Colorado House 2026 Legislative Day 104

The House will come to order. The Pledge of Allegiance today will be led by Representative Barone.

Mr. Schiebel, please call the roll.

Representative Verone.

One moment, Representative. Members, if you could keep your voices down. We do have a motion at the well.

Madam Speaker, I move that the journal of Friday, April 24th, 2026 be approved as corrected by the chief clerk.

All week for better jokes. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Good morning and happy Monday, colleagues. I just wanted to address the events that happened on Saturday. I think we can all agree that violence has no place among any part in our country. I think that regardless of who is targeted politically we have to make sure that we come together that we are united in strength because I think when times of crisis our people look to us, look to their leaders to lead by example I think we all have to lead by example I think we all have to tone down the rhetoric and I think I've said this before with what happened with the events in Minnesota we have to make sure that we lead by example and we are a light and instead of choosing hate, choose love I think we can all agree that we've got to choose love. And regardless of who's targeted, you know, the president or secretary or governor, whoever it is, hate and this type of violence has no place at all. And so I just really want to remind everybody that we should lead by example. We should choose our words carefully. Our rhetoric turned down the heat, and I know it's really polarized today, but we have to lead by example. And, again, violence has no place at all. Political violence, nonpolitical violence. Let's be an example. Let's be a light, and let's choose love.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Fellow colleagues, if I could get your attention, please. Today, I am lucky to have a cent classical. If you could please stand and be recognized for the chamber. Welcome. Thank you.

Representative Woodrow.

Rep Wilford.

Representative English and Representative Bradley.

thank you thank you representative stewart

Stewart. Representative Hamrick, members, your attention, please. AML Winter.

It is an honor to serve with you. Thank you. Members, do we have any other announcements? I think it is showtime. Representative Johnson.

I did, too. I did, too.

You can be after Lori.

Dusty, is it all right if I call some of my other auctioneers?

Thank you. And just as a reminder, colleagues, the money raised this year will go to our amazing nonpartisan staff for all of the hours that they've put in.

We had like $2,000, and we can beat that this year. So the goal to beat is $2,000 with 11 items. First up, we will recognize Representative Lori Garcia-Sander for her item.

All right, sir, do you want to start the bidding? Okay, right there on that package. You see it's selling right there. Okay, somebody give $100 for it. $100, $125, $150, $125, $150, $75, $150, $175, $150, $175, now $200, $225, $200, $225, $250, $225, $250, $250, $250, $275, $2.5, now $275, and now $300, $275, now $300, $325, I got $300 right here in the front, $325. 300 minimum you need to get 325 but about 325 300 right here 325 I have 300 325 sold it $300 right down here on the front thank you ma'am and making sure I heard it was a representative Goldstein at 325 dollars colleagues before we go on the next item I just want to remind you all this is by good faith. When you take the item, I will put your name down and give it to Vanessa. Please make sure to pay her in a timely matter because this is for our nonpartisan staff. Second up, we have Representative Phillips and her bag.

Okay, let's sell that package right here. Who's got $100? $100, $125. $120, $120, $125. $120, $125. I've got $100 right down here. $125, $150. $125, $150. $125 here. $150, $175. $150, $175. $175. $150, $175. And now $200, $175. Now to the middle of the middle. $222, $175. And now $200, $200, $175, and about $200 I have. Say $200, $200, $225, $200. Now $220, and about $25. I've got $200 in the back. $225, $200. You're going to give $225, $200, $225. You're going to give $225 down here. Sold it. way in the back Give him a hand That was for to Representative Carter And this is a fabulous bag. All right, next we will have two photos from Representative Titone. Oh, it just got more pricey. Three photos. All right, thank you, member.

Hey, but I heard it again. Somebody give me $25, $25, $25, $75, $75, $75, $75, $75, $75, $75, $75. $75, $75, $75, $75, $75. $75, $75, $75, $75. $75, $75, $75 over here, $100. You ladies are out right here, $75. You don't think of $100? Yeah. I'm going to do it. $75, $100. $100. Sold at $75. Over here, who do we have? Okay. Thanks, folks. Thank you. $75 to Representative Garcia. Thank you.

Okay, what have we got next?

can you hold them up from there

What do they look like? Hold them up.

What do you do here? How about $25 here? $15 here? $50 here? $50 now? $75 now? $75 now? $100 here? $100 here now? $25. $125 now? now, $50, $150, $150, $50 here now, $150, $150, $150, sold them your way, $125, Lori Garcia Sanders. Thank you. For the record, that's $125 from Representative Garcia Sanders. Up next we have the infamous representative and chair of the Hare Caucus Barone for an exclusive item Members good morning I got a special treat for you One of one limited edition picture Nobody else is going to have this picture ever

can we add in a personal massage from Barone as well to add to it all is over there now $25 here now $50 $50 $25 here now $50 $50 here now $75 $50 now $75 $75 here now $50 here $50 here now $50 here now Now 75. 50. Now 75. 75. Here now one. Now 75. 75. 75. Sold them. $50. Bacon. Representative Bacon is the proud winner of that picture. $50. $75 from AML Bacon. Should have one more item. And following in the 75 category, we have Representative Flannell, who also has a photo, and I have full faith in you all we can get more money on this one.

What are you holding? Are you ready to display? I don't think we can. You can't display, but you can tell what's holding.

Sold it. Your way for $150. And now I would like, we've got three items left. We've saved the best three for last for your current Colorado State champion, Susanna Underwood. And then I've never been up to this before, so after that we will all be adjourned for the rest of the day. All right.

you gonna do here we go would you give now 100 out of it now one now two now two would you give now two would you give now three would you give 300 out of it now four now four now four would What do you give four What do you give four now Five What do you give five What do you give six What do you give 600 Not a bit of ounces Sold it $500, $500, right down the center. $500 to Representative Brolick. That's Representative Frohley. Congratulations.

Here we go. What are you going to do? What do you give now 100? What do you give now 1? What do you give now 2? What do you give now 3? What do you give 300? Out of it are now 3. What do you give 4? What do you give 400? Out of it are now 4. Now 4. Now 4. What do you give now 4? What do you give 400? What do you give 4? Now 4. Now 4. I have 300, now 4. What do you get 4, now 5. What do you get 500? Now 5, now 5, now 5. What do you get 500? 500. Sold it. $400. $400. To me, I bought that flag. Perfect. Now, colleagues, if you can look at the giant screen, or as Representative Larry Don Sukel like to say, the giant projector.

Hands high. Here we go. What are you going to do? What are you going to give 100? What $200, $200. $200 right here, right down on the left side. Thank you so much. She has it right here. Who bought it? What? I had it right over here. $200. But if no one's going to step up to that, I will step up to it. Because I want to take that home today. And I'm going to put myself in for $250 commemorating that coin. Do you want to take it at $250? $200, right here, $200. Congratulations. $200 from Rep. Foray. Representative Foray is taking it home. All right, next up, and I want to remind you all, we are at $1,875. $25. We need to beat $2,000, but I think we can with this next from AML Winter who has amazing product that I'll let him explain.

and here we go go for it we're gonna start this at 500 500 out of it now five now five now five at a 750 now one at a 1,000 1250 at a 1250 i have 1,000 right here 1250 would he get 1250 would he get 15 would he get 1500 out of it now 15 would he get 15 15 15 would he get 1300 at a 13 13 13 13 14 we'd get 14 hundred out of it at out 14 14 14 14 hundred not a bit at out 14 14 15 we'd get 1,500 at a 15 15 15 hundred out of it at out 15 i have 1,400 15 16 we'd get 16 now 16 16 what it gives 16 i have 1,500 asking 16 at a 1,600 not a bit at out 16 16 16 would he give 15 would he give 15 asking 16 here we go i've got 15 asking 16 16 hundred i've been now 16 16 thank you now 17 would he give 1700 1700 not a bit now 17 17 17 would he give 17 i have 1600 in the front asking 1700 1700 better now 17 18 would you like to come back in it. 18. Thank you. 19. Would he give him 19? Would he give him 19? 1900? 19. Yes, you can. 19. Just nod your head. 1900. Let's get this past 2000. 1900 out of it. And now 1919. I have 1800 here. 19. You can split it. 19. You can come back in. How about two? Would he give two? Would he give two? Would he give two? 2000. Now 21. Would he give 21? You can go in together. 2100. Would he give 21? It'll be a big party. $2,100. I have $2,000. Asking $2,100. $2,100. $2,100 out of it or now. Sold it. $2,000. $2,000. That's rep. This is to the majority leader, Durand. Congratulations. Thank you, ML Durand. $2,000. We hit our mark on that alone.

The House will come back. The House will come back to order. Thank you, Reps Johnson and everyone who participated. Great fun. Awesome way to start the week. Members, one announcement. Representatives Brown, Sirota, and Taggart are excused at such time as necessary for the Joint Budget Committee and Conference Committee meetings.

One moment. we will stand in a brief recess The House will come back to order.

Seeing no objection, the bill is listed by the majority leader will be made special orders today, April 27th at 1045 a.m. Representative English. Members, you have heard the motion. Seeing no objection, Representative English will take the chair.

Senate Bill 137 by Senators Coleman and Simpson, also Representatives McCluskey and Caldwell, concerning measures to reduce administrative burdens and a connection therewith, making changes to the mandatory review of department rules by each principal department and clarifying the Attorney General's scope of authority related to litigation discovery.

