

Voting yea: Senators Benton, Brown, Carlson, Costa, Deccio, Eide, Finkbeiner, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Hewitt, Hochstatter, Horn, Jacobsen, Johnson, Kastama, Keiser, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Long, McAuliffe, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Oke, Parlette, Poulsen, Prentice, Rasmussen, Regala, Rossi, Sheahan, Sheldon, B., Sheldon, T., Shin, Snyder, Spanel, Swecker, Thibaudeau, West, Winsley and Zarelli - 45.

Voting nay: Senators Honeyford, Roach and Stevens - 3.

Excused: Senator Fairley - 1.

SECOND SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5078, 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. 6748, by Senators Kline, Oke, Swecker and Haugen

Revising vehicle impound and transfer procedures.

MOTIONS

On motion of Senator Kline, Substitute Senate Bill No. 6748 was substituted for Senate Bill No. 6748 and the substitute bill was placed on second reading and read the second time.

On motion of Senator Kline, the rules were suspended, Substitute Senate Bill No. 6748 was advanced to third reading, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

The President Pro Tempore declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 6748.

ROLL CALL

The Secretary called the roll on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 6748 and the bill passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 48; Nays, 0; Absent, 0; Excused, 1.

Voting yea: Senators Benton, Brown, Carlson, Costa, Deccio, Eide, Finkbeiner, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Hewitt, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Horn, Jacobsen, Johnson, Kastama, Keiser, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Long, McAuliffe, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Oke, Parlette, Poulsen, Prentice, Rasmussen, Regala, Roach, Rossi, Sheahan, Sheldon, B., Sheldon, T., Shin, Snyder, Spanel, Stevens, Swecker, Thibaudeau, West, Winsley and Zarelli - 48.

Excused: Senator Fairley - 1.

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 6748, 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. 6682, by Senators Winsley and Prentice

Restricting utility connection charges for certain mobile home parks.

The bill was read the second time.

MOTION

Senator Winsley moved that the following striking amendment by Senators Gardner and Winsley be adopted:

Strike everything after the enacting clause and insert the following:

"Sec. 1. RCW 35.67.370 and 1998 c 61 s 1 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) Cities, towns, or counties may ((not)) require existing mobile home parks to replace existing, functional septic systems with a sewer system within the community ((unless)) when either the local board of health determines that the septic system is failing or it is at least five years after the first request to replace the septic system.

(2) Cities, towns, counties, local improvement districts, utility local improvement districts, municipal corporations, political subdivisions, or any other persons, firms, or corporations are prohibited from requiring existing mobile home parks to pay a utility connection charge until the mobile home park connects to a utility or no longer operates as a mobile home park under chapter 59.20 RCW. This act is remedial in nature and applies retroactively."

POINT OF INQUIRY

Senator Kastama: “Senator Winsley, I am noticing that this changes current statute, which says, ‘Cities or towns may not require existing mobile home parks to replace existing septic systems, unless the local Board of Health, in terms of the septic system is failing.’ As I read this it says, ‘It doesn’t have to be failing,’ but instead if they make any requests whatsoever five years after the request is made, whether it is based on the failing or not, they have to comply. Is that correct?”

Senator Winsley: “Senator, this bill is very narrowly drafted. Let me explain. We had a bill in 1998 that dealt with a mobile home park in Spokane. What we said is that this area did not have to hook up to the sewer system. They had a fairly new septic system. We didn’t say they didn’t have to pay. What this bill says is, ‘No, you don’t have to hook up and you don’t have to pay the cost of the sewer system coming from the street to each mobile home within that park.’ It would not affect the parks in your district.”

Senator Kastama: “Thank you.”

The President Pro Tempore declared the question before the Senate to be the adoption of the striking amendment by Senators Gardner and Winsley to Senate Bill No. 6682.

The motion by Senator Winsley carried and the striking amendment was adopted.

MOTIONS

On motion of Senator Winsley, the following title amendment was adopted:

On page 1, line 2 of the title, after "parks;" strike the remainder of the title and insert "and amending RCW 35.67.370."

On motion of Senator Winsley, the rules were suspended, Engrossed Senate Bill No. 6682 was advanced to third reading, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

The President Pro Tempore declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the final passage of Engrossed Senate Bill No. 6682.

ROLL CALL

The Secretary called the roll on the final passage of Engrossed Senate Bill No. 6682 and the bill passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 46; Nays, 1; Absent, 1; Excused, 1.

Voting yea: Senators Benton, Carlson, Costa, Deccio, Eide, Finkbeiner, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Hewitt, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Horn, Jacobsen, Johnson, Kastama, Keiser, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Long, McAuliffe, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Oke, Parlette, Poulsen, Rasmussen, Regala, Roach, Rossi, Sheahan, Sheldon, B., Sheldon, T., Shin, Snyder, Spanel, Stevens, Swecker, Thibaudeau, West, Winsley and Zarelli - 46.

Voting nay: Senator Brown - 1.

Absent: Senator Prentice - 1.

Excused: Senator Fairley - 1.

ENGROSSED SENATE BILL NO. 6682, 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. 6462, by Senators Gardner, Benton, Haugen, Horn and Winsley

Regulating tests and permits for commercial driver's licensing.

The bill was read the second time.

MOTION

On motion of Senator Gardner, the rules were suspended, Senate Bill No. 6462 was advanced to third reading, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

The President Pro Tempore declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the final passage of Senate Bill No. 6462.

ROLL CALL

The Secretary called the roll on the final passage of Senate Bill No. 6462 and the bill passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 48; Nays, 0; Absent, 1; Excused, 0.

Voting yea: Senators Benton, Brown, Carlson, Costa, Eide, Fairley, Finkbeiner, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Hewitt, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Horn, Jacobsen, Johnson, Kastama, Keiser, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Long, McAuliffe, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Oke, Parlette, Poulsen, Prentice, Rasmussen, Regala, Roach, Rossi, Sheahan, Sheldon, B., Sheldon, T., Shin, Snyder, Spanel, Stevens, Swecker, Thibaudeau, West, Winsley and Zarelli - 48.

Absent: Senator Deccio - 1.

SENATE BILL NO. 6462, 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.

There being no objection, the Senate resumed consideration of Substitute Senate Bill No. 6076 and the pending amendment by Senators Kline and Oke on page 14, after line 3, deferred February 13, 2002, after the rules were suspended and the bill was returned to second reading.

Debate ensued.

The President Pro Tempore declared the question before the Senate to be the adoption of the amendment by Senators Kline and Oke on page 14, after line 3, to Substitute Senate Bill No. 6076, under suspension of the rules.

The motion by Senator Kline carried and the amendment, under suspension of the rules, was adopted.

MOTIONS

On motion of Senator Kline, the following title amendment was adopted:

On page 1, line 2 of the title, strike "and 77.12.055" and insert ", 77.12.055 and 77.15.096"

On motion of Senator Kline, the rules were suspended, Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 6076 was advanced to third reading, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

Debate ensued.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Senator McCaslin: Madam Chair, a point of parliamentary inquiry. I think, and anyone can correct me, but I think the bill was on third reading and we then adopted an amendment before we went back to second reading for purposes of an amendment. Just in case there is a problem later on this legally, if we are in error, then it may not stand up in court.”

REPLY BY THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

President Pro Tempore Franklin: “Senator McCaslin, regarding your point of parliamentary inquiry, on February 13, the bill was on third reading and then the rules were suspended and the bill was returned to second reading for purpose of an amendment. The amendment by Senators Kline and Oke was moved and then further consideration of the bill was deferred.

POINT OF INQUIRY

Senator Snyder: “Senator Kline, I am concerned about the pension situation and what will happen to these Fish and Wildlife officers. Will they be able to go into the LEOFF 2 system?”

Senator Kline: “No, Senator Snyder, they will not. In this bill, they stay in, I believe, the PERS systems that they are in. Should this body decide otherwise, in some other bill, then obviously they could be transferred. That is not the function of this bill and that would require separate legislation presumably in some future year. There certainly is no legislation like that this year.”

POINT OF INQUIRY

Senator Snyder: “Senator Long, you are the Public Pension–”

Senator Long: “Not any more.”

Senator Snyder: “Well, you were on it.”

Senator Long: “I haven’t been on it all this year.”

Senator Snyder: “Well, I am sorry, but you have lots of experience on there. Could you answer a question? Will this have any effect on these officers moving from the PERS system to the LEOFF 2 system?”

