Colorado House 2026 Legislative Day 059

place. Amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Representatives Bacon, Barone, Basenecker, Bottoms, Bradfield, Bradley, Brooks, Brown, Caldwell Camacho Carter Clifford DeGraff Duran English Espinoza Foray Flannell Froelich Garcia Garcia Sander Rep. Garcia Sander Gilchrist Goldstein Gonzalez Hamrick Hartsook Jackson Johnson Joseph Kelty Leader Representative Leader Excuse She's here Lindsay Luck Representative Luck Excuse Lukens, Mabry, Marshall, Martinez, Morrow, McCormick, Winn, Pascal, Phillips, Richardson, Ricks. Representative Ricks. Excuse. Rutanel. Here. Sirota. Here. Slaw. Here. Smith. Soper. Representative Soper. of Soper, excuse, Stuart K., Stuart R., Story, Sukla, Taggart, Titone, Valdez A., Velasco, Weinberg Wilford Winter Woodrow Woog Zokai and Madam Speaker Here.

Madam Speaker, it is an honor to serve with you.

With that said, Madam Speaker, I move that journal of Thursday, March 12, 2026, to be approved as corrected by the chief clerk.

Aye.

No.

Madam Speaker, thank you very much. Does the House take Venmo? I don't know.

Great. I know I'm $5 in the hole, and when I have $5 in my pocket, I will give it to you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It'll just be me today. And I apologize, you can't read my handwriting every time I sign up.

So we have Colorado Children's Hospital professionals from all aspects of their agencies and departments here today to learn about the legislative process, to get engaged, to share their stories on health care and how we can better help our children stay healthy or get healthy. If you could please recognize all of our amazing experts from Colorado Children's. And sometime this morning please come by and say hi They be here throughout the day They may end up in the chamber at some point but please reach out say hi and listen to their stories

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wanted to welcome students from the St. Vrain Valley School District that are here today. Please stand up, and I would ask my colleagues on this side of the room to please help them out when they're wondering what we're doing down here, and they turn to you with perplexed looks. I also want to welcome our school board member. School board member Babs is also here with us today, so give them a round of applause and help them out.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Monday morning, 8 o'clock in the morning, Please come to Joint Technology Committee. We're going to finish our discussion on a referred budget request. I know it's Monday at 8 o'clock. We've got to get this done. Please come and be on time.

Good morning. Happy Friday, Madam Speaker.

All right, members, if I could have your attention. We've got some really special guests over here to my right. We've got the two-legged and the four-legged guests over here. We've got some furry little critters. so the the dogs we've got gunner we have scout and then we have master trooper hapton and we have trooper crenshaw that's doing like an amazing job there so let me give you a little bit about the dogs over here so this is the state police this is their canine unit uh first began here in the 20s the army and i've served overseas i i never had was in the canine corps but i've seen them working they do amazing work And that goes all the way back to 42. So in June of 2001, the State Patrol's explosive detection canine team began. Master Trooper Hampton over here and Trooper Crenshaw are the first handlers for this team. Trooper Crenshaw has been a trooper for 11 years and has been with the explosive detection for almost five years along with Scout, who's one of the original canines. Scout is a five-year-old German short-haired pointer, and that's the one that she was hoisting up a moment ago. Then we have Master Trooper Hampton, who's been a trooper for 27 years. He's been assigned to the Explosive Detection K-9 Handlers for five years as well. And he has Gunner, which is the short-haired lab sitting over there. Gunner is his second K-9, and he's a three-year-old. Both teams are primarily assigned to the Capitol and Judicial Building, so they are the ones that help provide protection for all of us around here when they're going through the Capitol. They assist with the Governor's Protection Detail, travel with the Colorado Supreme Court, the appellate court justices, and assist partner agencies throughout the state. Both Scout and Gunner are trained to detect 25 different explosive orders and use to find shell casing and guns. They help keep us safe. They do an amazing job, and thank you so kindly. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you for your service.