Representative Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I just want to commend the sponsors for the work on this bill. I think this is a good bill. And like I said in business committee, we have some good bills come out of here. We also have a lot of bad bills come out of this legislature. And so I think when we're talking about burdensome regulations, we also have to take into account our business community, which are struggling. We have seen time and time again, especially in recent years, businesses leave the state. And not only just small businesses, but the private sector and big companies where, again, they don't feel that this business climate here in the state of Colorado is not feasible for them. And so we have a lot of costs, these regulations in particular, that we hear a lot about from the business community saying, well, you know, we want to do business here and we want to make sure that we pay our good competitive wages and benefits. But these regulations that the state slaps onto us drive up cost. And so, you know, I think a lot of these businesses in particular, you know, there's this notion that companies price gouge. And I think that we also have to take into consideration the rules that we place, the burdens that we place on businesses, because these rules take time, money, resources, and they drive up costs for the consumers, for overall business practices. And so I just want to say that this is a good bill because, again, when we talk about helping the small business community and the business environment altogether, they want relief. And I think we need to give them relief in a time where we see costs continue to go up. whether you want to talk about tariffs or anything like that, I think any time that we're able to review regulations and repeal stuff, I think now is the time to do it. And you know how I am when I like to say I think personally instead of passing laws, we need to repeal laws, and we need to go on a repeal bender and continue to repeal, repeal, repeal, and repeal some more. And I think these regulations, these review burdens that we see in the businesses are stepping in the right direction, and I think this conversation needs to continue on, not only just with this bill, but going forward, because when we talk about helping the business community, we should also be reminded that we have to be consistent. You know, it's good to get behind one bill, but then some go back and they continue to add more unfunded mandates and rules and regulations to businesses, and that hurts drives of cost, and we have to take that into consideration. It's okay to admit when we made a mistake. It's okay when we say, well, we have redundant regulations. We have outdated or, you know, antiquated rules in place. It's okay to say that. You know, it's okay to say as a legislator we made a mistake. Let's fix it. let's make sure that we provide relief for them let's scale some of that back because I think we will see businesses continue to leave the state if we continue the trajectory that we're in when it comes to regulations and adding more regulations in place when I go back to my district I hear from people who particularly the business community When they feel that they're not being heard, that this body continues to put rules that, you know, necessarily don't make sense or they just drive up costs or too complex. And I think we should consider that when we go back to our own districts. And I really hope that we continue these conversations going forward, not just with this bill, to make sure we provide regulatory relief for the people that need it, our business community. And for that, I encourage an aye vote.

Amendment L-003 has been displayed. Representative Lux to the amendment.

Representative DeGraff. Thank you, Chair. I support this amendment. I think if we're going to play by one set of rules, then those rules need to be established. They can't be changed. And I don't think that's the intent of the sponsors. But if there are lawsuits that are going on, I think that would create a challenge for this bill. I mean, I think there's going to be a challenge to this bill if it limits the option of a lawsuit, just because there's a big old and in the middle of this that seems very out of place, given the two parts of this sentence that it's joining and creating somehow a single subject out of reducing administrative burdens and clarifying the Attorney General's scope of authority. So I think if there's an issue, say, with this case cited, and I don't know for sure, I'm not up to speed on that case, but if that case is an issue, I think one of the first things that they would do is come after a bill and say this was passed and it shouldn't have. And then I think you would have a different problem. I think this should probably have been looked at for the single subject, but I'm assuming that it's already passed that muster. But I'm not sure if it would in a court of law. So maybe that's a problem. Maybe that's not a problem. I've never taken the state to court in this regard. But any agency, any body, if they have a lawsuit against the state already or they're engaged in that, would be, I think, probably justified in doing that. So this amendment would actually just take that issue off the table so that they would not be able to use this giant and in the middle of the title in order to challenge basically the basis of this. So I think this is a good amendment to, I mean, it's really a good amendment to protect the bill and protect the state from litigation of basically changing the, I don't know, Larry Down would probably say changing horses midstream or something, but changing the rules in the middle of the game, which I think is always a foul.

Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate the bill sponsor and the transcript response. I'm wondering if there was a follow-up question asked either to the AG's office or to you as bill sponsors related to why the decision was made to make it so broad as opposed to narrowing this scope to just those instances where you're talking about Consumer Protection Act and not to any and all instances where the AG brings an action in his official capacity or on the relation of the state of Colorado or the people of the state of Colorado.

Thank you, Madam Chair. All right. Colleagues, there's a lot of goodness in this bill. We're 150 years old as a state. We've probably got 300 years worth of regulation built up. It's a great step in the right direction. It's been said and commonly recognized that we're the sixth most regulated state in the nation. Hopefully this bill ensures that that is the high watermark and we start moving down on that list of overregulation. We've simply brought way too many bills that result in regulating our businesses. Mostly, probably all well-intentioned, but there have been too many too fast for our businesses to keep up with compliance. Especially our smaller businesses. Our small businesses, many of them sole proprietors that are doing everything, including employing our citizens, don't have compliance departments. They don't know generally year to year what they're going to try to do. And what we've seen, even in the large businesses that have compliance departments, are folks leaving our state. And that is impacting our revenues. For those of us that have been watching for a while, and I think that's probably every taxpayer that looks for their Tabor refund check, several years ago we were over our revenue caps by billions, and several hundred dollars, close to a thousand, sometimes more, was going back each year to our taxpayers. This year we've missed our Tabor cap. We've missed it because we're not generating the revenues that we have in the past, and that is traceable to the amount of regulation that is suppressing our business activity. We need to see that reversed. The more people we have employed, the more people we have well-employed, the more people we have receiving good benefits through their good-paying jobs from very successful businesses, the less impact we have on our state budget, the less that are turning to the state government for support. If we can get fewer people dependent on this government, we could actually start shrinking our government. And as government shrinks, we're going to see freedoms expand. And that's the direction we need to be moving in. So I know there's other pieces of this bill, but we have it right. We have made a good first step under this bill in looking at our regulations and peeling back those that just don't make sense and overburden our businesses. So I will be a yes today. Thank you. Representative DeGraff. All right. So my concern, I've already alluded to, is that this is two bills in one. This is a business bill. This is a bill that went to business. But the other half of this should have gone to judiciary. I mean it has to do with the Attorney General scope of authority related to litigation discovery Now on the parent side the concerns are that if the state can force plaintiffs to chase documents agency by agency instead of treating the AG's representation of the state as enough. So if the AG is going to represent the state, the state is going to need those documents. and the need of those documents, the gathering of those documents, those documents should be accessible to those on the other side, the citizens who are petitioning their government. So that's just a whole 1A thing. Sometimes that petitioning of government is through the courts. You have a disagreement with the government, and you have to take it through the courts. So if the state can force plaintiffs to chase documents agency by agency instead of treating the AG's representation of the state as enough for unified production,

Minority Leader Caldwell.

Representative DeGrasse.

Representative DeGraff, can we just stick to the bill and focus on what's actually in the bill and not the number of bills that we get each session?

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion on Senate Bill 137? Seeing none, the question before is the adoption of Senate Bill 137. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. Senate Bill 137 is adopted.

Majority Leader Duran.

To the Appropriations Committee report.

Is there any further? Representative Supla. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a good bill.

Committee report. Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of the Appropriations Committee report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The Appropriations

Vote yes. Is there any further discussion on House Bill 1306? Representative Sucla. Ditto. Is there any further discussion on House Bill 1306? Seeing none, the question before it says the adoption of House Bill 1306. All those in favor say aye. All those in favor say aye, please. All those opposed, no. House Bill 1306 is adopted.

Representative Jackson.

To the judiciary report? Approves first. To the appropriations report.

Is there any further discussion on appropriations reports? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of the appropriations report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. The appropriations report is adopted to the judiciary report. Representative Mabry.

Do they have the amendment? Do you have a packet? Do you not have a packet? You don't have a packet on the desk? No.

What? Okay. Amendment L-003 is displayed to the amendment. Representative Mabry.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Basically what this amendment does is it kind of cleans up some of the language and it talks about the identification documents and how if there is a fee or a charge as a result of that that that would come after the person has transitioned out of custody that that would not create a barrier to them receiving the identification documents upon release. So it's about the timing of any potential charges and not having that be a barrier to someone actually getting their photo ID.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am really grateful to be on this bill with my co-prime, Rep. Mabry. we know that the majority of people who are incarcerated in DOC will be returning to our communities, and it is a disservice if we do not equip them with the necessary tools and resources that they need to be successful and to lead productive lives, and this bill is a step in the right direction. We can't expect people to obtain employment, housing, or treatment services if we do not give them the bare minimum, the essentials, a government-issued ID, transportation, as well as gate money. And right now, gate money has been $100 since 1972. And because of our budget situation, we are not in a position to increase that amount. But what this bill does is that it keeps the $100 intact so that there are no deductions from that. And I am pleased that this bill passed unanimously in the Judiciary Committee, and I would ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. You heard that correctly, members. This bill passed unanimously in the Judiciary Committee, and I deeply appreciate it because this bill is about closing the gap between what we promise people leaving prison and what they already receive. So since 1972, Colorado law has required a $100 release allowance. In more than 50 years, the value of that amount has been lost by 85% in terms of purchasing power. If we adjusted this for inflation, it would look like $700 today. Back in the 70s, $100 could get you a hotel for a few nights. now $100 can't even get you a hotel for one night. And of course, we need to have conversations about adjusting this amount for inflation. But right now, many people leaving our system do not even receive the $100. They're nickel and dimed in terms of fees that they have to pay. And we are not setting people up for success These people this bill guarantees the full to every person being released free of deductions And it makes sure that we at least giving people enough money to get where they going to get a meal when they get out Another part of the bill has to do with documentation, making sure that people are leaving with valid documentation. The research is unambiguous. the first 72 hours after release are critical for successful reintegration and public safety. Let's keep the promises Colorado already makes to people leaving prison and vote yes on House Bill 1256.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me tell you my problem with the bill. When it came in committee, it was basically honestly the fiscal note like I do agree that people should be getting their documents of course they should be getting their documents but my issue was with it was with the fiscal note and it's it started out where right now with that what almost 900 well near nine hundred thousand dollars and then it'll just grow from there my other problem with it was the offenders the criminals the offenders are going to get this money every single time over and over and over. So they go to jail, they get out, they get the money. They go to jail, they get out, they get the money. So there's no cap on it. There's no like, okay, three strikes, you're out kind of thing. And this is what charities should really be for. If there are people who really want to fund something like this, then let the charities fund it. Because that is the people's money that goes towards exactly what they want. But right now you're making taxpayers pay for it. You're making people who have committed crimes against others, their tax money, the ones that the crime was committed against, is going to actually be going to pay for the criminal who committed the crime against them to get them the money to... To me, it makes my head spin. And without there being some sort of a cap on this, this is just gutting the state. I mean, we're already gutted financially as it is. $900,000 now, millions and millions of dollars later. Honestly, I really don't believe that the bill, the way it is written right now, should actually go on. As per testimony that we heard, it sounds like the gate money program just needs to be modified. The program, we don't need a law to do that. We can actually modify that without a law. It's working in several places. There's just a few areas in Colorado. surprise surprise the Denver area that it's not actually working and so there they just need to make sure that the policies and the program is tweaked enough to where it can work but but to make a law I really don't think anymore that that we need a law like this fix a program you don't need a law we keep making laws more and more laws for things we don't need I don't like the inefficiencies that are within the program but again I don't know that we need something to this extreme, to an actual law, to shake them down, to shake up the Department of Corrections. And so I am asking for a no vote on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just pulled this bill. It's amazing to me this came out unanimous from judiciary. I'm going to take a quote from the good representative from El Paso. This is the nanny state at its best We expecting victims to use taxpayer dollars to support criminals coming out of jail and giving them a release allowance of at least free of any deductions and a 30 transit pass if the individual is discharged in a metro area I can tell you there's constituents in my district that would love this right now. Let's talk about priorities. This is just prioritizing offenders over law-abiding citizens. Let me tell you why. You know how many community-based reentry programs we have in the state of Colorado that are actually trying to reduce repeat crime after release? Let's take a look. Reentry programs help people leaving jail or prison. They stabilize quickly, find work and housing, and avoid reoffending. Run by nonprofits, faith-based groups, local governments, and partnerships with corrections departments. Why are we making the taxpayers do this? Let's talk about priorities. Let's stop nannying people. Stop making us use our money to pay for offenders getting released. We don't want to do that. Second Chance Center, one of the largest reentry programs in the state, provides job training, housing assistance, mentorship, focused on long-term reintegration and reducing recidivism. Colorado Department of Corrections Reentry Services offers pre-release planning and support, connects individuals to IDs, employment resources, and community supervision programs. Ready to Work Denver combines transitional housing, paid work programs, often serves people with criminal records or experiencing homelessness. The Gathering Place focuses on women, including those exiting incarceration, provides job readiness, basic needs support services, faith-based programs. Many churches and ministries run reentry efforts focused on mentorship, substance abuse recovery, community accountability. Examples include prison fellowship. What these programs typically include, employment help, resume building, job placement, housing support, ID and documentation, substance abuse and mental health services, mentorship, accountability, life skills. We already have these programs. Why we're making victims' taxpayer dollars go to offender release for up to or at least $100 in a 30-day transit pass, it's mind-boggling to me. Why do we keep taking community out of what the community is supposed to do? Why do we keep nannying the people of Colorado? This is not what the state government is supposed to do. The communities in our state are supposed to be doing this. That's what communities were set up to do. community programs. There are many of them in the state of Colorado. And again, we're making victims be involved with their offenders. This is crazy. Vote now.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I had stepped out for a moment because there's a good bipartisan lunch going by. And in the spirit of that, I do want to provide some credit where credit is due. It is day 104. 16 days left April 27th year of our Lord 2006 I just want to note that the we had a sponsor stand up here and lament that things are getting way too expensive, things have become way too expensive and that nickel and diming people and folks through fees is unfair so thank you for saying that, let's apply that broadly throughout all the legislation we look at thank you