Senator Long: “Into the LEOFF system? Yes sir, I believe it will. The Joint Committee on Pension Policy for many years has had many diverse groups that have wanted to be in LEOFF for good reasons. The benefits are better. Some of them come very close to qualifying. The Joint Committee made a decision that we would not change the criteria that we have explicitly said on many occasions that if any group met the criteria, we would take them in. When I first saw this, even though the bill says that explicitly this does not take them in to LEOFF, I believe they meet the criteria with this bill. I asked Gerry Allard, the Actuary, if he agreed and he does. In a meeting in the wings with the head of Fish and Wildlife, I said, ‘I assume you will be back next year asking to be in LEOFF,’ and he very honestly said, ‘Yes.’

“You and I met a day or two ago with Gerry Allard and asked what the fiscal note of this would be. It was three million dollars –what did he say–two or three years ago. He assumes it would be greater today and with the bulk of the Fish and Wildlife members, being in LEOFF 1 and close to retirement, then most of them now would be in plan 2 and so they would shift into this new system and it would have a long term fiscal impact.”

Further debate ensued.

POINT OF INQUIRY

Senator Spanel: “Senator Kline, my first question is, currently counties can contract with Fish and Wildlife officers in their own county. Do you know how many counties have done this?”

Senator Kline: “I know of at least one in Eastern Washington. I can’t put the name on it, though.”

Senator Spanel: “I think there are some in Southwestern Washington, but I don’t know how many. You don’t know?”

Senator Kline: “No, I don’t.”

Senator Spanel: “Did it come out in a hearing what percentage of time Fish and Wildlife officers do spend on general law enforcement authority?”

Senator Kline: “It was an estimate. It wasn’t an exact percentage in my recollection and there were words to the effect that it was incidental or it was very little. There is not that much of a request, given the lack of authority at the moment. I know there is one county that has some, I believe a contract–an interlocal agreement–but I don’t know that there is any generalized use of law enforcement for that purpose-a generalized use of Fish and Wildlife.”

Senator Spanel: “Okay. Thank you.”

Further debate ensued.

POINT OF INQUIRY

Senator Stevens: “Senator Kline, will the local sheriff have authority over the Wildlife Officers or will the Wildlife Officers have authority over the sheriff with this expanded authority that is now being given to the officers?”

Senator Kline: “Senator, in any scenario I can think of in which a Fish and Wildlife officer would be brought into service, it is the sheriff who would have the authority. The likeness authority and the one that was used in the hearings was this: A report is made by 911–the phone–or someway that a serious situation exists in this or that rural area in the county. There is no deputy out there, currently. It is a long ways out there. There is, however, Jim Smith, your local Fish and Wildlife officer who is over by the wetlands nearby. They can radio to Jim and have Jim cover. That is the scenario that was painted at the hearing. Under that circumstance and virtually any other I can think of, the Sheriff has the authority, not the Wildlife officer.”

Senator Stevens: “So, in your mind, there is no exception to that–that ever we would have a situation where the Wildlife would have more power, under law, than the sheriff?”

Senator Kline: “It is conceivable that a Fish and Wildlife officer may identify a suspicious circumstance. The best police practice would be for him to radio downtown to the sheriff and say, ‘This is the situation, sheriff–can I go in or what can I do?” Should a deputy want to do a crime being committed, we are now talking about a very rare circumstance and it happens, but much more rarely. I would imagine he or she would be able to make that pursuit directly without seeking authority. In that exception, yes, it would be the Fish and Wildlife officer who is in charge. That is not a very likely occurrence, I don’t think.”

Senator Stevens: “Thank you, Senator.”

Further debate ensued.

Senators Betti Sheldon, Snyder and Haugen 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 roll call on the final passage of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 6076.

ROLL CALL

The Secretary called the roll on the final passage of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 6076 and the bill passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 25; Nays, 24; Absent, 0; Excused, 0.

Voting yea: Senators Costa, Fraser, Gardner, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Jacobsen, Johnson, Kastama, Keiser, Kline, Kohl-Welles, McAuliffe, Oke, Poulsen, Rasmussen, Regala, Roach, Sheldon, B., Sheldon, T., Shin, Swecker, West, Winsley and Zarelli - 25.

Voting nay: Senators Benton, Brown, Carlson, Deccio, Eide, Fairley, Finkbeiner, Franklin, Hewitt, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Horn, Long, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Parlette, Prentice, Rossi, Sheahan, Snyder, Spanel, Stevens and Thibaudeau- 24

ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 6076, 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 FOR IMMEDIATE RECONSIDERATION

Having voted on the prevailing side, Senator West moved to immediately reconsider the vote by which Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 6076 passed the Senate.

President Owen assumed the Chair.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Senator Snyder: “A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. Does it take a suspension of the rules or not?”

RULING BY THE PRESIDENT

President Owen: “Senator Snyder, based on your inquiry and based on Rule 37, it does not take a suspension of the rules.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: Rule 37 states ‘1. After the final vote on any measure, before the adjournment of that day’s session, any member who voted with the prevailing side may give notice of reconsideration unless a motion to immediately transmit the measure to the house has been decided in the affirmative and the measure is no longer in possession of the senate. Such motion to reconsider shall be in order only under the order of motions of the day immediately following the day upon which such notice of reconsideration is given, and may be made by any member who voted with the prevailing side.’

‘2. A motion to reconsider shall have precedence over every other motion, except a motion to adjourn; and when the senate adjourns while a motion to reconsider is pending or before passing the order of motions, the right to move a reconsideration shall continue to the next day of sitting. On and after the tenth day prior to adjournment sine die of any session, as determined pursuant to Article 2, Section 12, or concurrent resolution or in the event that the measure is subject to a senate rule or resolution or a joint rule or concurrent resolution, which would preclude consideration on the next day of sitting a motion to reconsider shall only be in order on the same day upon which notice of reconsideration is given and may be made at any time that day. Motions to reconsider a vote upon amendments to any pending question may be made and decided at once.’

The President declared the question before the Senate to be the motion by Senator West to immediately reconsider the vote by which Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 6076 passed the Senate.

The motion for immediate reconsideration by Senator West failed by voice vote.

MOTION

At 12:23 p.m., on motion of Senator Betti Sheldon, the Senate recessed until 1:30 p.m.

The Senate was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by President Owen.

MOTION

On motion of Senator Honeyford, Senator Stevens was excused.

SECOND READING

SENATE BILL NO. 6338, by Senators Keiser, Winsley, Gardner and Kohl-Welles

Modifying the consumer loan act.

The bill was read the second time.

MOTION

On motion of Senator Keiser, the rules were suspended, Senate Bill No. 6338 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 Senate Bill No. 6338.

ROLL CALL

The Secretary called the roll on the final passage of Senate Bill No. 6338 and the bill passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 47; Nays, 0; Absent, 1; Excused, 1.

Voting yea: Senators Benton, Brown, Carlson, Costa, Deccio, Eide, Fairley, Finkbeiner, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Hewitt, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Horn, Jacobsen, Johnson, Kastama, Keiser, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Long, McAuliffe, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Oke, Parlette, Prentice, Rasmussen, Regala, Roach, Rossi, Sheahan, Sheldon, B., Sheldon, T., Shin, Snyder, Spanel, Swecker, Thibaudeau, West, Winsley and Zarelli - 47.

Absent: Senator Poulsen - 1.

Excused: Senator Stevens - 1.

SENATE BILL NO. 6338, 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. 6594, by Senators Carlson, Costa, Hargrove and Long (by request of Joint Select Committee on the Equitable Distribution of Secure Community Transition Facilities)

Implementing the recommendations of the joint select committee on the equitable distribution of secure community transition facilities.

MOTIONS

On motion of Senator Hargrove, Substitute Senate Bill No. 6594 was substituted for Senate Bill No. 6594 and the substitute bill was placed on second reading and read the second time.

Senator Hargrove moved that the following striking amendment by Senators Carlson, Hargrove, Costa and Long be adopted:

Strike everything after the enacting clause and insert the following:

"NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The purpose of this act is to enable the legislature to act upon the recommendations of the joint select committee on the equitable distribution of secure community transition facilities established in section 225, chapter 12, Laws of 2001 2nd sp. sess.

Sec. 2. RCW 36.70A.200 and 2001 2nd sp.s. c 12 s 205 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) The comprehensive plan of each county and city that is planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall include a process for identifying and siting essential public facilities. Essential public facilities include those facilities that are typically difficult to site, such as airports, state education facilities and state or regional transportation facilities as defined in RCW 47.06.140, state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, and in-patient facilities including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities, group homes, and secure community transition facilities as defined in RCW 71.09.020.

(2) Each county and city planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall, not later than ((the deadline specified in RCW 36.70A.130)) September 1, 2002, establish a process, or amend its existing process, for identifying and siting essential public facilities, and adopt or amend its development regulations as necessary to provide for the siting of secure community transition facilities consistent with statutory requirements applicable to these facilities.