Thank you to the MSU team. And company. Yep. Lukens. Lukens. Megan.

No, are you?

And Rep Barone is a proud alum.

Go Road Runners. Beep, beep.

Members, can I have your attention, please? Madam Speaker, I request a moment of personal privilege.

Thank you. It is an honor to serve with you. It is an honor to serve with you. Good morning, colleagues. I rise because yesterday, in a town called West Bloomfield, a terrorist drove a truck loaded with explosives into Temple Israel, the largest reformed synagogue in North America. After he rammed into the building, he engaged in gunfire with the security team, who eventually neutralized him as a threat. Of course, this isn't the only suspected terrorist attack that has been in the news lately, and Jews are not the only targets. Yesterday, a convicted ISIS supporter opened fire at Old Dominion University, killing one and injuring others. Over the weekend, two young men used homemade explosives to attack a protest outside of New York City Mayor Mandani's residence. Yet it is impossible to discount the rise in anti-Semitism. According to the Anti-Defamation League, there were more than 9,300 cases across the country in 2024, the highest number on record since they started keeping track in 1979. Many of you have likely seen the attack earlier this week in San Jose on two men speaking Hebrew, or videos of people outwardly sporting swastika tattoos. And how could we forget that it was just this past June that Jews were burned in our own beloved boulder? To be sure, the problem is global. Within the last two weeks, Toronto has had three separate synagogues come under fire. In December, it was the devastating attack at Bondi Beach in Australia. What made yesterday different is that West Bloomfield, a suburb nestled 30 minutes northwest of downtown Detroit, is my hometown. Temple Israel is where my friends send their kids to preschool. It is where I've celebrated countless bar mitzvahs and weddings. Rabbi Josh officiated my wedding. It is where my mom serves as the recording secretary for the Temple Sisterhood. Fred Rogers quoting his own mom used to say that when we see scary things on the news look for help look for the helpers you will always find people helping that was especially true yesterday I am beyond grateful for the heroic security team and law enforcement agents who undoubtedly saved lives for the educators who followed their training and kept their students calm and safe, for Shenandoah Country Club that took in and cared for fleeing students and staff, and for the entire Detroit Jewish community, which is one of the most vibrant and close-knit enclaves of Jews living out their Jewish values anywhere on the planet. These values include an immutable belief in family, tradition, education, kindness, and charity. Perhaps above all else they include tikkun olam The idea that the world is a broken place And it is our job to do our part to fix it The world is indeed so broken right now So badly in need of fixing and healing My heart breaks for all the suffering in the Middle East From Iran to Gaza and everywhere in between From the last few years to the last few weeks it has all been beyond devastating. And now the disease that plagues us has come crashing through the door, and we all must do our part to stamp it out, so that courage may conquer fear, hope may defeat dismay, and love may triumph over hate. I have two asks of you today. First, as we do our work the second half of session, let's do it with what we Jews call chesed, righteous kindness. with hearts filled with compassion, minds open to persuasion, and words crafted with consideration. As President Kennedy once said, the unity of freedom has never relied on uniformity of opinion. For our remaining 60 days, let's let this chamber serve as an example for how people who often and strongly disagree can settle their differences with care, curiosity, and respect. It would honor my hometown. and bring us one step closer to healing this broken world of ours for us to do so. Second, if you are able, please join me in the Jewish caucus to welcome Shabbat that starts this evening. Come to my office, we'll light Shabbos candles, and we'll say the brachot over challah and wine. As we close out the week, let us come together in prayer and planning for better days ahead. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move to lay over House Bill 1130 until Monday, March 16th.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1259. House Bill 1259 by Representative Sirota, also Senators Marchman and Bridges, concerning changing requirements related to early childhood services and a connection therewith, clarifying or extending specified existing licensing exemptions, updating early care and education, provide a reimbursement modifying certain existing funding provisions for the universal preschool program, clarifying certain existing program eligibility and reporting requirements, and adjusting the membership or duties of specified early childhood advisory bodies.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1259 on third reading, final passage.