Thank you Madam Chair. I'm sorry. So I've toured quite a few prisons. I think that that's important because the population are constituents as well. And I toured the private prison in Crowley County. And what's pretty unbelievable about the private prison in Crowley County is they have a cabinet-making shop, and they have a construction wing of their prison. And they actually, when they graduate, they pretty much come out with an associate's degree in construction trades. But they're given a career. What's really neat about the program is I know that there's been legislators go there in the past, and they're really down on it, and they think it's forced labor, which isn't the truth. I spoke to most of the inmates, and they actually love the program. And as I've toured some of the state-run prisons, especially the one in Trinidad, I sat down with the inmates and talked to them, and they would also like a program inside of their prison. Because I spoke with a gentleman in the private prison who said when he got out on parole, he actually had a job running a cabinet shop making over $100,000. dollars. What was neat about the program in the private prison was they set seed money aside from them. So they build cabinets, as you can imagine, for a house and for bathrooms. They also frame out houses, which actually have a contract with the state. And DOC has bought a lot of these houses from the private prison because they're putting up housing for workers, for DOC. But they're given a trade. So when they leave the building, they have something to get out to, get to that job. so there is no residues, residues rate isn't as high, but they're given some seed money. They're also given privilege for housing. And I have friends that work in the correction system. When COVID hit, what little programs the state had, they pulled totally away from. And I think we need to bring these programs back and bolster them. I mean, if you can have people making cabinets in the state prison system, building structures for housing, and they're given some money that's put into an account So when they get out on the street, that they have that money then themselves. And the crazy thing about it is they talked about how proud they were to earn it and that they were making that money. And I just want to say it's hard because my first year here, I heard somebody really admonish the program, and the inmates love it. It gives them a different sense of freedom. It gives them that responsibility. It gives them a different set of housing and rules that they live by, but it gives them that seed money when they get out. So, I mean, speaking to this bill and what can be done in the future, I think that anybody's looking at making sure that people, when they get out of the system, they have that good step forward. We should really push that our Department of Corrections within the state start to bring these programs back and start to help these individuals as well. To put it just for the tax dollar to do is one thing. But when you have inmates that want to use their hands, they want to make a living, they're tired of sitting around and just lifting weights and playing video games, they want to build a skill set. and we're seeing this in private prisons and it's working and it's successful and there's such a sense of pride and I urge you please go to Crowley County and tour because they're so proud to show you the cabinet making shop and where they build trusses and where they build frames for houses and I think that that's something that if the state picked up that model you wouldn't have to worry about the inflation that you're talking about but I mean that's going to take some deep conversations because I think there's two ideologies that clash when it comes to this but I think sitting and talking to the inmates themselves is really important. So I just wanted to put that on the record. I think that there's the ability that we can do something with those that are housed in state prisons, let them get to work, let them earn some money for when they get out. It's that feeling of self-worth that they were actually to put that money in an account and have that skill set when they leave. That way they have a way to pay some bills, get in a stable home. But I just wanted to put that on the record as something