(3) Any city or county not planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall, not later than ((the deadline specified in RCW 36.70A.130)) September 1, 2002, establish a process for siting secure community transition facilities and adopt or amend its development regulations as necessary to provide for the siting of such facilities consistent with statutory requirements applicable to these facilities.

(4) The office of financial management shall maintain a list of those essential state public facilities that are required or likely to be built within the next six years. The office of financial management may at any time add facilities to the list.

(5) No local comprehensive plan or development regulation may preclude the siting of essential public facilities.

(6) No person may bring a cause of action for civil damages based on the good faith actions of any county or city to provide for the siting of secure community transition facilities in accordance with this section and with the requirements of chapter 12, Laws of 2001 2nd sp. sess. For purposes of this subsection, "person" includes, but is not limited to, any individual, agency as defined in RCW 42.17.020, corporation, partnership, association, and limited liability entity.

(7) Counties or cities siting facilities pursuant to subsection (2) or (3) of this section shall comply with section 7 of this act.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 4.24 RCW to read as follows:

(1) Law enforcement shall respond to a call regarding a resident of a secure community transition facility as a high priority call.

(2) No law enforcement officer responding reasonably and in good faith to a call regarding a resident of a secure community transition facility shall be held liable nor shall the city or county employing the officer be held liable, in any cause of action for civil damages based on the acts of the resident or the actions of the officer during the response.

Sec. 4. RCW 71.09.020 and 2001 2nd sp.s. c 12 s 102 are each amended to read as follows:

Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter.

(1) "Department" means the department of social and health services.

(2) "Less restrictive alternative" means court-ordered treatment in a setting less restrictive than total confinement which satisfies the conditions set forth in RCW 71.09.092.

(3) "Likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence if not confined in a secure facility" means that the person more probably than not will engage in such acts if released unconditionally from detention on the sexually violent predator petition. Such likelihood must be evidenced by a recent overt act if the person is not totally confined at the time the petition is filed under RCW 71.09.030.

(4) "Mental abnormality" means a congenital or acquired condition affecting the emotional or volitional capacity which predisposes the person to the commission of criminal sexual acts in a degree constituting such person a menace to the health and safety of others.

(5) "Predatory" means acts directed towards: (a) Strangers; (b) individuals with whom a relationship has been established or promoted for the primary purpose of victimization; or (c) persons of casual acquaintance with whom no substantial personal relationship exists.

(6) "Recent overt act" means any act or threat that has either caused harm of a sexually violent nature or creates a reasonable apprehension of such harm in the mind of an objective person who knows of the history and mental condition of the person engaging in the act.

(7) "Risk potential activity" or "risk potential facility" means an activity or facility that provides a higher incidence of risk to the public from persons conditionally released from the special commitment center. Risk potential activities and facilities include: Public and private schools, school bus stops, licensed day care and licensed preschool facilities, public parks, publicly dedicated trails, sports fields, playgrounds, recreational and community centers, churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, ((and)) public libraries, and others identified by the department following the hearings on a potential site required in RCW 71.09.315. For purposes of this chapter, "school bus stops" does not include bus stops established primarily for public transit.

(8) "Secretary" means the secretary of social and health services or the secretary's designee.

(9) "Secure facility" means a residential facility for persons civilly confined under the provisions of this chapter that includes security measures sufficient to protect the community. Such facilities include total confinement facilities, secure community transition facilities, and any residence used as a court-ordered placement under RCW 71.09.096.

(10) "Secure community transition facility" means a residential facility for persons civilly committed and conditionally released to a less restrictive alternative under this chapter. A secure community transition facility has supervision and security, and either provides or ensures the provision of sex offender treatment services. Secure community transition facilities include but are not limited to the facilities established pursuant to RCW 71.09.250 and any community-based facilities established under this chapter and operated by the secretary or under contract with the secretary.

(11) "Sexually violent offense" means an act committed on, before, or after July 1, 1990, that is: (a) An act defined in Title 9A RCW as rape in the first degree, rape in the second degree by forcible compulsion, rape of a child in the first or second degree, statutory rape in the first or second degree, indecent liberties by forcible compulsion, indecent liberties against a child under age fourteen, incest against a child under age fourteen, or child molestation in the first or second degree; (b) a felony offense in effect at any time prior to July 1, 1990, that is comparable to a sexually violent offense as defined in (a) of this subsection, or any federal or out-of-state conviction for a felony offense that under the laws of this state would be a sexually violent offense as defined in this subsection; (c) an act of murder in the first or second degree, assault in the first or second degree, assault of a child in the first or second degree, kidnapping in the first or second degree, burglary in the first degree, residential burglary, or unlawful imprisonment, which act, either at the time of sentencing for the offense or subsequently during civil commitment proceedings pursuant to this chapter, has been determined beyond a reasonable doubt to have been sexually motivated, as that term is defined in RCW 9.94A.030; or (d) an act as described in chapter 9A.28 RCW, that is an attempt, criminal solicitation, or criminal conspiracy to commit one of the felonies designated in (a), (b), or (c) of this subsection.

(12) "Sexually violent predator" means any person who has been convicted of or charged with a crime of sexual violence and who suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder which makes the person likely to engage in predatory acts of sexual violence if not confined in a secure facility.

(13) "Total confinement facility" means a facility that provides supervision and sex offender treatment services in a total confinement setting. Total confinement facilities include the special commitment center and any similar facility designated as a secure facility by the secretary.

Sec. 5. RCW 71.09.285 and 2001 2nd sp.s. c 12 s 213 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) Except with respect to the secure community transition facility established pursuant to RCW 71.09.250, the secretary shall develop policy guidelines that balance the average response time of emergency services to the general area of a proposed secure community transition facility against the proximity of the proposed site to risk potential activities and facilities in existence at the time the site is listed for consideration.

(2) In ((balancing the competing criteria of proximity and response time the policy guidelines shall endeavor to achieve an average law enforcement response time not greater than five minutes and in)) no case shall the policy guidelines permit location of a facility adjacent to, immediately across a street or parking lot from, or within the line of sight of a risk potential activity or facility in existence at the time a site is listed for consideration. "Within the line of sight" means that it is possible to reasonably visually distinguish and recognize individuals.

(3) The policy guidelines shall require that great weight be given to sites that are the farthest removed from any risk potential activity.

(4) The policy guidelines shall specify how distance from the location is measured and any variations in the measurement based on the size of the property within which a proposed facility is to be located.

(5) The policy guidelines shall establish a method to analyze and compare the criteria for each site in terms of public safety and security, site characteristics, and program components. In making a decision regarding a site following the analysis and comparison, the secretary shall give priority to public safety and security considerations. The analysis and comparison of the criteria are to be documented and made available at the public hearings prescribed in RCW 71.09.315.

(6) Policy guidelines adopted by the secretary under this section shall be considered by counties and cities when providing for the siting of secure community transition facilities as required under RCW 36.70A.200.

Sec. 6. RCW 71.09.305 and 2001 2nd sp.s. c 12 s 217 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) Unless otherwise ordered by the court:

(a) Residents of a secure community transition facility shall wear electronic monitoring devices at all times. To the extent that electronic monitoring devices that employ global positioning system technology are available and funds for this purpose are appropriated by the legislature, the department shall use these devices.

(b) At least one staff member, or other court-authorized and department-approved person must escort each resident when the resident leaves the secure community transition facility for appointments, employment, or other approved activities. Escorting persons must supervise the resident closely and maintain close proximity to the resident. The escort must immediately notify the department of any serious violation, as defined in RCW 71.09.325, by the resident and must immediately notify law enforcement of any violation of law by the resident. The escort may not be a relative of the resident or a person with whom the resident has, or has had, a dating relationship as defined in RCW 26.50.010.

(2) Staff members of the special commitment center and any other total confinement facility and any secure community transition facility must be trained in self-defense and appropriate crisis responses including incident de-escalation. Prior to escorting a person outside of a facility, staff members must also have training in the offense pattern of the offender they are escorting. ((The escort may not be a relative of the resident.))

(3) Any escort must carry a cellular telephone or a similar device at all times when escorting a resident of a secure community transition facility.

(4) The department shall require training in offender pattern, self-defense, and incident response for all court-authorized escorts who are not employed by the department or the department of corrections.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 7. A new section is added to chapter 71.09 RCW to read as follows:

The minimum requirements set out in RCW 71.09.285 through 71.09.340 are minimum requirements to be applied by the department. Nothing in this section is intended to prevent a city or county from adopting development regulations, as defined in RCW 36.70A.030, unless the proposed regulation imposes requirements more restrictive than those specifically addressed in RCW 71.09.285 through 71.09.340. Regulations that impose requirements more restrictive than those specifically addressed in these sections are void. Nothing in these sections prevents the department from adding requirements to enhance public safety.