No. No.

Mr. Schiebel, Please read the title to House Bill 1229. House Bill 1229 by Representatives Taggart and Ferre, also Senators Mabley and Rich, concerning authorizing the health disparities and community grant program to consider the human-animal bond as a social determinant of health. Madam Majority Leader.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1229 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

Representative DeGraff, how do you vote?

Representative DeGraff votes no. Please close the machine With 55 I 8 no and 2 excused House Bill 1229 is adopted Co-sponsors. Please close the machine.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1232 on third reading and final passage

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

Representative DeGraff votes no.

No.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1239 House Bill 1239 by Representatives Goldstein and Richardson also Senator Mulca, concerning modifications to a county's enforcement authority in connection with property in the county Madam Majority Leader

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1239 on third reading and final passage

No.

Representative Garcia-Sander, how do you vote?

Representative Garcia-Sander votes yes. Please close the machine. With 53 I, 10 no, and 2 excused, House Bill 1239 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1079 on third reading and final passage.

oh good morning members i sorry i very emotional with everything going on in this world right now it it a sad state Thank you for standing You do not have to Sorry. September 11th was the worst night of my life and every parent's worst nightmare. We received a phone call from the chaplain at Parker at Venice Hospital to come quick. Your son is critical. with no other details to offer. When we got there, we were ushered into a private room where a nurse told us our son was very injured and we would have to wait for more details. We would later learn that he needed two units of blood just to get him to the hospital and thank God for EMS. He sustained so many injuries. He had a grade 3 kidney laceration, double pneumothorax that were causing him grave danger. They were desperately trying to stabilize both of these injuries and were unsure if he would make it through the night. They told us to go into the room as he lay there, ventilated with more tubes and machines I have ever seen on one body, and tell him to fight like he has never fought before. And he did, one day at a time. Over 25 fractures riddled his body and massive internal injuries. and as I spent every day and night with him, I vowed to try to make sure no other parent felt this pain. So I reached out and we began looking at the law and we found this loophole. Does this go far enough? It does not. It is a good first step to try and prevent serious injury and death. We have children dying on motorcycles. Every day in Colorado, it has gone up substantially and we must take care of these kids. I wanted to ban motorcycles, to be quite honest with you, but I can't do that. So this bill will prevent anyone over the age of 21 writing an instruction permit for a child. It needs to be along with the parents and the guardians so we can help keep these minors safe. They have to stop dying. Cole has lost three friends of motorcycles alone. So thank you for standing and thank you for listening to this mother's heartbreak as she watched over her child fighting for his life. And thank you for your support of me in this journey and for supporting this bill. And to the rep from Larimer, thank you for getting on this bill with me. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, thank you. I suppose it's the first time for everything, and I believe that in this case, I'm actually honored that this is the first time that I have asked to do this. I ask permission to run an amendment on third reading. Please briefly explain. The very brief explanation is that I am asking to change the short title of the bill. Thank you.

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

Representative DeGraff votes yes.

Yes.

Madam Speaker, thank you. 004 to House Bill 1079, now said to be displayed.

Madam Speaker, I don't know that this needs tremendous explanation. It is asking to change the short title of 1079 to simply the Cole Bradley Act, and I would ask for your support to do so.

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

Representative DeGraff votes yes.

Yes.

Madam Majority Leader Thank you Madam Speaker I move House Bill 1079 as amended on third reading and final passage

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

Representative DeGraff votes yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1244. House Bill 1244 by Representatives Law and Joseph, also Senators Frizzell and Exum, concerning considerations for the Department of Public Health and Environment to use as a basis for making distributions from the Nursing Home Penalty Cash Fund.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1244 on third reading, final passage.

No.

Representative Garcia-Sander, how do you vote?

