Legislature(1995 - 1996)
1996-02-28 House Journal
Full Journal pdf1996-02-28 House Journal Page 2931 HB 226 The following was read the second time: HOUSE BILL NO. 226 An Act permitting the provision of different retirement and health benefits to employees based on marital status. with the: Journal Page STA RPT 4DP 1AM 808 ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADM/ALL DEPTS) 808 HES RPT CS(HES) NT 1DP 4NR 1AM 1422 ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADM) 3/20/95 1423 JUD RPT CS(JUD) NT 1DP 4NR 2AM 1526 ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADM/ALL DEPTS) 3/20/95 1526 FIN RPT CS(FIN) NT 5DP 1DNP 1NR 1AM 2578 ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADM/ALL DEPTS) 2578 Representative Vezey moved and asked unanimous consent that the following committee substitute be adopted in lieu of the original bill: CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 226(FIN) An Act permitting the provision of different retirement and health benefits to certain employees by differentiating between benefits provided to employees with spouses or children and to other employees. Representative Brown objected. The question being: Shall the House adopt CSHB 226(FIN)? The roll was taken with the following result: HB 226 Second Reading Adopt Finance CS YEAS: 24 NAYS: 15 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 1 Yeas: Austerman, Barnes, Bunde, G.Davis, Foster, Green, Hanley, Ivan, James, Kelly, Kohring, Kott, Martin, Moses, Mulder, Ogan, Parnell, Phillips, Porter, Rokeberg, Sanders, Therriault, Vezey, Williams 1996-02-28 House Journal Page 2932 HB 226 Nays: Brice, Brown, Davies, B.Davis, Elton, Finkelstein, Grussendorf, Kubina, Long, Mackie, Navarre, Nicholia, Robinson, Toohey, Willis Absent: Masek And so, CSHB 226(FIN) was adopted. Amendment No. 1 was offered by Representative Kelly: Page 2, line 28: Delete "or parental status" Insert "status or parenthood" Representative Kelly moved and asked unanimous consent that Amendment No. 1 be adopted. There being no objection, it was so ordered. Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 were not offered. Amendment No. 4 was offered by Representative Brown: Page 1, lines 2 - 3 (title amendment): Delete "certain employees by differentiating between benefits provided to employees with spouses or children and to other employees" Insert "employees based on marital status except to marital or domestic partners of employees" Page 2, line 28: Delete "or parental" Page 2, line 29, through page 3, line 2: Delete all material and insert: "(1) an employer may, without violating this chapter, refuse to provide benefits to a person based on marital status unless the person 1996-02-28 House Journal Page 2933 HB 226 (A) is legally married to an employee; or (B) is the domestic partner of an employee as established under (d) of this section; and (2) a labor organization may, without violating this chapter, negotiate to preclude or may directly preclude the provision of benefit to a person based on marital status unless the person (A) is legally married to an employee; or (B) is the domestic partner of an employee as established under (d) of this section. (d) An employee may not establish a domestic partnership for purposes of this section unless both the employee and the individual with whom the domestic partnership is established are unmarried, at least 18 years of age, and mentally competent to consent to contract. (e) In this section, "domestic partner" means an individual who (1) is an employee's only domestic partner and who intends, and who is intended by the employee, to remain the employee's domestic partner indefinitely; (2) is not related to the employee by blood to a degree that would prohibit legal marriage in the state; (3) resides in the same residence as the employee and intends, and is intended by the employee, to do so indefinitely; (4) is, as established by at least five of the criteria set out in this paragraph, jointly responsible with the employee for the employee's common welfare and financial obligations and for whom the employee is jointly responsible in similar fashion; the criteria are (A) having entered into a legally binding domestic partnership agreement with the employee; (B) holding a joint deed, mortgage agreement, or lease of real property with the employee; (C) holding joint ownership of a motor vehicle with the employee; (D) having a joint bank account with the employee; (E) having a joint credit account or other joint liabilities with the employee; 1996-02-28 House Journal Page 2934 HB 226 (F) having a co-parenting agreement with the employee, having adopted a child of the employee, or being the natural parent of a child of the employee; (G) being designated by the employee as primary beneficiary on the employee's life insurance; (H) being designated by the employee as primary beneficiary of the employee's retirement benefits in case of the employee's death; (I) being designated as the primary beneficiary under the employee's will; and (J) being named by the employee under a durable health care or property power of attorney." Representative Brown moved and asked unanimous consent that Amendment No. 4 be adopted. Representative Kelly objected. Representative Vezey rose to a point of order, stating that debate should be confined to the amendment before the House. The Speaker stated the point was well taken. Representative Brice rose to a point of order. The Speaker cautioned the member to confine remarks to the amendment. The Speaker invoked Rule 102 of Mason's Manual. The question being: Shall Amendment No. 4 be adopted? The roll was taken with the following result: CSHB 226(FIN) am Second Reading Amendment No. 4 YEAS: 15 NAYS: 25 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 1996-02-28 House Journal Page 2935 HB 226 Yeas: Brice, Brown, Bunde, Davies, B.Davis, Elton, Finkelstein, Grussendorf, Kubina, Mackie, Navarre, Nicholia, Robinson, Toohey, Willis Nays: Austerman, Barnes, G.Davis, Foster, Green, Hanley, Ivan, James, Kelly, Kohring, Kott, Long, Martin, Masek, Moses, Mulder, Ogan, Parnell, Phillips, Porter, Rokeberg, Sanders, Therriault, Vezey, Williams And so, Amendment No. 4 was not adopted. Representative Vezey moved and asked unanimous consent that CSHB 226(FIN) am be considered engrossed, advanced to third reading and placed on final passage. Objection was heard. The question being: Shall CSHB 226(FIN) am be advanced to third reading on the same day? The roll was taken with the following result: CSHB 226(FIN) am Second Reading Advance to Third Reading YEAS: 26 NAYS: 14 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Austerman, Barnes, Bunde, G.Davis, Foster, Green, Hanley, Ivan, James, Kelly, Kohring, Kott, Martin, Masek, Moses, Mulder, Ogan, Parnell, Phillips, Porter, Rokeberg, Sanders, Therriault, Toohey, Vezey, Williams Nays: Brice, Brown, Davies, B.Davis, Elton, Finkelstein, Grussendorf, Kubina, Long, Mackie, Navarre, Nicholia, Robinson, Willis And so, lacking the necessary 30 votes, CSHB 226(FIN) am failed to advance and will be in third reading on tomorrow's calendar.