Sec. 8. RCW 71.09.255 and 2001 2nd sp.s. c 12 s 204 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) Upon receiving the notification required by RCW 71.09.250, counties must promptly notify the cities within the county of the maximum number of secure community transition facility beds that may be required and the projected number of beds to be needed in that county.

(2) The incentive grants and payments provided under this section are subject to the following provisions:

(a) Counties and the cities within the county must notify each other of siting plans to promote the establishment and equitable distribution of secure community transition facilities;

(b) Development regulations, ordinances, plans, laws, and criteria established for siting must be consistent with statutory requirements and rules applicable to siting and operating secure community transition facilities;

(d) The department must approve any sites selected.

(3) Any county or city that makes a commitment to initiate the process to site one or more secure community transition facilities by ((February 1, 2002)) one hundred twenty days after the effective date of this act, shall receive a planning grant as proposed and approved by the department of community, trade, and economic development.

(4) Any county or city that has issued all necessary permits by May 1, 2003, for one or more secure community transition facilities that comply with the requirements of this section shall receive an incentive grant in the amount of fifty thousand dollars for each bed sited.

(5) To encourage the rapid permitting of sites, any county or city that has issued all necessary permits by January 1, 2003, for one or more secure community transition facilities that comply with the requirements of this section shall receive a bonus in the amount of twenty percent of the amount provided under subsection (4) of this section.

(6) Any county or city that establishes secure community transition facility beds in excess of the maximum number that could be required to be sited in that county shall receive a bonus payment of one hundred thousand dollars for each bed established in excess of the maximum requirement.

(7) No payment shall be made under subsection (4), (5), or (6) of this section until all necessary permits have been issued.

(8) The funds available to counties and cities under this section are contingent upon funds being appropriated by the legislature.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 9. A new section is added to chapter 71.09 RCW to read as follows:

(1) After October 1, 2002, notwithstanding RCW 36.70A.103 or any other law, this section preempts and supersedes local plans, development regulations, permitting requirements, inspection requirements, and all other laws as necessary to enable the department to site, construct, renovate, occupy, and operate secure community transition facilities within the borders of the following:

(a) Chelan, Clark, Cowlitz, Franklin, Grays Harbor, King, Kitsap, Snohomish, Spokane, Thurston, Whatcom, and Yakima counties, if the department determines that the county has not met the requirements of RCW 36.70A.200 with respect to secure community transition facilities; and

(b) Any city located within a county listed in (a) of this subsection that the department determines has not met the requirements of RCW 36.70A.200 with respect to secure community transition facilities.

(2) The department's determination under subsection (1)(a) or (b) of this section is final and is not subject to appeal under chapter 34.05 or 36.70A RCW.

(3) When siting a facility in a county or city that has been preempted under this section, the department shall consider the policy guidelines established under RCW 71.09.275 and 71.09.290 and shall hold the hearings required in RCW 71.09.315.

(4) Nothing in this section prohibits the department from:

(a) Siting a secure community transition facility in a city or county that has complied with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.200 with respect to secure community transition facilities, including a city that is located within a county that has been preempted. If the department sites a secure community transition facility in such a city or county, the department shall use the process established by the city or county for siting such facilities; or

(b) Consulting with a city or county that has been preempted under this section regarding the siting of a secure community transition facility.

(5)(a) A preempted city or county may propose public safety measures specific to any finalist site to the department. The measures must be consistent with the location of the facility at that finalist site. The proposal must be made in writing by the date of:

(i) The second hearing under RCW 71.09.315(2)(a) when there are three finalist sites; or

(ii) The first hearing under RCW 71.09.315(2)(b) when there is only one site under consideration.

(b) The department shall respond to the city or county in writing within fifteen business days of receiving the proposed measures. The response shall address all proposed measures.

(c) If the city or county finds that the department's response is inadequate, the city or county may notify the department in writing within fifteen business days of the specific items which it finds inadequate. If the city or county does not notify the department of a finding that the response is inadequate within fifteen business days, the department's response shall be final.

(d) If the city or county notifies the department that it finds the response inadequate and the department does not revise its response to the satisfaction of the city or county within seven business days, the city or county may petition the governor to designate a person with law enforcement expertise to review the response under RCW 34.05.479.

(e) The governor's designee shall hear a petition filed under this subsection and shall make a determination within thirty days of hearing the petition. The governor's designee shall consider the department's response, and the effectiveness and cost of the proposed measures, in relation to the purposes of this chapter. The determination by the governor's designee shall be final and may not be the basis for any cause of action in civil court.

(f) The city or county shall bear the cost of the petition to the governor's designee. If the city or county prevails on all issues, the department shall reimburse the city or county costs incurred, as provided under chapter 34.05 RCW.

(g) Neither the department's consideration and response to public safety conditions proposed by a city or county nor the decision of the governor's designee shall affect the preemption under this section or the department's authority to site, construct, renovate, occupy, and operate the secure community transition facility at that finalist site or at any finalist site.

(6) This section does not apply to the secure community transition facility established pursuant to RCW 71.09.250(1).

NEW SECTION. Sec. 10. A new section is added to chapter 34.05 RCW to read as follows:

A petition brought pursuant to section 9(5) of this act shall be heard under the provisions of RCW 34.05.479 except that the decision of the Washington state patrol shall be final and is not subject to judicial review.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 11. A new section is added to chapter 71.09 RCW to read as follows:

For purposes of RCW 71.09.250 and section 9 of this act, "all other laws" means the state environmental policy act, the shoreline management act, the hydraulics code, and all other state laws regulating the protection and use of the water, land, and air.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 12. A new section is added to chapter 43.21C RCW to read as follows:

Secure community transition facilities sited pursuant to the preemption provisions of section 9 of this act and secure facilities sited pursuant to the preemption provisions of RCW 71.09.250 are not subject to the provisions of this chapter.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 13. A new section is added to chapter 90.58 RCW to read as follows:

NEW SECTION. Sec. 14. A new section is added to chapter 77.55 RCW to read as follows:

Sec. 15. RCW 36.70A.103 and 2001 2nd sp.s. c 12 s 203 are each amended to read as follows:

State agencies shall comply with the local comprehensive plans and development regulations and amendments thereto adopted pursuant to this chapter except as otherwise provided in RCW 71.09.250 (1) through (3), section 9 of this act, and 72.09.333.

The provisions of chapter 12, Laws of 2001 2nd sp. sess. do not affect the state's authority to site any other essential public facility under RCW 36.70A.200 in conformance with local comprehensive plans and development regulations adopted pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 16. A new section is added to chapter 71.09 RCW to read as follows:

(1) At the request of the local government of the city or county in which a secure community transition facility is initially sited after January 1, 2002, the department shall enter into a long-term contract memorializing the agreements between the state and the city or county for the operation of the facility. This contract shall be separate from any contract regarding mitigation due to the facility. The contract shall include a clause that states:

(a) The contract does not obligate the state to continue operating any aspect of the civil commitment program under this chapter;

(b) The operation of any secure community transition facility is contingent upon sufficient appropriation by the legislature. If sufficient funds are not appropriated, the department is not obligated to operate the secure community transition facility and may close it; and

(2) Any city or county may, at their option, contract with the department to operate a secure community transition facility.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 17. A new section is added to chapter 71.09 RCW to read as follows:

(1) Subject to funds appropriated by the legislature, the department may enter into negotiation for a mitigation agreement with:

(a) The county and/or city in which a secure community transition facility sited after January 1, 2002, is located;

(b) Each community in which the persons from those facilities will reside or regularly spend time, pursuant to court orders, for regular work or education, or to receive social services, or through which the person or persons will regularly be transported to reach other communities; and

(2) Mitigation agreements are limited to the following:

(a) One-time training for local law enforcement and administrative staff, upon the establishment of a secure community transition facility.

(i) Training between local government staff and the department includes training in coordination, emergency procedures, program and facility information, legal requirements, and resident profiles.

(ii) Reimbursement for training under this subsection is limited to:

(A) The salaries or hourly wages and benefits of those persons who receive training directly from the department; and

(B) Costs associated with preparation for, and delivery of, training to the department or its contracted staff by local government staff or contractors;

(b) Information coordination:

(i) Information coordination includes data base infrastructure establishment and programming for the dissemination of information among law enforcement and the department related to facility residents.

(ii) Reimbursement for information coordination is limited to start-up costs;

(i) One-time capital costs are off-site costs associated with the need for increased security in specific locations.