Thank you Chair and I agree with my colleague that this is a great opportunity for individuals to learn the value of work to be prepared for leaving and going back out into society If they're going to remain in society successfully, they're going to have to learn how to budget. They're going to have to learn how to save. They're going to have to learn how to spend wisely. Giving somebody $100 that just gets blown possibly irresponsibly on the first opportunity, which could actually, you know, some psychologists talk about this, and the best place for somebody is to be destitute. because as soon as they have money in their hands, and I can relate to this, that distant family members, they were fine until they got a paycheck. And that paycheck went to the bar, and that bar led to them being found face down drunk three days later. So some people, until they know the value of money, until they learn the value of money, it can actually be harmful for them. And if you're releasing somebody, and I just looked at this, and it's interesting to note that the government has degraded our $100 by 85% through inflationary spending, through the debt spending, through going through, like we're doing this year, spending even more money than we have and taking that $4 billion surplus, $1,000 per taxpayer, and diverting it into meaninglessness. But you're going to have a lot better result, I think, if these inmates are required to budget, if they're required to work, if the money they leave with, they have a direct correlation with work that they've done. The money that they walk out the door with represents the sweat equity that they put into their liberty. that's going to be the game changer, and that's the kind of program that we should be advocating. You know, if you want to get back to 1970s, you know, of course, then there's a budget. We are literally pumping money out of the ground more so, and we're not limiting ourselves. We are growth. We're pro-ag. We're pro-manufacturing. And then we decided to be pro-socialist, and we don't have any of that anymore. So what we have, that would be, I think, about $667. So to catch up, it would take $667. So, you know, anybody who's wondering, the equivalent of $100 back in 1972 takes about $667. So if you can't figure out why you can't afford a house, that's why. It's government spending. So I think what we need to do is we need to have, I would like to see a program come back that's a little bit more focused on individual responsibility because liberty is dependent on individual responsibility. And when we cede that, it actually removes that liberty. when we try to transfer that. So I think we need to give these inmates the dignity of work, the ability to walk out that door, make sure that they understand the value, the sweat equity that they put into those dollars that they're walking out with. And yes, some are going to walk out with more than others. And that's a good lesson in life as well. But I'm afraid we're reinforcing and we rewarding some of the wrong behavior with just putting cash in hand with people that have not been if it an individual that does not know how to handle cash in hand and you just adding fuel to the fire So I would like to see a program that is more focused on individual responsibility and less on handing out, especially when we don't have that money to hand out. Representative Marshall. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just had to get up and say a quick little point because I'm going to be voting for this bill because it's the right thing. It is the right thing. And I can already see people chopping at the bit saying, oh, great, we can use this against Bob and HD 43. But I do what's right. it was a hundred dollars when people left prison in 1972 that's when republicans controlled the entire state house and the governor's office that's when we had the entire world war ii generation in place that actually cared about how society worked i get in quite a few fights with the sheriff's department in douglas county but something they did very well very well they have three departments? One of them is the jails. And they made certain they would have someone come in once a month to make IDs for everyone because the biggest problem they saw, and they're on the front lines, is kicking people out the door with no support whatsoever, no IDs, and guess what? They're going to cycle right back. Right back. $100 and a bus pass after having been incarcerated for years. If you have family support outside, that's one thing. Quite a number of these people have had their families abandon them, some possibly for good reason. But you want to kick someone out the front door after holding them in a prison for years and say good luck? good luck on how that turns out, not for them, but for everyone else that lives in our society. So think about doing the right thing rather than the political thing and vote for this. Thanks. Representative Flaniel. So let me explain to you guys why I voted yes for this bill. $100 is given to people who get out of the Department of Corrections. that's been that's already done we're doing that as we speak since 1972 and for those who mentioned the bus pass clearly you weren't listening because that has actually been amended we are not giving people bus passes when i say we the bill sponsors are not giving bill or bus passes so ultimately what this bill does is it just makes it so that the department of corrections cannot take $10 here, $15 here, out of that $100 that we are giving inmates leaving or prior inmates that are leaving Department of Corrections, and we're giving them a state-issued ID. We talk a lot about, you know, how do we figure out, like, how do we prevent recidivism, and I feel like at the very least, we could at least give them a state-issued ID so that they can, I don't know, maybe get a hotel room for that night. There's a lot of things that you can't do without a state-issued ID. I don't think that this is so crazy to ask for. So yes, I did vote for it and I plan on voting for it again Thank you Rep Flanell Rep The Graph before you come up I just want to say that when we come up let just be respectful about our differences if we disagree on this bill and not speak to people character and say whether they care or not and let just keep it kosher Rep DeGraph There are certainly a lot of good reasons to vote for this bill, compassion being one of them. And yeah, like I mentioned, the $100 should be $667 if we were to keep up with inflation because government spending has degraded our money to that extent. State-issued ID, certainly something that we can handle in-house, that these prisons and, I mean, it's kind of ironic when you don't want to tax and fee the seems like that would be something you would want them to get used to because if they're going to be living in society at large, they're going to get feed every time they turn around. So I'm not I'm certainly not in favor of that. But when we come up here and just say well that's the right thing, this is the right thing. Is it the right thing? You know, I don't see any, I don't know if there's, I haven't heard any metrics in it. Maybe I missed part of the conversation, but I don't recall the conversation about the metrics of does this sometimes fuel recidivism? Because you are talking about somebody who's been in prison for a long time. Maybe the thing they're hankering for is a drink. Maybe putting that $100 in their pocket is the opposite of what they need. So it's not necessarily compassionate to say, give them that money. It could actually be fueling their demise. That's all I'm saying. So when you make a blanket statement and say, well, this is about compassion and doing the right thing, without looking at the, not looking at the whole picture, I think it's something that you need to look at the whole picture. I think these individuals should be able to leave with money. I think they should be able to leave with money that that they earned in that scenario. Because if we have not equipped them to earn, save, budget, and then we're going to turn them loose on society, all you're doing is you're just going out there and giving $100 towards recidivism. So the point, I think the right thing to do is to make sure that those individuals have the skill sets to actually do that. that skill set would come with saving $100, saving $667. Maybe cash is not the way to go here. Maybe food stamps is the way to go. So this is not just a, this is moral, this is the moral choice. There are other options, and there are potentially better options. We already spent 20 – bus pass came off. We spent $24 million per year on free buses. That could come out of there. State-issued ID, that could come directly from CDPHE. Set up the system. Go out there or set up the appointment. Go straight there and get their ID card. So, yeah, these individuals need to learn, if we're going to release them in society, they need to know how to live in society, and I don't, my point, I don't think, and yeah, what is the record of that since 1972? Was that an effective program? Did that do what it was intended to do? $667 would obviously have bought a lot more leeway. They are also not working in a budget where we've blown through $4 billion worth of surplus. So at some point the spending ends. $100 Anybody walking out of prison Would probably look at that $100 Could easily look at that $100 And can't do anything with it Except make one stop That puts them back in the wrong direction So I like the idea Please keep this to the bill And not suggest what people will do When they're released From incarceration Because we have no idea what that looks like. So I just want to keep it straight to the bill. That's true, Madam Chair, and I appreciate you reinforcing my point. We don't have any idea what that looks like. And until we have an idea of what that looks like, if we don't know what the metrics around this bill are, we don't have any basis for expanding it. So if we're going to expand it, update it, this should come with metrics. How successful is this program? How successful has it been? How successful was it in the 70s when it started? What is the recidivism of the participants? What about the participants that only leave with their money? Maybe we augment their money based on how much they saved instead of just a straight $100. You earn $500, you get $100. You earn $400, you get $50. Where you're We're incentivizing that instead of just giving somebody a gift card to trouble. So, yes, I do think it's great to be able to help these people. There's also lots of places that there are set up to help these individuals, and we should be steering them towards those agencies as opposed to just giving them a ticket to trouble on the way out the door. We should be dropping them off at places that can actually help them and teach them accountability. So, yeah, the compassion aspect, it's fantastic, but you don't, giving somebody money is not necessarily compassion. It could be the absolute worst thing for them, and until we have that whole study done, until we have that all broken down, I can't support it. Representative Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I just want to be clear on what this bill does and what it doesn't do. I think we can all agree that there are improvements, significant improvements to be made regarding reentry programming within prisons. and I want to acknowledge what AML Winter said about the cabinetry program in Crowley County. I think that we all want to expand opportunities like that for people in DOC in order to make sure that people can earn a decent living when they come out, but that's not what this bill is about. This is not a reentry programming bill This bill is giving people the basic necessities in order to try and get their lives together You cannot get a job if you do not have a government ID You cannot get housing if you don have a government ID That what this bill is doing And it really sad that we actually have to even run a bill like this to say hey when people are leaving prison you think we need to give them a government ID like we shouldn't even have to run a bill like this, but here we are. And the last thing that any of us want is to dishonor our victims. After somebody has been accountable for the crimes that they commit, the last thing we want to do is not equip and prepare them so that they can go and re-victimize our communities. None of us want that. This is bare basic, and I will reiterate what our amendment said. We took out the 30-day transit pass. This bill does not put offenders over victims. We do need to bolster re-entry programming within DOC. That is not part of this bill. That's not what this bill does. And I would ask for a yes vote. Is there any further discussion on House Bill 1256? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of House Bill 1256. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. House Bill 1256 is adopted. Majority Leader Duran. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to move House Bill 1236 until after Senate Bill 92. The bill will be moved after Senate Bill 92. Mr. Sheba, please read House Bill 1236. No, I'm sorry, House Bill 1315. House Bill 1315 by Representatives Soper and Espinosa, also Senators Weissman and Carson, concerning documents relied upon for parole determinations. Rep. Espinosa. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 26-13-15 and the Judiciary Report. To the Judiciary Report. Thank you. In the Judiciary Committee, let me see what we did. we created an amendment to clarify which we added a legislative declaration and added some definitions and narrowed the types of reports that we'll be seeking information on is there any further discussion on the judiciary report seeing none the question before is the adoption of the judiciary report All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The judiciary report is adopted. To the bill, Rep. Espinoza. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a bill, again, we're on DOC Day today, and what previously happened is there was an availability to obtain data, which the public was entitled to get. Legislators had sought this information in the past, as did Channel 9 news station, And in doing so, there was a determination that there was a large error rate in the parole, the documentation that's being used to ascertain parole. So what happened is in subsequent year, this last year, we again attended to get this information, and the Department of Corrections indicated that they would no longer share it claiming that there was a copyright of the information We subsequently determined that the copyright is non because the company claiming the copyright is publishing this already on their website and so their claims of not being able to have access to the information kind of fell apart. We negotiated with the DOC and have determined that we can access now these parole data determinations so there can be outside reviews and determinations by us whether there will be errors in the computation of whether someone has met their conditions to be able to be paroled. This is a really good transparency bill. We would ask for your support. Is there any further discussion on House Bill 1315? Seeing none, the question before is the adoption of House Bill 1315. All those in favor say aye. Wait, wait, wait, wait. Apparently. Sorry. Oh, hi, Rep Soper. My apologies. I will withdraw that and go to you online. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll make this really quick. This is a great transparency bill, as my co-prime eloquently just described. And this is one to ensure that the media, legislators, the public continue to have access to risk assessments, because after all, the error was discovered by a journalist and legislators last year. that's since being corrected, but then it asked DOC to report back to the Joint Judiciary Committees going forward how the correction of the air rate is going. So with that, I'd ask for a yes vote. It's been unanimous all the way, and hopefully we can keep it that way. Thank you. Is there any further discussion on House Bill 1315? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of House Bill 1315. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. House Bill 1315 is adopted. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of House Bill 1206. House Bill 1206 by Representative Joseph, also Senator Linstead, concerning improved funding to support development. Representative Joseph. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1206, the Finance and Appropriations Committee report. To the finance report. I'm sorry, to the appropriations report first. Yes, in the appropriations committee, what we did was we had a conversation with some stakeholders and we removed, remove. We added language to say that DOR can recover some of its costs and also we had a letter that shows that we will be paying for the $24,000. Well, there's an organization that will be paying for the $24,000 that is part of the appropriations in the bill. So the fiscal technically would be at zero and we ask for a yes vote in the appropriations committee report. Is there any further discussions on the appropriations report? Representative Wook. I withdraw that. Is there any further discussion on the appropriations report? Seeing none, the question before is the adoption of the appropriations report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The appropriations report is adopted. To the finance report, Representative Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair. And in the appropriations, we are going to make some changes to the finance community report. So I move L012 to the finance committee report and ask it to be properly displayed Do you have the Yeah Dr Tunez is going to move his first Oh yeah let move ours first and then we can move ours last Okay Thank you. And here's the other one. So this one, this one, this one, which one is this one? The committee will go into a brief recess. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. The committee will come back to order. The majority leader and the minority leader has ruled that the amendment will move forward. So, Representative Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair. So L12 replaces the language about authorities imposing taxes in the bill. The new language only allows authorities to impose a sales tax, a sales and use tax, or both, and the tax cannot apply to cigarettes. For an authority to impose this tax, a local government would need to put a TABOR question before its voters, and the voters would need to approve that question. The tax revenue from these taxes can only be spent on administrative costs and the purposes identified on the ballot question, and we ask for an aye vote. Is there any further discussion on Amendment L-012? The question before us is the adoption of Amendment L-012. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. Amendment L-012 is adopted. Representative, actually. It to the committee report Yes To the finance report Representative Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L014 to the finance committee report and ask that it be properly displayed. 014 has been displayed representative Gonzalez to the amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair. So all this amendment does is just to clean up to clarify that we are striking property tax and mill levy tax. So all that this bill is basically trying to ask voters for is sales tax up to 1%. Again, up to 1%. So we're striking the increase in property taxes and mill levy increases. And we ask for an aye vote. Is there any further discussion on amendment L014? All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. Amendment L014 is adopted. Is there any further discussion on the Finance Committee? Representative Wu. I'm sorry, the Finance Report. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L015 to the House Finance Committee Report. Amendment L015 is displayed. Representative Wolk to the amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair. So what this will do is it will, it's very narrow and focused. It removes section four, which in my view is trying to fix a problem that does not exist. Urban renewal authorities already have the authority under current law to structure agreements with developers, including shortfall provisions. We are not filling a gap. What Section 4 does is shift risk. It does not reduce it. It shifts risk away from investors and onto developers. The problem with that is simple. Developers do not control tax increment. They do not control assessment rates, state policy, or market conditions. asking them to guarantee that revenue is asking them to take on risk they cannot manage. In the real world, they will not do it. And when they do not do it, projects do not move forward. The alien language is an even bigger issue. Section 4 introduces a super-priority-style lien that can step ahead of existing mortgages. Every construction lender requires a first-position lien. That is not optional. If that position is at risk, they will not finance the deal. No financing means no project. That means fewer housing units, including affordable housing, and less redevelopment in the very areas the bill is trying to support. It also adds cost and complexity. Even if the tool is never used, lenders still price the risk into every deal. From a business and development standpoint, this makes projects harder to finance, not easier. I have heard this from urban renewal professionals and local governments across the state. This is coming from the people working on these deals every day. Striking Section 4 keeps the rest of the bill intact and removes the barrier to getting projects built. This is a practical fix. I respectfully ask for your support on an amendment to strike Section 4. Thank you. Assistant Minority Leader Winters. Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise in support of this amendment. It reduces any ambiguity that within this bill striking the section streamlines the issue I think this is good for the piece of legislation I urge an aye vote Representative Gosling Thank you Madam Chair I also rise in support of this amendment And the reason is because URA is on the front line of community reinvestment across Colorado, including creating affordable housing options. Section 4 ties their hands by attaching a high-priority lien to URA projects that kills construction financing because no lender will accept a subordinate position to a statutory super-priority lien making projects impossible to finance. It prevents TIF deals from moving forward, so increasing uncertainty and risk for developers and communities alike. It raises financing costs for redevelopment projects, even those that are never used in this tool, and it solves a problem that doesn't exist. URAs can already enter into shortfall agreements with developers under current law. Section 4 appears to be driven by out-of-state financial interests rather than local redevelopment needs and leaves key legal questions unanswered, including who can issue and enforce these liens across multiple property owners within urban renewal areas. So I urge a yes vote. Is there any further discussion on Amendment L015? Representative Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair. and we will accept this amendment, so we encourage an aye vote on this amendment. Is there any further discussion on Amendment L015? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L015. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. Amendment L015 is adopted. Is there any further discussion on the finance report as amended? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of the finance report as amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The finance report as amended is adopted. Representative Joseph to the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. We move L019 to the bill. Amendment L019 is displayed. Representative Joseph to the amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair. We've narrowed the bill title to concerning affordable housing because with the Section 4 of the bill, it was a little bit broader, but because now the bill only pertains to PHAs, which is the public housing authorities funding, and we just wanted to narrow it to that and we ask for a yes vote. Is there any further discussion on Amendment L019? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L019. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. Amendment L019 is adopted. Representative Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair. And so I really appreciate working with my co-prime on 1206. I think at a time when affordable housing is obviously top of priority for all of Colorado, we need to find ways to make sure we fund these things. And I think when we're facing budget cuts and when there's some aid that the state gives to local municipalities, and of course we're cutting stuff, I think this bill allows for local municipalities to take it upon themselves, to take to the voters, to decide whether they want to raise taxes of up to 1% of sales tax in their communities. and I think that this falls beyond local control because I think when you take it upon the voters of a certain area to decide for themselves versus the rest of the state, I think that's something that could be celebrated. So what 12 does is it preserves local control and voter approval improves fiscal clarity and governance consistency taxing authority framework adds two limited clarifications notice to local governments prior to ballot referral and explicit dedication of any revenue solely to housing authority purposes, and permissible uses of voter approved revenue, so development and financing of new affordable housing, preserving of existing housing, leveraging other funding sources, debt service and financing costs, operations and long-term maintenance, housing linked resident services and program administrations, and we ask for an aye vote. Representative Joseph. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to thank the public housing authorities for their work and support on this particular bill, and also thank our colleagues. I feel like we're on the same side today, especially on this bill, and thank you to the good representative from Boulder County and Weld as well. Representative Woog for his amendment that we willingly accepted so thank you for your for your amendment today. Members I rise today to present House Bill 26-1206, a bill that takes a meaningful step forward toward addressing one of the most pressing issues in Colorado today or housing crises. Across our state we are facing a shortage of more than 100,000 homes. I bring this stats every time I bring in a housing bill here to this floor. For the lowest-income Coloradans, the situation is even more dire. With a gap of roughly 134,000 affordable rental units, nearly half of renters are cost-burdened, spending over 30% of their income on housing, and for many families, that number is much higher. This is not just a housing issue. It is an economic issue, a workforce issue, and a quality-of-life issue. House Bill 1206 is about giving our local housing authorities the tools needed. Under current law, housing authorities are limited in how they can raise revenue to build and preserve affordable housing. This bill changed that by allowing cities and county housing authorities, if they choose to ask their voters for approval to raise dedicated funding through a local sales tax or use tax. And I want to be very clear, this bill does not raise taxes. It creates an option, and that option must be approved by the voters in that community. The bill includes strong protections. Any tax must go to the ballot. It must be structured to fairly distribute costs and avoid undue burden. Sales taxes are capped at 1%. Additionally, this bill allow housing authorities to issue bonds backed by revenues, helping them leverage local dollars to build more housing more quickly. These sections have been removed from the bill. But members, this bill is about local control, accountability, and results. It empowers communities to take actions on housing with voter approval and clear guard rails. If we're serious about addressing affordable housing to ensure that Colorados can live where they work, then we need to provide tools to make that happen. I respectfully ask you for a yes vote on 26-1206. Thank you. Is there any further discussion? Representative DeGraff. Thank you, Chair. This is, I mean, it's kind of funny to me that when we talk about local control, The first time we actually honor local control is to allow them to raise taxes or to divert taxes, which they were already using for something else, so now that they'll need to replace. Okay. Going through the ledge deck and listening on the severe shortage of housing, we're estimated 106,000 units short. True here, 30% of AMI, that's going to be difficult to afford a house. But again, my frustration is that we're not dealing with the root cause, and the root cause is this room. The root cause is this room and the overall regulation that we continue to add to these things. And one that I'm thinking of in particular is asbestos, that the added regulations that are now in effect because of a bill that said that it wants to raise money to combat lead paint, but it was to raise $200,000 a year but spending $160,000 on admin. That adds to housing costs. Making a regulation to make more stringent than the federal requirements so that anything over one bundle of shingles and one sheet of drywall literally becomes a superfund site. That adds costs. The regulations that the sponsors talked about earlier that make us number six, those add costs. When you talk to a builder and the costs are 30-plus percent of a property is regulation and government bureaucracy, I look at a bill like this, well-intentioned as it is, and I think, well, if you're going to task the same people that made the problem with solving the problem, you'll just get a bigger problem. Because ultimately what happens is when you put a subsidy in like this, when you create a subsidy, what you're doing is you're artificially increasing the value of money. And when you artificially increase the value of money, the cost goes up. You see this in medicine, you see this in housing, you see this in education. It feels good to throw more money at it. Ultimately, throwing more money at it makes it more expensive. Now, when we look at this, it's hard to say that we have an issue that we need 100,000 units when we have record vacancies across the state. And those record vacancies are supposedly addressed in the future by some imagined influx of young, fertile females. And I don't really know how that works. I mean, I know how that works, but I don't know how that part, the influx, works. And so these demographics that the state continues to put forward in order to prop up the development, in order to prop up developers, in order to keep throwing money at developers, while we build shipping containers, stacked shipping containers, Calcutta-Rotto-style housing, and it's sitting empty. or it's being filled by people who are now moving out of older housing. And now we have, of course, now that older housing can't be really updated because you have your asbestos regulations, so it's going to remain older housing because we're not dealing with the root cause. We're not dealing with why, and we're also not dealing with why businesses are leaving the state, why businesses have left the state why the only growth industry in the state is the state When the only growth industry in the state is the state then we have a really really we have a really bad problem with unsustainability. Because the state is a parasite on the actual economy. And it requires the actual lifeblood of an actual economy to grow. So I would like to, you know, we have record vacancies in Denver. We have record vacancies in Colorado Springs, in El Paso County. We have businesses that are selling for one-tenth the price, business space, that is office space, selling at one-tenth the price of what it did. that does not indicate that we are in a crisis for more people to come in. What we're doing is we're building more development. What you have is you have developers that are looking at this and going, yeah, unless you're going to throw some money at my way, I'm not willing to take the risk. So they're not seeing the value in promoting more affordable housing. And then the affordable housing, you said that that can be up to 50% of the income, which automatically negates the 30% of the income. So, again, a problem that was created in this room. Gallagher was a problem created in this room. The loss of Gallagher was created in this room. So we have inflation, regulation, fees. And the solution, the one nod that we have to local reform, local control, is to give local control the ability to tax more. because we have a spending problem, because we've ultimately overspent. So what you're going to do is you're going to raise sale tax, and that tax, again, is a sapping of, is a drag. It's a reduction of energy. When you're talking about mechanics anyways, a tax is something that pulls the energy out of a system. This pulls the energy out of the system. pulling the energy out of the system in order to grow the system as opposed to freeing the system and allowing it to breathe. And I think we need to actually take a look at some other stats, not just the cherry-picked statistics that say we need to give more money to developers. We need to allow developers to tax and max out and overcapacity our infrastructure. because those are the only solutions that have come out of this room. More taxes, more regulation, and less liberty on this part of the citizens of Colorado. So I appreciate the intent of the sponsors. I just think it's going in the wrong direction, and we need to actually deal with the root cause of the problem. We won't, because the problem is this room. So I ask for a no vote.