Representative Garcia-Sander votes yes. Please close the machine. With 62 I 2 no and 1 excused House Bill 1244 is adopted Co Please close the machine. Members, we are proceeding to consideration of Senate amendments to House bills.

Seeing no objection, we will proceed out of order for consideration of Senate amendments to House bills.

Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move to concur in Senate amendments to House Bill 1001.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. in the Senate. They made several well-negotiated changes, including ensuring that the bill focuses on infill opportunities and not development in rural areas, exempting industrial land, exempting parcels that are subject to IGA's, clarifying affordability requirements, adding some guardrails to the property's size, life safety codes, height requirements, public input, historic district standards, et cetera. All in all, these changes I think really center the development where we want it to be, where there's resources, where people need additional housing. And as a result of these changes, we were able to put many, if not most of the concerns from a lot of our counties to rest. So we appreciate these amendments, and we ask for your support.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, we ask that you concur with the 97 amendments that were made in the Senate.

An embellishment, he says.

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

Representative DeGraff votes no.

No.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move for the repassage of House Bill 1001 as amended.

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

Representative DeGraff votes no.

No.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the reports of committees of reference. Committee on Agriculture, Water, and Natural Resources. After consideration on the merits, the committee recommends the following. House Bill 1253 be amended as followed. Not so amended be referred to the committee of the whole with favor of recommendation. Committee on Appropriations. After consideration on the merits, the committee recommends the following. House Bills 1053 is amended, 1187, 1194, 1207, and 1280, be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorableUC recommendation. The Committee on Business, Affairs and Labor after consideration on the municipality. intaora recommends the following. House Bill 1210 be amended as followed. And so amended. Be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation. House Bill 1291 be postponed indefinitely. Committee on Energy Environment after consideration on the municipality. Committee recommends the following. House Bill 1279 be postponed indefinitely. Committee on Finance after consideration on the municipality. Communications the following. House Bill 1043 be referred favorably to the Committee on Appropriations. and Senate Bill 39 be amended as followed. As so amended, be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation. Committee on State, Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs after consideration of the emergency committee recommends the following House Bill 1252 as amended and Senate Bill 84 be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation. House Bill 1254 be postponed indefinitely. Printing report. The chief clerk reports. Printing report will be printed in the journal.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move the following bills be made special orders on March 13, 2026 at 9.54 a.m. House Bill 1019, House Bill 1280, House Bill 1268, House Bill 1139, House Bill 1187 House Bill 1053, House Bill 1208, House Bill 1297, House Bill 1194, House Bill 1303 1303, House Bill 1116, Senate Bill 11, House Bill 1262, House Bill 1203, House Bill 1207, and Senate Bill 32.

Madam Speaker, I would have done the House to resolve itself and give all of our consideration for special orders.

Thank you Thank you. Thank you. The committee will come to order. With your unanimous consent, the bills will be read by title unless there is a request for reading of a bill at length. Committee reports are printed in your bill floaters. Floor amendments will be shown on the screen. bills will be laid over upon motion of the majority leader and the coat rule is relaxed Mr. Shebo please read the title of the House Bill 1019

Representative Leader Thank you Mr. Chair and it's an honor to serve with you It's an honor to serve with you So I move House Bill 2610-19 and the committee report. To the committee report. What the bill does is it's concerning mandatory health care coverages for preventative kidney function services. So Representative Bacon and I are the co-prime sponsors of House Bill 2610-19. I introduced the bill because early detection of chronic kidney disease saves lives and saves money. But too many Coloradans don't know to get screened. Among the 800,000 Coloradans with hypertension, diabetes, or both, an estimated 144,000 likely have advanced chronic kidney disease. It remains undiagnosed. One out of every seven Americans has chronic kidney disease. and up to 90% don't know they have it. Without early detection, kidney disease progresses to stages that require dialysis, transplants, patients' out-of-pocket costs escalate from $208 a month annually for stage 1 chronic kidney disease to over $10,000 for end-stage renal disease. The cost of early screening is minimal. Each comprehensive Hands of kidney. Members, it's already too loud in here.