(ii) Reimbursement for one-time capital costs is limited to actual costs; and

(d) Incident response:

(i) Incident response costs are law enforcement and criminal justice costs associated with violations of conditions of release or crimes by residents of the secure community transition facility.

(ii) Reimbursement for incident response does not include private causes of action.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 18. 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.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 19. This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately."

Debate ensued.

The President declared the question before the Senate to be the adoption of the striking amendment by Senators Carlson, Hargrove, Costa and Long to Substitute Senate Bill No. 6594.

The motion by Senator Hargrove carried and the striking amendment was adopted.

MOTIONS

On motion of Senator Hargrove, the following title amendment was adopted:

On page 1, line 3 of the title, after "facilities;" strike the remainder of the title and insert "amending RCW 36.70A.200, 71.09.020, 71.09.285, 71.09.305, 71.09.255, and 36.70A.103; adding a new section to chapter 4.24 RCW; adding new sections to chapter 71.09 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 34.05 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 43.21C RCW; adding a new section to chapter 90.58 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 77.55 RCW; creating a new section; and declaring an emergency."

On motion of Senator Hargrove, the rules were suspended, Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 6594 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 Senate Bill No. 6594.

ROLL CALL

The Secretary called the roll on the final passage of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 6594 and the bill passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 49; Nays, 0; Absent, 0; Excused, 0.

Voting yea: Senators Benton, Brown, Carlson, Costa, Deccio, Eide, Fairley, Finkbeiner, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Hewitt, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Horn, Jacobsen, Johnson, Kastama, Keiser, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Long, McAuliffe, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Oke, Parlette, Poulsen, Prentice, Rasmussen, Regala, Roach, Rossi, Sheahan, Sheldon, B., Sheldon, T., Shin, Snyder, Spanel, Stevens, Swecker, Thibaudeau, West, Winsley and Zarelli - 49.

ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 6594, 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.

There being no objection, the President advanced the Senate to the seventh order of business.

There being no objection, the Senate resumed consideration of Senate Bill No 6591, deferred on third reading February 18, 2002.

RULING BY THE PRESIDENT

President Owen: “In ruling upon the parliamentary inquiry by Senator Benton concerning the number of votes necessary to pass Senate Bill No. 6591, the President finds that the tobacco products tax currently does not apply to persons who purchase tobacco products from exempt tribes (See Washington v. Colville et. al 2nd WAC 458-20-192). Senate Bill No. 6591 would broaden the definition of the term ‘distributor’ in the tobacco tax statute to include persons who purchase tobacco products from exempt tribes for resale.

“Initiative 601--RCW 43.135.035(1) provides that ‘any action or combination of actions by the legislature that raises state revenue....may be taken only if approved by a two-thirds vote of each house...’ According to the fiscal note, Senate Bill No. 6591 would raise almost $2.5 million for the general fund in the remainder of this biennium.

“The President, therefore, finds that passage of Senate Bill No. 6591 requires a two-thirds vote (33 votes) on final passage.”

The President ruled that Senate Bill No. 6591 would require a two-thirds majority vote (33 votes) on final passage.

MOTION

Senator Sheahan moved that the Senate immediately consider Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 8434, deferred on third reading earlier today.

RULING BY THE PRESIDENT

President Owen: “In ruling upon the parliamentary inquiry by Senator Snyder concerning whether both houses of the Legislature must first pass Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 8434 before the Senate may consider the measures listed therein, the President finds that it has been the tradition of the Senate and the practice of the last three Lieutenant Governors, including the President, to permit the Senate to pass a concurrent resolution exempting Senate Bills from cutoff dates and to then consider the bills listed therein prior to passage of the concurrent resolution by the House. If the body would like to change the practice, the President suggests that it amend the rules accordingly.

“The President, therefore, finds that the Senate may consider the bills listed in Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 8434 following passage of the resolution by the Senate.”

The President rules that the Senate may consider the bills listed in Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 8434 following passage of the resolution by the Senate.

Debate ensued.

Senator Sheahan demanded a roll call on the final passage of Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 8434 and the demand was sustained.

Further debate ensued.

The President declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the final passage of Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 8434.

ROLL CALL

The Secretary called the roll on the final passage of Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 8434 and the concurrent resolution passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 25; Nays, 24; Absent, 0; Excused, 0.

Voting yea: Senators Benton, Carlson, Deccio, Finkbeiner, Hale, Hewitt, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Horn, Johnson, Long, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Oke, Parlette, Roach, Rossi, Sheahan, Sheldon, T., Stevens, Swecker, West, Winsley and Zarelli - 25.

Voting nay: Senators Brown, Costa, Eide, Fairley, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Hargrove, Haugen, Jacobsen, Kastama, Keiser, Kline, Kohl-Welles, McAuliffe, Poulsen, Prentice, Rasmussen, Regala, Sheldon, B., Shin, Snyder, Spanel and Thibaudeau - 24.

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 8434, having received the constitutional majority, was declared passed.

MOTION

At 2:00 p.m., Senator Betti Sheldon moved that the Senate be at ease.

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

The President declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the motion by Senator Betti Sheldon to go at ease.

ROLL CALL

The Secretary called the roll on the motion by Senator Betti Sheldon to go at ease and the motion failed by the following vote: Yeas, 24; Nays, 25; Absent, 0; Excused, 0.

Voting yea: Senators Brown, Costa, Eide, Fairley, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Hargrove, Haugen, Jacobsen, Kastama, Keiser, Kline, Kohl-Welles, McAuliffe, Poulsen, Prentice, Rasmussen, Regala, Sheldon, B., Shin, Snyder, Spanel and Thibaudeau - 24.

Voting nay: Senators Benton, Carlson, Deccio, Finkbeiner, Hale, Hewitt, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Horn, Johnson, Long, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Oke, Parlette, Roach, Rossi, Sheahan, Sheldon, T., Stevens, Swecker, West, Winsley and Zarelli - 25.

MOTION

At 2:10 p.m., on motion of Senator Sheahan, the Senate recessed until 3:00 p.m.

The Senate was called to order at 3:04 p.m. by President Pro Tempore Franklin.

MOTION

Senator Rasmussen moved that the Senate immediately consider Senate Bill No. 6588.

SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS

Senator West moved that Senate Bill No. 6588 be made a special order of business at 4:59 p.m. this afternoon.

WITHDRAWS MOTION FOR SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS

Senator West withdrew the motion for the special order of business on Senate Bill No. 6588 at 4:59 p.m. this afternoon.

The President Pro Tempore declared the question before the Senate to be the motion by Senator Rasmussen to immediately consider Senate Bill No. 6588.

Senator West 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 motion by Senator Rasmussen to immediately consider Senate Bill No. 6588.

ROLL CALL

The Secretary called the roll and the motion to immediately consider Senate Bill No. 6588 failed by the following vote: Yeas, 24; Nays, 25; Absent, 0; Excused, 0.

MOTION

Senator Sheahan moved that the Senate advanced to the ninth order of business.

The President Pro Tempore declared the question before the Senate to be the motion by Senator Sheahan to advance to the ninth order of business.

The motion to advance to the ninth order of business carried on a rising vote.

MOTION

Senator Sheahan moved that the following Senate bills be relieved from committees: Senate Bill No. 6384, Senate Bill No. 6793, Senate Bill No. 6251, Senate Bill No. 6252, Senate Bill No. 6564 and Senate Bill No. 6749.

MOTION

On motion of Senator Betti Sheldon, the question was divided and the bills will be considered by standing committees.

The President Pro Tempore declared the question before the Senate to be the motion by Senator Sheahan to relieve Senate Bill No. 6384 from the Committee on Ways and Means.

Senator Betti Sheldon 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 motion by Senator Sheahan to relieve the Committee on Ways and Means of Senate Bill No. 6384.

ROLL CALL

The Secretary called the roll and the motion carried and the Committee on Ways and Means was relieved of Senate Bill No. 6384 by the following vote: Yeas, 25; Nays, 24; Absent, 0; Excused, 0.

Senate Bill No. 6384 was placed on the second reading calendar.

The President Pro Tempore declared the question before the Senate to be the motion by Senator Sheahan to relieve Senate Bill No. 6793 from the Committee on Environment, Energy and Water.

Senator Betti Sheldon 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 motion by Senator Sheahan to relieve the Committee on Environment, Energy and Water of Senate Bill No. 6793.

ROLL CALL

The Secretary called the roll and the motion carried and the Committee on Environment, Energy and Water was relieved of Senate Bill No. 6793 by the following vote: Yeas, 25; Nays, 24; Absent, 0; Excused, 0.

Senate Bill No. 6793 was placed on the second reading calendar.