Chair and I understand my colleague from El Paso voicing concerns about affordable housing because there are a lot of issues and it is a complex issue right I think there's a lot of things underlying to address the root cause of affordable housing. This policy all it aims to do is at a time when we have to make cuts and a lot of municipalities depend on some of the revenue that they get from the state to invest in affordable housing I think you know when and we have to make these significant cuts this takes it upon the jurisdictions of themselves to continue to have some funding And while this is not a one policy it is a step in the right direction where we can continue to have conversations on how we can address affordable housing Yes regulation is a part of that and other issues with that, but I think we should understand that when we need funding and resources to improve affordable housing in all parts of Colorado, this is just one thing that they can continue to use and we are giving discretion to these new local municipalities. Because at the end day look do you want the state to decide for your municipality or do you want your municipality to decide upon yourselves what they want and i think again local control is important and i think when a one-size-fits-all policy is not the approach that we want to do but this policy does allow for local municipalities to take it upon themselves to make sure that we have the resources to improve affordable housing because these policies work differently in other parts grand junction versus mesa or grand junction versus i'll call our springs versus greeley versus boulder i mean these municipalities know what works in what projects work in their backyards and which ones do not and so we want to make sure that we preserve local control and again we're capping the sales tax of up to one percent so that means that people can take it point zero five percent increase or a point two percent increase but no more than one percent and i think that's something that we're putting guardrails in to make sure that people aren't overtaxed again just letting local municipalities decide for themselves and i appreciate the conversation because there is a lot that goes into affordable housing whether it's construction defect reform whether it's regulation But this policy, and specifically, I think, is just something that local municipalities can take it upon themselves to use, and with that we encourage an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We move L20 to 1206.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a technical fix, Madam Chair. All we're doing is just striking the URA section out of the, we already stroke it out of the bill. We're striking it out of the legislative declaration. And we ask for a yes vote.

in House Bill 1206 as amended passes. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of House Bill, I'm sorry, Senate Bill 92. Senate Bill 92 by Senator Simpson, also Representative Sucla and Velasco, concerning the modification of the salary categorization of locally elected officers in specified counties.