Rep. Leader, are we talking about the committee report? Okay, great. Yes. So the Kidney Disease Prevention and Education Task Force established under House Bill 21-1171, which I sit on, identified early detection through accessible screening. It's critical to reduce health complications and financial strains on Colorado residents and our health care system. And this bill implements those recommendations by requiring health insurance coverage for annual preventative kidney function screening services without cost sharing. Thank you. A.M.L. Bacon. I was going to do maybe a beatbox or hip-hop line for this, because it might not be as riveting given the room, but I think it goes something like, this goes out to all of us on dialysis, this bill helps with insurance analysis. Nobody? Okay. So. I liked it. members for those of you who are listening but also to those who supported this bill we do want to thank those from their rare disease community as well as those who have been fighting for a long time to talk about kidney disease so first we want to thank you all for your stewardship and for your engagement in the Capitol for so long. I do hope that you see both of us representing your interests and that we know that the things and the complications that you fight against every day, we want you to know that you are heard and received and hopefully that this bill might support. Members, House Bill 1019 is important in the sense that for the first time maybe in five years, we are saying that kidney screening must be considered preventative care and therefore covered as such by insurance policies. We know the devastating impacts of this disease, and we know, quite frankly, those who might be exposed to it. While our data shows that there are some communities, particularly communities of color, that are disproportionately impacted by this disease, particularly kidney disease. We also know that this disease hits every community in different ways. We want to thank all the folks who came to share about their journey with lupus, for example, and why it is that they need this to be covered. If you all did not know, the relative cost to treating diabetes and hypertension is very inexpensive, low-cost pills. But the cost of having to deal with dialysis every day, the cost of having to be put on a transplant list, let alone the cost of going through a transplant, are astronomical. And so I'd like to say this generally to all of us as well because I want to thank the committee for the conversations and the debates that we had. You know, health care and the cost of it are really important to this state. I think it is the focal point of our budget issues this year And I like to say that this issue is not something that we call a peekaboo issue as if you were a toddler You know if you can see it it not going to be there by way of costs For those that we don't cover this way, in the lower cost from the preventative angle, the costs do come back to us as a matter of the state. We will either have to support people who cannot afford their health care and their dialysis or their transplants or hospital stays. And so the last reason we're going to ask for support on this bill, even though we're talking about coverage out in the landscape, is because it is an investment. And we have the data to show, we have the cost-benefit analysis that says for the low cost of treating this as preventative, we will save millions down the line. because we will not, as a state, have to support those who cannot afford their health care or to the families who are privately insured. They won't have to pay the high costs of something that was very preventable. And with that, we just want to end here as the entire bill, the reason why we're speaking to the committee report, the entire bill was through the strike below and therefore the committee report. And we look forward to discussion. So any further discussion on the committee report? Rep. Bradley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the bill sponsors for their heartfelt stories and committee and all the people that came to testify. Truly very moving. And I just appreciate when we bring things from the heart because of things that have impacted us in our lives. And clearly I just did the same thing. I have a little bit of a problem with, and I get that we're in a fiscal crisis, but carving out. If we're going to mandate something on carriers and then we carve out, I go back to the baby diaper changing stations where we're making small businesses put them in, but we're carving out the state building. So in this bill, state employee insurance is offered through two insurers, Kaiser and Cigna. Kaiser offers fully insured plans subject to state regulation, while Cigna administers self-funded plans regulated under federal law that are also required to cover all mandatory benefits outlined in state law. So this carve-out seems a little bit like the rules for thee and not for me kind of thing, that we're carving out certain carriers and then forcing other ones to mandate this. So I move Amendment L-003 to the committee report and ask for it to be displayed. That is properly displayed to the amendment. Rep. Bradley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So what this is doing is striking part of Section 3. The specification is drawn by the director for any group benefit plan. Goodness. Plans. excuse me, must include the mandated coverages required by section 1016.104, except that the specifications must not include coverage for kidney function screening services. This is just adding those plans back in. If we're going to mandate something, we have to mandate it for all. And I would urge an aye vote on this, please. Any further discussion? Rep Luck. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in support of this amendment as the bill sponsors noted this particular policy will over time on a cost analysis actually be beneficial to insurance carriers as well as to patients because if it is caught early then it will be able to be treated at a much reduced cost And so in this instance, basically what we're talking about is a penny of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I say this specifically to the JBC members because if we do allow this to be in the bill and say that this is part now of state plans and this cost-benefit analysis is accurate, then indeed we would be able to reduce overall structural deficit because we wouldn't be spending $100,000 to treat folks with kidney disease. We would already be treating them in the short time for something what was testified to in committee of $2,000. And so I think that this is not only a fairness issue, as was raised by the prior representative from Douglas County, but it is a long-term fiscal issue that would help to sustain budgetary cycles. Any further discussion on L3? Rep. Leader. We asked for a no vote. We have heavily staked this with the state workers and the fact that WINS can only negotiate their contract every five years. It wouldn't be able to apply. So they are absolutely in agreement with them. And with the actuary report that we did for Senate Bill 40, I believe it was 2021 that did this, the actuary report will actually help them when they come to negotiate their benefits because then they will be able to get this put into their contract which they cannot do anything for every five years I ask for a no vote Any further discussion? Seeing none of the motion before us Amel Bacon Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of L3. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed to say no. No. L3 fails. To the committee report. Seeing no further discussion on the committee report, the motion before us is the adoption of the Health and Human Services Committee Report to House Bill 1019. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed to say no, the committee report is adopted. To the bill. Rep. Bradley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to outline a couple of things with mandates from my side of the aisle that we typically do not like mandates. And so I'm standing for principle, not for the policy being discussed. And some factual evidence. economic research on benefit mandates broadly finds that each mandated benefit raises premiums. And so that's why I'm up here talking for my district. Raising premiums adds cost to their insurance every month, and they are begging for financial help in our state. One multi-state study using medical expenditure panel survey data estimated that each additional mandate benefit increases average health insurance premiums by roughly 0 with coverage of a specific benefit mandates like required screening tests in this bill having the largest impact Another study of the Affordable Care Act dependent coverage mandate found that this single federal mandate increased family plan premiums by about 2.5 to 2.8 percent. It's so loud in here. It's too loud.