The President Pro Tempore declared the question before the Senate to be the motion by Senator Sheahan to relieve the Committee on State and Local Government of Senate Bill No. 6251, Senate Bill No. 6252, Senate Bill No. 6564, and Senate Bill No. 6749.

Senator Betti Sheldon demanded a roll call and the demand was sustained.

ROLL CALL

The Secretary called the roll and the motion carried and the Committee on State and Local Government was relieved of Senate Bill No. 6251, Senate Bill No. 6252, Senate Bill No. 6564, and Senate Bill No. 6749, by the following vote: Yeas, 25; Nays, 24; Absent, 0; Excused, 0.

Senate Bill No. 6251, Senate Bill No. 6252, Senate Bill No. 6564 and Senate Bill No. 6749 were placed on the second reading calendar.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Having served notice on February 13, 2002, Senator Roach moved to immediately reconsider the vote by which Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5329 passed the Senate.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Senator Snyder: "A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. Did she vote on the prevailing side?"

Senator Roach: "Yes, and I served notice of reconsideration last week."

Senator Betti Sheldon demanded a roll call and the demand was sustained.

Further debate ensued.

President Owen assumed the Chair.

The President declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the motion by Senator Roach to immediately reconsider the vote by which Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5329 passed the Senate.

ROLL CALL

The Secretary called the roll and the motion to immediately reconsider Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5329 carried by the following vote: Yeas, 25; Nays, 24; Absent, 0; Excused, 0.

MOTION

Senator Sheahan moved that further consideration of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5329, on reconsideration, be deferred and the bill hold its place on the third reading calendar.

RULING BY THE PRESIDENT

President Owen: “Senator Sheahan, the President believes that that issue has just been determined by your vote to immediately reconsider.”

MOTION

Senator Sheahan moved to lay Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5329, on reconsideration, on the table.

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

ROLL CALL

The Secretary called the roll on the motion by Senator Sheahan to lay Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5329, on reconsideration, on the table and the motion by Senator Sheahan failed by the following vote: Yeas, 23; Nays, 25; Absent, 1; Excused, 0.

Voting nay: Senators Costa, Eide, Fairley, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Hargrove, Haugen, Jacobsen, Kastama, Keiser, Kline, Kohl-Welles, McAuliffe, Poulsen, Prentice, Rasmussen, Regala, Sheldon, B., Sheldon, T., Shin, Snyder, Spanel, Thibaudeau and Winsley - 25.

Absent: Senator Brown - 1.

The President declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5329, on reconsideration

Debate ensued.

MOTION

Senator Hargrove moved that the bill be read in full.

REPLY BY THE PRESIDENT

President Owen: “Senator Hargrove, the bill has already been read. The bill was read on third reading. It was passed. It is now being reconsidered.”

Senator Hargrove: “Mr. President, I believe we are back on third reading on reconsideration.”

President Owen: “Well the point is that the bill was beyond the fact that it was actually read. The bill has been read, Senator.”

ROLL CALL

The Secretary called the roll on the final passage of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5329, on reconsideration, and the bill passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 27; Nays, 22; Absent, 0; Excused, 0.

Voting yea: Senators Brown, Costa, Eide, Fairley, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Hargrove, Haugen, Jacobsen, Kastama, Keiser, Kline, Kohl-Welles, McAuliffe, Poulsen, Prentice, Rasmussen, Regala, Roach, Sheldon, B., Sheldon, T., Shin, Snyder, Spanel, Thibaudeau and Winsley - 27.

Voting nay: Senators Benton, Carlson, Deccio, Finkbeiner, Hale, Hewitt, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Horn, Johnson, Long, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Oke, Parlette, Rossi, Sheahan, Stevens, Swecker, West and Zarelli - 22.

ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5329, on reconsideration, 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 FOR RECONSIDERATION

Prior notice having been given by Senator Roach on February 16, 2002, Senator Sheahan moved to reconsider the vote by which Engrossed Senate Bill No. 6373 passed the Senate.

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

The President declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the motion by Senator Sheahan to reconsider the vote by which Engrossed Senate Bill No. 6373 passed the Senate.

ROLL CALL

The Secretary called the roll and the motion by Senator Sheahan to reconsider the vote by which Engrossed Senate Bill No. 6373 carried by the following vote: Yeas, 26; Nays, 23; Absent, 0; Excused, 0.

Voting yea: Senators Benton, Carlson, Deccio, Finkbeiner, Hale, Hargrove, Hewitt, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Horn, Johnson, Long, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Oke, Parlette, Poulsen, Roach, Rossi, Sheahan, Sheldon, T., Stevens, Swecker, West and Zarelli - 26.

Voting nay: Senators Brown, Costa, Eide, Fairley, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Haugen, Jacobsen, Kastama, Keiser, Kline, Kohl-Welles, McAuliffe, Prentice, Rasmussen, Regala, Sheldon, B., Shin, Snyder, Spanel, Thibaudeau and Winsley - 23.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Having served prior notice for reconsideration on February 13, 2002, Senator Benton moved to reconsider the vote by which Senate Bill No. 5626 passed the Senate.

Senator Betti Sheldon demanded a roll call and the demand was sustained.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Senator Betti Sheldon: “A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. Could the President please explain exactly where we are in this process and what vote is required on each side?”

REPLY BY THE PRESIDENT

President Owen: “Senator Benton has moved that the Senate immediately reconsider the vote by which Senate Bill No. 5626 passed the Senate. You have asked for a roll call vote. The request for a roll call vote was sustained. The question before us is the motion by Senator Benton. A vote ‘aye’ would make the bill up for reconsideration. A vote ‘nay’ would make the motion fail and the bill would go on its merry way.”

Senator Betti Sheldon: “Just for my clarification, a ‘no’ vote would send the bill to the other house. Is that correct?”

President Owen: “In its normal process.”

Senator Betti Sheldon: “In its normal process. Thank you, Mr. President.”

The President declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the motion by Senator Benton to reconsider the vote by which Senate Bill No. 5626 passed the Senate.

Further debate ensued.

ROLL CALL

The Secretary called the roll and the motion by Senator Benton to reconsider the vote by which Senate Bill No. 5626 passed the Senate carried by the following vote: Yeas, 26; Nay, 22; Absent, 1; Excused, 0.

Voting yea: Senators Benton, Carlson, Finkbeiner, Hale, Hargrove, Hewitt, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Horn, Johnson, Kastama, Kline, Long, McDonald, Morton, Oke, Parlette, Rasmussen, Roach, Rossi, Sheahan, Sheldon, T., Stevens, Swecker, West and Zarelli - 26.

Voting nay: Senators Costa, Deccio, Eide, Fairley, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Haugen, Jacobsen, Keiser, Kohl-Welles, McAuliffe, McCaslin, Poulsen, Prentice, Regala, Sheldon, B., Shin, Snyder, Spanel, Thibaudeau and Winsley - 22.

Absent: Senator Brown - 1.

MOTION

On motion of Senator Hargrove, the rules were suspended and Senate Bill No. 5626, on reconsideration, was returned to second reading and read the second time.

MOTIONS

Senator Rasmussen moved that the following amendments by Senators Rasmussen and Zarelli be considered simultaneously and be adopted:

On page 2, line 35, after "41.04.010," insert "73.04.090,"

On page 3, line 9, strike "thirty consecutive" and insert "one hundred eighty cumulative"

On page 3, beginning on line 10, strike all of subsection (4)

Renumber the remaining subsections and correct any internal references accordingly.

On page 4, line 2, strike "RCW 41.04.005" and insert "section 2 of this act"

On page 5, line 29, strike "and special pension or retirement rights" and insert "((and special pension or retirement rights))"

On page 8, line 6, strike "2001" and insert "2002"

MOTION

On motion of Senator Hargrove, the amendments were read in full.

MOTION

Senator Sheahan moved that further consideration of Senate Bill No. 5626, on reconsideration, be deferred.

Senator Betti Sheldon demanded a roll call and the demand was sustained.

MOTION TO ADJOURN

At 4:05 p.m., Senator Hargrove moved that the Senate adjourn.

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

The President declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the motion by Senator Hargrove to adjourn.

ROLL CALL

The Secretary called the roll on the motion by Senator Hargrove to adjourn and the motion failed by the following vote: Yeas, 24; Nays, 25; Absent, 0; Excused, 0.

MOTION

Senator Costa moved that the Senate immediately reconsider Engrossed Senate Bill No. 6373.

POINT OF ORDER

Senator Sheahan: “A point of order, Mr. President, we have already voted on reconsideration on that bill and I don’t believe that you can reconsider a bill twice, so the motion is out of order.”