Okay, to the committee report.

You can stay up here.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Is there any further discussion?

Representative Velasco.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of the Transportation Committee report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the committee report is adopted. To the bill. Representative Velasco.

So any further discussion on Senate Bill 92 as amended? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of Senate Bill 92 as amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. The ayes have it, and Senate Bill 92 as amended passes.

Representative Mabry. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1236 and the Judiciary Committee report. To the Judiciary Committee report. Thank you, Madam Chair. In the Judiciary Committee, we ran an amendment to clarify the fee cap language in the bill. instead of referencing a federal claim or a state claim, it specifies that fees are for a case filed in state court and a case file in federal court, whichever one would be relevant in the circumstances. We struck section two of the bill, and then we brought two changes to the arbitrator disqualification section. First, we restructured the subsection, numbering, which was technical, and substantially we clarified that an arbitrator cannot be found ineligible solely because they generally rule in favor of one side or the other, preventing a party from disqualifying an arbitrator just from having a track record of decisions against them. We extended the compliance deadline from paying a arbitration award from 30 days to 90 days before the damages kicked in, we stripped out the entire class collective action waiver prohibitions. This was the most significant amendment. It removes one of the bills for major reforms entirely. And then we brought some more technical cleanup, replacing the record of an award with the award for cleaner language. Bottom line, in the Judiciary Committee, we narrowed the bill considerably by gutting the class action provision and giving employers more time before damages apply. And then we added some more technical cleanup language, and we asked for a yes vote on the committee report.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And it is an honor to bring this bill forward. You don't want me to respond. Sorry, go ahead, please. It's an honor to serve with you as well. All right, arbitration reform. From running this bill and from the many conversations we've had around arbitration, I think it's important to start with what is arbitration? Because there's been a lot of questions, and I'd like to just go over what this process entails. So arbitration is an alternate dispute resolution mechanism. And it says that instead of if there is a disagreement, something being settled in a courtroom, it will be settled between two parties with a neutral arbitrator. Now, what is the problem with that? inherently nothing is wrong with that. The way arbitration has traditionally worked is that you have two parties that have a meeting of the minds and when they form a contract they go into business with each other they agree that if they were to ever have a dispute that they will use arbitration as their mechanism to settle their dispute. Now what has happened with arbitration in recent years is a different story Arbitration provisions have become hidden terms in nearly every contract or terms of condition that we sign or agree to I don think that any one of us here can say how many of these provisions we have agreed to Every time that you have signed up for a membership a streaming service ordered groceries, bought a flight, called for a ride, or even taken a job, you have likely agreed to an arbitration provision. And when you are checking a box for updated terms and conditions, you should scroll and see because most likely there is an arbitration provision hidden in there. So you might not realize when you are giving up your right to have your day in court. It is so prevalent that when a large business that owns some famous theme parks in Florida and in California was facing a wrongful death lawsuit, this was a husband suing this theme park for killing his wife, for lack of better words. He was compelled into arbitration because of the terms that he had agreed to on a streaming service subscription. And the only reason they got their day in court was because this was publicized and the public was so outraged that the company withdrew their motion to compel arbitration. Now, arbitration provisions often also come with class waivers. If you want to know my feelings on that, I would love to go over that with you. However, that piece was amended out of the bill in the Judiciary Committee. And so what is left here is that when arbitration is compelled and it is mandatory, we want it to be attainable for somebody to go and to be able to have their claims heard. This bill does not prevent arbitration from happening. It does not prevent those mandatory provisions I just talked about from occurring. It just says that once you have agreed to that, you should be able to actually have that claim heard. Much of what I think my co-prime and I would love to do in arbitration reform is preempted federally. So what this bill says is that the fees to be able to initiate your claim in arbitration should be comparable to those in court. They should not be so predatory to keep you from having that claim heard. It means that your arbitrator should actually hear your case and if they are discriminating you should be able to have a different arbitrator and it means that you should be able to settle all of your damage claims within arbitration itself so that you don't have to go back to court to seek certain damages and then finally when an award is agreed upon we think that the party that has agreed to pay should actually pay without forcing you to go to court to compel them this bill is now purely about making this affordable and accessible, and we ask for your aye vote. Representative Mabry. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, somewhere in Colorado right now, there is a worker, most likely a woman, most likely in a low-wage job, who is owed money by her employer. She has a legally valid claim, but buried in the contract she signed on her first day, one that she had no power to negotiate. There was a clause that says she cannot take her employer to court, cannot join with co-workers who were harmed in the same way, and must pursue her claim in a private proceeding before a decision-maker her employer helps select at a cost that may exceed the value of what she is owed. And when it is over, the decision is secret. The next employee who is hired will never know what happened. That's forced arbitration and is one of the most effective tools large employers and corporations have to insulate themselves from legal accountability. Now as my co said a true fix to arbitration requires federal action The Federal Arbitration Act has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in ways that have made force arbitration effectively mandatory across vast swaths of the economy The FAIR Act, which would end some of the most abusive practices in the arbitration space, has languished in Congress for years. Much like anything productive, we do not expect Congress to act anytime soon. So we need to do something here in the state of Colorado. The people harmed most by this are people who already have the least power. People in low-wage jobs, workers of color, people who were harassed, cheated, or who calculated correctly that bringing their claim isn't worth the cost. Legal protections that cannot be enforced are not legal protections at all. This bill takes incredibly small but meaningful steps to improve this system and make it a little bit more fair within the authority that we have here in the state of Colorado. We ask for a yes vote.

Representative Flannell. Thank you, Madam Chair. In committee, the Judiciary, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's 2015 arbitration study was frequently referenced, specifically relying on the headline arbitration agreements limit relief for consumers. However, we all know that titles can be a little misleading, and when you actually open that article, it paints a much different picture. The authors find that many employees and consumers do at least as well or better in arbitration on key measures, such as win rates and time to resolution than in court. Consumers won in arbitration at a rate of nearly 42% compared to 29% in court. Average consumer recovery in arbitration was around 80,000 versus 71,000 in court. The stark worst outcomes for the public framed disappears once you look at the full data set. The CFPB study actually warns us what happens when you take arbitration off the table. Consumers do not end up with more money. They end up with more delay. Average time to resolution was 321 days in arbitration versus 439 days in litigation, which is roughly four months in addition. The truth is very few people ever see a dime from class actions, while individual arbitration delivers faster resolutions and meaningful relief for the people who pursue claims. And for this, I ask for a no vote on this bill. Thank you.

Representative Mabry. Thank you, Madam Chair. I respectfully wanted to push back on some of the findings in the CFPB study. So the study found that across tens of millions of consumers covered by arbitration clauses, only 600 arbitration cases were filed annually. If arbitration is genuinely beneficial to consumers, why are so few of them actually using it? The CFPB found that more than three in four consumers didn't even know whether the contract that they were a part of contained an arbitration clause. fewer than 7% understood it meant that they couldn't sue in court. How can we characterize a process as beneficial to consumers when the overwhelming majority of them don even know they subject to it That same study also found that arbitrators awarded consumers less than in total damages across six consumer finance markets over a three period In that same period, in the same field, class action settlements delivered $2.7 billion in relief to 32 million consumers annually. So I don't understand really how we arrive at the conclusion that arbitration produces better outcomes for consumers given these numbers. The CFPB study found that arbitration clauses were invoked to block class action. Sixty-five percent of the time, companies faced class litigation. If the purpose of arbitration is efficient dispute resolution, why are these clauses being used primarily as a shield against a group of litigants rather than a path to individual relief? I think it's also really important to remember, you know, as much as we want to say the awards that we're talking about in the class action space are small, it's important to remember that it's not economical to be able to take somebody to court if you have been suffering wage theft at maybe $150 over a six-month period. But if you can band together with 1,000 of your coworkers to bring a claim, that's important. We have to give people a remedy. We have to give people an option. And again, I feel like we're heading down the path we headed down during committee. Would love to be able at the state level to have a serious conversation about the merits of arbitration generally. I believe that it's really unfriendly to workers and consumers. But there's not a lot we can do at the state level. And our bill just makes the process of arbitration a little bit more fair, and we ask for a yes vote.