RULING BY THE PRESIDENT

President Owen: “Senator Costa, your motion is out of order at this time.”

MOTIONS

On motion of Senator Sheahan, the Senate reverted to the sixth order of business.

Senator Sheahan moved that the Senate immediately consider Senate Bill No. 6252.

REPLY BY THE PRESIDENT

President Owen: “Senator Sheahan, your motion is not in order at this time. We have your motion under consideration to defer further consideration of Senate Bill No. 5626.”

Senator Sheahan: “Mr. President, I withdraw my motion to defer further consideration of Senate Bill No. 5626 and I move that we revert to the sixth order of business and immediately consider Senate Bill No. 6252.

President Owen: “With permission of the body, Senator Sheahan would withdraw his motion to defer further consideration of Senate Bill No. 5626.”

The President declared the question before the Senate to be the motion by Senator Sheahan to withdraw his motion to defer further consideration of Senate Bill No. 5626.

Senator Betti Sheldon demanded a roll all and the demand was sustained.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Senator Betti Sheldon: “A point of parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. Would the President please define for us exactly what a ‘yea’ vote and a ‘nay’ vote would mean?”

REPLY BY THE PRESIDENT

President Owen: “A ‘yea’ vote means ‘yes’ and a ‘nay’ vote means ‘no.’”

Senator Betti Sheldon: “Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I appreciate the facetious answer. Would you explain in the context of the issue before us to be voted upon?”

President Owen: “I had to loosen up a little. A ‘yes’ vote would defer further consideration of Senate Bill No. 5626 and it would hold its place on the second reading calendar. A ‘no’ vote–the bill would be still be before us and the amendment that we were working on would be considered. The roll call was demanded and the demand was sustained.”

The President declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the motion by Senator Sheahan to defer further consideration of Senate Bill No. 5626, on reconsideration.

ROLL CALL

The Secretary called the roll and the motion by Senator Sheahan to defer further consideration of Senate Bill No. 5626, on reconsideration, failed by the following vote: Yeas, 24; Nays, 25; Absent, 0; Excused, 0.

MOTION

Senator Costa moved that the Senate immediately consider Engrossed Senate Bill No. 6373.

REPLY BY THE PRESIDENT

President Owen: “Senator Costa, the President believes that when the motion failed to defer consideration of Senate Bill No. 5626, it carried with it the fact that it would actually be dealt with at this time–that it would be immediately be reconsidered. The President believes that that is the bill that is before us at this time and your motion in incorrectly stated.”

SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS

Senator Sheahan moved that Senate Bill No. 6588 be made a special order of business at 4:59 p.m. today.

The President declared the question before the Senate be the motion by Senator Sheahan to make Senate Bill No. 6588 a special order of business at 4:59 p.m. today.

The motion to make Senate Bill No. 6588 a special order of business at 4:59 p.m. today carried on a rising vote.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Senator Betti Sheldon: “A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President, on the status of Engrossed Senate Bill No. 6373?”

REPLY BY THE PRESIDENT

President Owen: “Senator Sheldon, Engrossed Senate Bill No. 6373 is on the third reading calendar.”

Senator Betti Sheldon: “Thank you, Mr. President.”

The President declared the question before the Senate to be resume consideration of Senate Bill No. 5626 on reconsideration, and the amendments by Senators Rasmussen and Zarelli on page 2, line 35; page 3, lines 9 and beginning on line 10, page 4, line 2, page 5, line 29; and page 8, line 6; under consideration earlier today .

POINT OF INQUIRY

Senator Hargrove: “Senator Rasmussen, actually in the midst of all of this, I have a serious question about your amendments. You made some comment about removing the Merchant Marines–in the definition of Veteran–and I wanted to know whether that amendment actually removed it from the bill or that was a technical issue that I did not understand.”

Senator Rasmussen: “No, that amendment actually removed it from the bill.”

Senator Hargrove: “So, now, the Merchant Marines will no longer be–”

Senator Rasmussen: “They never were–well they were in the bill, but we removed it from the bill. It listed the definition of the Veterans that were--and the Merchant Marines were listed. We removed the Merchant Marines from that listing in the amendment.”

Further debate ensued.

Senators Sheahan, West, and Zarelli 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.

Senator Betti Sheldon demanded a roll call and the demand was not 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 on a rising vote.

The President declared the question before the Senate to be the adoption of the amendments by Senators Rasmussen and Zarelli on page 2, line 35; page 3, lines 9 and 10; page 4, line 2, page 5, line 29; and page 8, line 6, to Senate Bill No. 5626.

Senator Betti Sheldon demanded a roll call and the demand was sustained

The President declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the adoption of the amendments by Senators Rasmussen and Zarelli on page 2, line 35; page 3, lines 9 and 10; page 4, line 2, page 5, line 29; and page 8, line 6, to Senate Bill No. 5626.

ROLL CALL

The Secretary called the roll and the amendments were adopted by the following vote: Yeas, 30; Nays, 19; Absent, 0; Excused, 0.

Voting yea: Senators Benton, Brown, Deccio, Fairley, Finkbeiner, Hale, Hewitt, Hochstatter, Horn, Johnson, Kastama, Long, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Oke, Prentice, Rasmussen, Regala, Roach, Rossi, Sheahan, Sheldon, T., Shin, Snyder, Spanel, Stevens, West, Winsley and Zarelli - 30.

Voting nay: Senators Carlson, Costa, Eide, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Hargrove, Haugen, Honeyford, Jacobsen, Keiser, Kline, Kohl-Welles, McAuliffe, Parlette, Poulsen, Sheldon, B., Swecker and Thibaudeau - 19.

MOTION

On motion of Senator Sheahan, the rules were suspended, Engrossed Senate Bill No. 5626, on reconsideration, was advanced to third reading, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

Debate ensued.

Senators Sheahan, McDonald and McCaslin 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 declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the final passage of Engrossed Senate Bill No. 5626, on reconsideration.

ROLL CALL

The Secretary called the roll on the final passage of Engrossed Senate Bill No. 5626, on reconsideration, and the bill passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 49; Nays, 0; Absent, 0; Excused, 0.

Voting yea: Senators Benton, Brown, Carlson, Costa, Deccio, Eide, Fairley, Finkbeiner, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Hewitt, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Horn, Jacobsen, Johnson, Kastama, Keiser, Kline, Kohl-Welles, Long, McAuliffe, McCaslin, McDonald, Morton, Oke, Parlette, Poulsen, Prentice, Rasmussen, Regala, Roach, Rossi, Sheahan, Sheldon, B., Sheldon, T., Shin, Snyder, Spanel, Stevens, Swecker, Thibaudeau, West, Winsley and Zarelli - 49.

ENGROSSED SENATE BILL NO. 5626, on reconsideration, 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

Senator Sheahan moved that the Senate revert to the sixth order of business and immediately consider Senate Bill No. 6252.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Senator Keiser: “Mr. President, I rise to a point of parliamentary inquiry. As you know, I am a novice in this Chamber and I am not use to these rules over here. They are not the rules that I have learned under, but I am reading as fast as I can and when I look at Rule 37, I notice that the motion to reconsider shall be in order only under the order of motions of the day, immediately following the day upon which such notice of reconsideration is given and may be made by any member who voted with the prevailing side. So, my question is really twofold. Since my understanding, if I look at the voting record, is that Senator Sheahan did not vote on the prevailing side, I am questioning how that can be the person who made the motion?

“The question is on the bill, Engrossed Senate Bill No. 6373 and the other question is on the day immediately following the notice–and I believe if my memory serves me correctly, that was on Saturday, and this is Tuesday. Your advice would be welcome.”

REPLY BY THE PRESIDENT

President Owen: “ Senator Keiser, the answer to your question, actually, is that the point of order needs to be raised at the time that the bill is brought up and, therefore, your point of order is not timely at this point.”

Senator Keiser: “It was a point of parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.”

President Owen: “Please state your point.”

Senator Keiser: “My point of parliamentary inquiry was your advice and your opinion about the legality or the standing of the original motion made today on Engrossed Senate Bill No. 6373, considering the points I made in Rule 37.”

President Owen: “Senator Keiser, your point may have merit, but again, it has to be made at the time that the issue is before us or at the time the motions are made and that it is not timely at this time.”

Senator Keiser: “Thank you, Mr. President, it is always good to know that your points have merit and I appreciate the advice.”

PROTEST STATEMENT FOR THE JOURNAL

Pursuant to Senate Rule 34, I submit this statement for the Journal: On the afternoon of February 19, 2002, Senator Keiser raised a point of inquiry asking whether a member could move for reconsideration of final passage of a measure under Senate Rule 37 if (1) more than one day followed final passage of the measure, and (2) the member making the motion had not voted with the prevailing side on final passage. Senator Keiser was referring to my motion to reconsider Engrossed Senate Bill No. 6373. Accordingly, the President replied to Senator Keiser that while her comments may have merit, the time to raise the point had passed.