Thank you, ma'am, Chair. I'm up here in strong opposition to this bill. Let me tell you, I was in this committee, and I'll tell you a few things that we heard. We heard that it was a trial lawyer's dream, that it causes more lawsuits to be filed. We heard that it was unbalanced. We heard confusing. We heard unintended consequences. We also heard that arbitration is already heavily governed by the FAA, which is the Federal Arbitration Act. So this law isn't even needed. This is nothing that we actually, actually need. As far as it being, as we had heard, that it was a lawyer's dream bill, it causes more lawsuits to arbitrarily be filed. It's literally a lawsuit explosion. Increasing costs for businesses on fraudulent lawsuits, it would end up preventing people from getting the justice that they actually do deserve on legitimate lawsuits and causing huge, huge delays. Why? Because it would cause a lawsuit explosion. The bill was very unbalanced. It's very confusing. We heard that time and time and time again in committee. The protections are set already, and you cannot change it. With the FAA, they cannot be changed. I don't care what the bill says. They cannot. I believe that this actually limits class action lawsuits, it's preventing the people, again, from getting the justice they deserve. There's no cap on this. In Section 13, There are no caps on this. That is a huge problem. When in committee, we spoke to several, several people testifying against this bill. So far, we had seven groups that were for it, 46 groups that were against it, representing tens of thousands of people across Colorado. There were eight pages of testifiers. There were 146 people total. 129 of those were against this legislation. Only 17 were for it. I think that speaks loudly what the people in Colorado want. Time and time again, we ignore the voices of the people, and I'm asking you to stop doing that. I'm asking you to listen to the voices of the people. Again, arbitration is already heavily governed by the FAA. The Supreme Court has ruled that the FAA preempts conflicting state laws. Period. Full stop. This is not needed. This is a bill looking for a problem or a lawyer's dream, as it was said, over and over again. And lo and behold, look who's bringing the bill to us. people and businesses should be free to negotiate their own dispute terms it should be between the people and the businesses Rep Kelty, sorry I said your name quietly

You can proceed. I take a lot of breaths, but thank you, ma'am. You got it. Anyways, in closing, this bill provides less contract freedom. It's less freedom for the people, less freedom for the businesses, and it will do damage. I'm asking for a definite no vote on this bill. We need to stop passing legislation like this. It's just not needed. It's just not needed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, just like many of the speakers that spoke, I also heard this on the judiciary, and I just also want to recognize and state in judiciary the list of all the supporters was actually named. That didn't happen today because I can guarantee that if the representative from El Paso actually went through and listed the names of all of the corporate partners and corporations and big business that support that oppose this bill, it would cause the majority of us to automatically be like, oh yeah, the opposition is in self-interest. This bill doesn't eliminate arbitration. let's be clear about that it just does not simply make it a mandatory only option if you are harmed by a business if you're harmed by a service you should be allowed to pursue what form of justice you think you you should go for and if that includes a trial that includes a lawsuit and you have the bucks to pay for it, go for it. If you don and you rather have this behind the closed door negotiated option that called arbitration fine then go that route But if we truly believe in the options and for individuals who are harmed to pick and choose which is their route to justice then this is a simple yes vote But if you want to support the special interests of corporate America, then go ahead and vote no against the people.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree. We should listen to the groups that came there. I agree that we had 146 people. Many of them were individuals themselves. And if you want to say 129 people versus 17 doesn't matter, I think you need to think again. Tens of thousands of people were represented against this bill, not just corporations, individuals, associations, people who have extreme concern. If you want to listen to the people, listen to the people. Tons of thousands versus 17. I think that says enough. Thank you.

None of those groups were groups that represent workers or consumers.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do just want to note every time I hear something about this might lead to an increase in lawsuits. For one, this does not do anything to get rid of compelled arbitration. All of those provisions still apply. This does not put anything into the court system that was not already permissible to go there. However, I do think it's important to note that lawsuits, and in particular class action lawsuits and plaintiff's attorneys, are given a bad reputation because they are so effective in holding bad actors accountable that those same actors have worked very hard to discredit them. The truth is that when you have a giant entity that is writing their own rules and is enacting widespread harm that is individually small, a class action lawsuit is the only effective tool we have to hold those actors accountable. Again, not an issue in this bill. This bill is talking about things that are not specifically federally preempted. It is making a process that is forced on consumers more fair. We ask for your yes vote.

House Bill 1341 by Representative Johnson. Also, Senator Pelton R. Concerning a modification to the service period during which the Colorado Agricultural Development Authority may allocate its portion of the private active bond state ceiling allocation.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 26, 1341 to second reading.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This bill passed unanimous out of both House Ag and House Finance. This is a modest pro-ag change that gives the Colorado Agricultural Development Authority a longer window by two months to put its private activity bond allocation to work for farm and ranch projects. With all of the volatility we seeing right now in the ag market and with the ag market times fluctuating this is adapting so we can give the support and tools we need for our ag community and I would urge a yes vote

madam majority leader thank you madam chair move the committee rise and report

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you

Madam Speaker, your Committee of the Whole begs to report it under consideration. The following attached bills being the second reading that makes the following recommendations are on. House Bill 1206 is amended, 1236 is amended, 1256 is amended, 1306 is amended, 1315 is amended, and 1341 passed on second reading. Order engrossed and placed on the calendar for third reading. Final passage, Senate Bill 92 is amended and 137 passed on second reading. Order revised and placed on the calendar for third reading and final passage.

Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes yes.

Please close the machine. With 41 a.m., 21 no, and 3 excused, the report of the Committee of the Whole is adopted. Members, we are moving into third reading. Please take your seats. Madam Majority Leader.

Why don't we do the proceed out of order first, and then we'll lay it over. I don't know that it matters, but let's go ahead and do that first.

Seeing no objection, we will proceed out of order for consideration of third reading. Now, Madam Majority Leader.

Senate Bill 43 will be laid over until tomorrow. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1225.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1225 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

Representative Lindsay, co-sponsors.

House Bill 1347 by Representatives Gilchrist and Brown, also Senators Doherty and Ball, concerning changing practices related to federal benefits for youth in foster care.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1347 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes yes. Please close the machine. With 62 I, 1 no, and 2 excused, House Bill 1347 is adopted. Co-sponsors.

Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1335.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1335 on third reading and final passage. Representative Bradley. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Talked about this a whole lot the other day. We tried to pass what I thought were good amendments, and they were not accepted. Seems to be the way to do things on Fridays. You know, I have some real problems with this bill. I think that we keep hearing that this is about access. I don't know that the people of Colorado are actually believing that anymore. I don't. Colleges must provide abortion medication services on site. Campuses with pharmacies must stock abortion pills. Schools without pharmacies must still facilitate access or dispensing. applies to public and private institutions with limited religious exemptions I believe this mandates abortion infrastructure not just access I think there access everywhere I think that there local pharmacies everywhere you look I believe this is a cost shift hidden from taxpayers Schools face training, staffing, IT, and liability costs. These costs are then going to be pushed to the students' fees and tuition. We have a ton of students, undergraduate that are part-time, about 140,000 students, graduate part-time, about 27,000, which means nearly one out of every two college students in Colorado are part-time. We say it's free, but it's not. It's just hidden in your kid's tuition bill. We said the abortion pill costs about $800 per use, and there's about thousands of kids this age taking them. It requires new clinical protocols, training, and follow-up care. College clinics are not ERs or OBGYN facilities, and we talked about that. We talked about the complications of taking these pills. And then we tried to discredit the article about the abortion pill that harms women. And I just want to tell you about the two people that wrote this article and did the research. One is a research fellow in quantitative analysis who worked for the CIA and NSA, and he was a graduate of Harvard. The other one has a Bachelor of Arts from Princeton, where he graduated Phi Beta Kappa and Magna Cum Laude. I also did, just for the note, just for anyone that's wondering. Master of Arts from Notre Dame and a Ph.D. in political philosophy. And the gold standard that I talk about is a random control trial. We can't do that here because a woman that wants to get an abortion, you can't just give her a placebo and not give her the abortion pill. So instead they took almost 900,000 women's charts and reviewed their charts. And let's talk about, because they also said this wasn't a peer-reviewed study. So let's talk about why it wasn't. The point is not peer review, but replicability. So they have made this fully replicable. We have made our study fully replicable for anyone who wants to analyze the insurance claims data. So they just took this straight from the patient's records and the ICD-10, which is the code that you get for a diagnosis to analyze the insurance claims data. The replicability crisis, well documented in the press and denied by no responsible person, is the evidence that peer review guarantees little. We stand behind our analysis of health care claims data, which is why we're asking the FDA to conduct its own review of this data. Real-world data in which money changed hands based on the treatment of patients and coding by doctors brings a high level of confidence. The data set is available for purchase, and our methodology is public. The study is fully replicable, and we encourage others to replicate it. The peer review process is broken. It's terribly biased against conservatives, especially social conservatives, particularly pro-lifers. The paper would have been leaked so as to prepare hostile responses if we were ever published to begin with. So they have taken this study of 900 patient records. There's no way to falsify it. These are women that took the abortion pill, and then they took their records and the insurance claims, and they put this into a study. Peer-reviewed journals such as JAMA, the New England Journal of Medicine and Health Affairs, regularly publish studies based on administrative claims. It is especially vital for medications like Mifepristone, where controlled trials have small samples, carefully recruited healthy patients, physician oversight, and limited follow-up. post-marketing surveillance is passive and incomplete. Reporting requirements were loosened in 2016 So what did they find in this fully replicable study that anyone could do And the reason they haven done it is because they would find the same exact things We're not arguing abortion in the state of Colorado. None of us came up here to argue it. We said there should be follow-up care for these women that are just going to go into a random health care center at their college, given a pill with no informed consent. One of the representatives from Denver said there should be informed consent. There should be education. There's none of that. They don't understand the major complications that one in ten women will experience sepsis. Sepsis is when your body is dying. Infection, in which you need an antibiotic. Hemorrhage is when you're bleeding out. And I can't talk specifically about it because people get offended, apparently. Or another serious or life-threatening adverse event within 45 days following a mifepristone abortion. That is one in ten women. Why are we not protecting these women? We're all about access. Why aren't we about public safety for these women? We're just asking for public safety for these women. We're asking for follow-up care. We're asking for boys not to be able to get this pill to roofie their girlfriends, which has been proven in two different states, Massachusetts and Texas. We wanted amendments to give these women safety. We're showing you a study that had 900,000 women that says one in ten patients will experience not a small side effect, not like taking an Advil, not like taking a Tylenol, something with a serious adverse effect. Again, not contemplating the idea of abortion in Colorado. We're talking about follow-up care. We're talking about making sure these women are protected. This bill is not about access. It is about a mandate. It forces colleges to provide abortion drugs, shift costs onto students, and expands medical services without ensuring medical safety. This is not about choice. we should be strengthening health care not politicizing campuses and burdening institutions and if I was in charge of a private institution or a public institution in the state of Colorado close your health care centers force these students to find a doctor somewhere else because we're mandating unsafe practices onto you you will be sued you will pay the consequences and I just wouldn't do it I would tell the general assembly we're not going to do it anymore close your clinics and say no more to the chaos happening in the Golden Dome. Vote no on this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don't really know where to begin. what to include or where to end in 10 minutes. I wish that my conscience would be okay with me just coming up here and saying, vote no and sit down again, but it doesn't. And yet I don't really know what all to focus on because there's a lot that's tied up in this bill. We spoke about it for two hours on Friday and really only started to scratch the surface on some of the issues that I foresee coming out of this policy. Now it interesting because some might view the need for this as if we lived in a different era as if somehow these things were not readily available But due to a Biden-era policy change, the FDA, these drugs are now available for purchase at your local Walgreens. It's not a question of whether or not they're accessible. It's a question of whether we want to have the higher education institutions in Colorado dispensing them, taking on any sort of liability associated with it. We did review some of the data. And yes, we were challenged that the data was lacking in credibility because it was not peer-reviewed and because the people who put forth the data are not supportive of abortion generally. But the reality is that the data points are all available for purchase, and groups like the Guttmacher Institute have more than enough money to purchase that and to do their own analysis and find the same results. And you'd think that if indeed these results were questionable, since it is an argument set that is contrary to their stance, they would want to disprove it. They would want to ensure that nobody had any question as to the efficacy and safety of these particular pills. But they haven't done that, so far as I know, which leaves this particular study, the study that we have. nearly 900,000 insurance claim data points. They took out all of the data related to ER visits that were minimal or that were connected to something other than the pill. They made it such that the codes only looked and were combined as relates to one particular person so that it couldn't be argued that, hey, you said there were all of these different events, but really it was just one girl. No, they made it such that each calculus was as relates to a patient, so if that one patient had multiple, they only counted that person once. And they found that nearly 11% of instances there were serious adverse effects. serious hemorrhaging serious complications what are we talking about? for those who don't know this particular abortion pill set that we're talking about it's given in two doses the first dose is administered on its own and its job is to kill the child the second dose is a different drug that is administered within 24 to 48 hours after the first, and it's designed to clear the body of the child. Initially, when this drug was approved, and it wasn't, just so you know, it wasn't approved by the FDA through the normal approval process. It was fast-tracked. As a result of a request of the Clinton administration, which was hot to trot to get this on the market. So there wasn't the original approval process that we normally understand all that robust examination of different folks and what their impacts are. No, no. A lot of that was forsaken. And they pass it, and they require certain things. They require that the pill only be given within the first seven weeks of gestation. They require that it be administered after an in-person visit where it can be verified that there isn't an acoptic pregnancy because taking these drugs when there's a Nacoptic pregnancy is even more devastating on a woman's health. There were a few other things as well. And in 2016, all of that began to go away. The FDA started to strip all of those protections and guardrails. Until now, you can buy it at Walgreens without seeing anyone. which is curious in creating other problems like was pointed out the fact that partners have been purchasing these pills and spiking the drinks of their pregnant significant other in order to see that that child is aborted so much for women's choice you can look it up there are cases all over the country all over the country. Now we're going to make it even more available on college campuses. We ran an amendment to say, hey, at the very least, let's make sure that the college health center, the group that knows that this girl has taken these, that they follow up. We know for sure that they follow up at least twice. Because when you look at the complications, whether they be physical or mental, emotional it's important that somebody check in and we didn't adopt that standard so here you have potentially an 18 year old girl who is in her first month of college got pregnant in her first week doesn't know anyone in the state possibly who's gone to the health center got this set of pills is taking it, has adverse reactions, still doesn't know what to do or who to go to. My heart grieves for such a girl. My heart grieves that one out of ten girls in our universities who take these pills will likely find herself in a really bad way and possibly without any support there. And yes, it's true, she can buy it at the local pharmacy. And that would be her choice, but it's different when we as a state mandate that this quote-unquote care be provided and not actually provide any support around it. I'll also note that in that same study, they found that a little bit more than 5% of women undergo a second abortion attempt within 45 days of the first. indicating that the first set of pills failed another layer of trauma I know that I here there in yonder about what I speaking and probably lending more confusion than clarity and I apologize for that All I can say is that I believe this bill does way more harm than even those who support abortion might note on first glance. I think it's devastating. Devastating that we would invite our young people into health centers that are formed and marketed as if they're for their good, as if they have this great amount of knowledge, who then give these pills and allow these girls to give birth to a dead baby in their dormitories to see that formed child in the toilet to, as I mentioned on Friday...