One day, long after the present players are gone, the President’s remarks on February 19, 2002, may be construed to contain precedential value. I would, therefore, like the Senate Journal to also reflect the following at the place at which the above exchange occurred. To my knowledge, (1) it has been the long-standing practice of the Senate to allow a motion for reconsideration after one day following notice of reconsideration as long as the Senate had not first passed the Ninth Order of Business (See 1992 Senate Journal on page 611); and (2) it has also been the long-standing practice of the Senate to allow any member to make a motion to reconsider a measure as long as a member on the prevailing side of the original vote first gave notice of reconsideration on the measure. (See 1977 Senate Journal on page 601.)

SENATOR LARRY SHEAHAN, Ninth Legislative District

The President declared the motion before the Senate to be the motion by Senator Sheahan to immediately consider Senate Bill No. 6252.

MOTION

Senator Hargrove moved that the motion by Senator Sheahan be amended and we now immediately consider Senate Bill No. 5296, tobacco to minors.

SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS

Senator West moved that Senate Bill No. 6749 be made a special order of business at 4:58 p.m. this afternoon.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Senator Franklin: “A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. For clarification, between the various motions that have been put–a clarification, please?”

REPLY BY PRESIDENT

President Owen: “Senator Sheahan moved that we immediately consider Senate Bill No. 6252. Senator Hargrove moved that we amend his motion to immediately consider Senate Bill No. 5296. Senator West stood up and made a motion to have a Special Order of Business at 4:58 on Senate Bill No. 6749. It may be midnight before I figure this all out.”

SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS

The President declared it was now 4:59 p.m. and time for the Special Order of Business on Senate Bill No. 6588.

There being no objection, the President returned the Senate to the sixth order of business.

MOTION

Senator Fairley moved that consideration of Senate Bill No. 6588 be deferred because the amendments to the bill were not on the desk

REPLY BY THE PRESIDENT

President Owen: "They are presently being passed out now, Senator."

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Senator West: “A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. What time do you have?”

President Owen: "That one I can handle. It is 5:0l and 21 seconds.”

Senator West: "And what day is it?"

President Owen: "The Thirty-seventh Legislative Day."

WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION

There being no objection, Senator Fairley withdrew her motion to defer further consideration of Senate Bill No. 6588.

SECOND READING

SENATE BILL NO. 6588, by Senators Rasmussen and Swecker

Requiring exclusive statewide food service rules for retail food facilities.

MOTIONS

On motion of Senator Rasmussen, Substitute Senate Bill No. 6588 was substituted for Senate Bill No. 6588 and the substitute bill was placed on second reading and read the second time.

Senator Fairley moved that the following amendment be adopted:

On page 1, line 16, following "has the" strike "sole" and on page 2, following line 13, insert "(4)This section does not prohibit a local board of health from adopting permanent rules that establish standards that exceed those of the state board regarding food that is pure, safe, and unadulterated, and to facilitate effective training of food service handlers."

Renumber the subsections consecutively and correct any internal references accordingly.

Debate ensued.

Senator McAuliffe demanded a roll call and the demand was sustained

The President declared the question before the Senate to be roll call on the adoption of the amendment by Senator Fairley on page 1, line 16, to Substitute Senate Bill No. 6588.

ROLL CALL

The Secretary called the roll and the amendment by Senator Fairley was not adopted by the following vote: Yeas, 23; Nays, 26; Absent, 0; Excused, 0.

Voting yea: Senators Brown, Costa, Eide, Fairley, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Haugen, Jacobsen, Keiser, Kline, Kohl-Welles, McAuliffe, Morton, Poulsen, Prentice, Regala, Sheldon, B., Sheldon, T., Shin, Snyder, Spanel and Thibaudeau - 23.

Voting nay: Senators Benton, Carlson, Deccio, Finkbeiner, Hale, Hargrove, Hewitt, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Horn, Johnson, Kastama, Long, McCaslin, McDonald, Oke, Parlette, Rasmussen, Roach, Rossi, Sheahan, Stevens, Swecker, West, Winsley and Zarelli - 26.

MOTION

Senator McAuliffe moved that the following amendment be adopted:

On page 1, line 16 following "has the" strike "sole" and on page 2, following line 13, insert "(4) This section does not prohibit a local board of health in a jurisdiction with a population greater than 250,000 from adopting permanent rules that establish standards that exceed those of the state board regarding food that is safe, pure, and unadulterated, and to facilitate effective training of food service handlers."

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

Debate ensued.

The President declared the question before the Senate to be the adoption of the amendment by Senator McAuliffe on page 1, line 16, to Substitute Senate Bill No. 6588.

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

MOTION

Senator Rasmussen moved that the following amendment by Senators Rasmussen, Spanel and Swecker be adopted:

On page 2, line 9, after "days" insert "unless the state board of health grants a further temporary or permanent extension based on demonstrated need"

Debate ensued.

POINT OF INQUIRY

Senator McAuliffe: ‘Senator Rasmussen, I want to know what ‘demonstrated need’ would mean?”

Senator Rasmussen: “They would show the need for higher standards than the current standards that were set by the state. Understand that the standards would not be set until December 31 of the year 2004. If they felt like they wanted to exceed those standards, what they do then is show a demonstration of need for higher standards–maybe it is an emergency, maybe–I don’t know what it would be, but this is our answer for the local jurisdiction to always have an input in this process of setting standards.”

Senator McAuliffe: “To follow up, Senator, I notice that this does not say ‘demonstrated need to exceed the standards.’ Okay, so it is all in the bill? Thank you, that was my question.”

Further debate ensued.

The President declared the question before the Senate to be the adoption of the amendment by Senators Rasmussen, Spanel and Swecker on page 2, line 9, to Substitute Senate Bill No. 6588.

The motion by Senator Rasmussen carried and the amendment was adopted on a rising vote.

MOTION

Senator Sheahan moved that all the remaining amendments to Substitute Senate Bill No. 6588 be laid on the table.

The President declared the question before the Senate to be the motion by Senator Sheahan that all the remaining amendments to Substitute Senate Bill No. 6588 be tabled.

The motion by Senator Sheahan carried on a rising vote and the all the remaining amendments were laid on the table.

MOTION

On motion of Senator Sheahan, the rules were suspended, Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 6588 was advanced to third reading, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Senator Thibaudeau: “A point of parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. I understand the recent motion and the recent decision, but I don’t understand why my amendment to the bill was not considered prior to all of the motions laid upon the table. You just tabled them all even though they were not considered.”

REPLY BY THE PRESIDENT

President Owen: “That is correct. The motion was made to lay all the amendments on the table. The motion carried and your amendment went with it.”

Senator Thibaudeau: “Truly unfortunate, but I thank you, Mr. President.”

Further debate ensued.

POINT OF INQUIRY

Senator Prentice: “Senator Brown, do we have a fiscal note on this bill and can we anticipate receiving one, because I believe we need to be better informed as to the costs associated with this bill?”

Senator Brown: “Thank you, Senator. This bill did not come to the Ways and Means Committee and so I am not aware of what the costs of the rule making will be. So, the answer is, ‘I don’t know.’”

Further debate ensued.

Senators Carlson, Benton and West demanded the previous question and the demand was sustained.

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

The demand for the previous question carried.

The President declared the question before the Senate to be the roll call on the final passage of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 6588.

ROLL CALL

The Secretary called the roll on the final passage of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 6588 and the bill passed the Senate by the following vote: Yeas, 29; Nays, 20; Absent, 0; Excused, 0.

Voting yea: Senators Benton, Carlson, Deccio, Eide, Finkbeiner, Hale, Hewitt, Hochstatter, Honeyford, Horn, Johnson, Kastama, Keiser, Kohl-Welles, Long, McCaslin, McDonald, Oke, Parlette, Rasmussen, Roach, Rossi, Sheahan, Stevens, Swecker, Thibaudeau, West, Winsley and Zarelli - 29.

Voting nay: Senators Brown, Costa, Fairley, Franklin, Fraser, Gardner, Hargrove, Haugen, Jacobsen, Kline, McAuliffe, Morton, Poulsen, Prentice, Regala, Sheldon, B., Sheldon, T., Shin, Snyder and Spanel - 20.

ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 6588, 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 5:53 p.m., on motion of Senator Sheahan, the Senate adjourned until 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, February 20, 2002.

BRAD OWEN, President of the Senate

TONY M. COOK, Secretary of the Senate