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I mentioned on Friday, to then need counseling and support for suicidal ideation, to possibly be hemorrhaging, to maybe becoming infertile, and all because they trusted us to do what was in their best interest, and we failed to provide the guardrails necessary to do just that. I ask for no vote.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This has a lot of implications, and it's very important that we consider all the implications when we move into the promotion of death. And this is the promotion of death, the promotion of averted birth. If feticide is health care, then pregnancy is illness, and it can be compelled. It happened in China. If we consider death-inducing chemical as medicine, then people are a disease. So as a formerly pre-born person, speaking on behalf of currently pre-born persons, I can assure you that there are none in favor of being slowly suffocated or starved. and pill one we know is the feticide pill because there's two there's feticide and there's abortion abortion of course is a natural procedure of expelling of unviable pregnancy induced abortion is something entirely different induced is a choice so it's really kind of a it's really kind of a slap in the face to people who have gone through the natural and suffered through the natural to conflate it. So that's why I refer to it as feticide, pure and simple, because it's the killing of a preborn person, and a fetus is just a small human. And that small human whoever takes pill one and then pill two is going to be confronted with that small human in their fearfully and wonderfully made status because the pregnancy does not simply go away Because what should probably be discussed is that using procreation as recreation results in tiny humans. And those tiny humans have, those persons, have all the same rights. And rights are one of those funny things, and rights come with responsibility. And if you declare, well, rights are founded on responsibility, so actually the responsibility comes first. If you don't have, if you don't exercise the responsibility, you don't have the right. And when you cede the responsibility, you lose the right. And so when we deny, when we deny, and so here's the issue with a death cult such as this, that we are going in the same direction as other countries that are now actively euthanizing their citizens. Because if one person, because rights are funny things, they're either all for one or they're none for all. Bills like this ensure that we have no rights for anybody. There are no rights. Rights, per our Constitution, per our legal founding, are certain self-evident and creator endowed. If there's no creator, then there's no rights. And that's the state position. The state position says you have no right to raise your children. You have no right you have no rights. You only have those rights, those privileges that are endowed to you by the state, that are afforded to you by the state, and what the state giveth the state can taketh away. Representative DeGraffalos, you

So when we look at a process that actively seeks out to deprive pre-born

Representative DeGrafio, 40 seconds remaining.

Representative Marshall.

Representative Garcia.

Representative Garcia.

Seeing no further discussion, The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1335 on third reading final passage.

Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes yes. Representative Flannell, how do you vote?

Please close the machine. with 41 I, 22 no, and 2 excused. House Bill 1335 is adopted. Co-sponsors.

Representative Lindsay co-sponsors. Please close the machine.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1276 on third reading and final passage.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to go on the record because this vote is very and extremely hard and difficult for me. In fact, I actually lost sleep over the weekend thinking about it. And first, I just want to commend the sponsors for their work on it because I know that there was some, what I said in the finance committee expressing my concerns and I appreciate them working on or leaving some of those concerns. And so I went back to my district and I talked with a lot of people in my district, especially people that I know that are undocumented specifically about this bill. And we had a very good discussion on it. And I just, I know there's a lot of changes that made it easier to agree with. I'm still struggling with the idea that while Colorado roads are deteriorating, our healthcare system is failing, Students in K are not performing at grade level Our budget is out of control We are spending time debating federal policy that i struggle to believe is acting in a matter that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want me to believe it is i also want to reiterate that i am not putting my party above my district i will always put my district above my party and i will never ever never apologize for that i want i know that a large majority of my district are immigrants and many of them fear that ICE will move in and take their loved ones away. I also want to go on the record that I monitor the situation with ICE in my district. When this administration came in last year, I had a feeling that maybe ICE would be an issue to deal with, and so I have been continuously monitoring the ICE situation in my district and the people in my district who have those concerns. I worry that this bill like this might potentially perpetuate political violence that is leading to things that have led up to what we have seen in the White House Correspondents Dinner. We have to find a way to work together and stop alienating each other through the fear of our country. And so I want the sponsors also to know that I will be touring these immigration facilities. Like I said, the invitation is open and I want to go on record that I will be looking at these places for myself. But like I said, this is a very difficult vote for me. This is not putting my party above my district. And so I just went back and I had these discussions with people who this would maybe particularly impact and coming to an understanding that, you know, as long as I'm able to see these things for myself and continue to work on finding a way forward of what the state can do without interfering federal policy. Because at the end of the day, immigration law is federal policy. And I understand that due process and a humane, fair treatment and all the things that I said in committee. And so I wanted to get to you, yes, I really did, but I just couldn't get there. I struggle with it and this is a difficult one for me, but I just want to go to record. and for the living. I know that we have many problems here in the state that we can do. And I have my promise that I'm going to listen to them. I'm going to continue to fight for you. And pass the laws that really serve in our community so that we are safe. And for those reasons, I just have to be a no vote.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do want to just acknowledge really quick that we were told, you make this change. You get a certain entity to neutral, and I will vote yes. Clearly that's not happening right now.

Yes. To the bill. Thank you. I also want to clarify the difference between federal immigration policy and what we are doing here. We are not actually trying to grant anyone citizenship in this bill. That is 100% federal jurisdiction. We are not declaring who can and can't be deported. That is 100% federal jurisdiction. We are not even saying you cannot detain people here. What we are saying is if you are going to detain people here on Colorado land, you have to abide by Colorado policy. And that means healthy conditions. That means good food. That means lighting. That means you're not letting kids sleep on the floor Men in blankets. Y también yo quiero hablar a la comunidad hispanohablante. Lo siento, lo siento muchísimo que hay personas con quien pensamos que podemos tener confianza. La verdad es que no podemos tener confianza en ellos. Lo siento. Ask for a yes vote.

Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote.

Yes.

No. Representative Flannell votes no.

Representative Lindsay, co-sponsors.

Madam Majority Leader Thank you Madam Speaker I move to lay over House Bill 1281 until tomorrow

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 120. Senate Bill 120 by Senators Marchman and Wallace, also Representatives Okian Bradley, concerning law enforcement procedures related to missing persons. Madam Majority Leader.

The motion before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 120 on third reading, final passage.

Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes yes. Representative Flannell, how do you vote?

Representative Flannell votes yes. Members, we are still on thirds. Please keep your voices down. To Graff and Gilchrist. Please close the machine. With 60 I, 3 no, and 2 excuse, Senate Bill 120 is adopted. Co-sponsors.

Please close the machine Any additional announcements or introductions? Seeing none, we have some business to tend to, and then we will close out.

Madam Majority Leader.

Seeing no objection, the balance of the calendar will be laid over until tomorrow, April 28. Madam Majority Leader.

Seeing no objection, the House will stand in recess until later today.