Thank you. By about 2.5 to 2.8 percent, illustrating that seemingly narrow coverage requirements can add materially to cost. Colorado has a clear track record. Every time it has turned a clinical recommendation into a no-cost screening mandate, premiums have had to absorb more cost. And HB 261019 fits that same pattern. osteoporosis screening was added to Colorado's preventative care mandates through SB 2156, SB 21016, and must now be covered without deductibles, co-pays, or co-insurance, explicitly expanding the list of services that carriers must pay for it in full. Breast imaging was expanded under HB 19-1301 so that insurers must cover guideline-based mammography and follow-up advanced imaging at no additional cost on the day of service. A University of Colorado economic analysis concluded that this policy was not at all justified economically because without any state subsidy, it forces insurers to raise premiums and makes it harder for low-income families to afford coverage, which is the people we're trying to cover right now. Medicaid reimbursement for postpartum depression screening in Colorado led to a 9.6 percentage point increase in bills, screens, and higher rates of diagnostic mood and anxiety disorders in outpatient treatment, meaning more services being paid for out of public and private insurance dollars. Taken together, these examples show that when Colorado mandates first-dollar coverage for screenings, osteoporosis, postpartum depression, and breast imaging, the result is predictable. higher utilization of covered services and higher claims costs that must be recouped through premiums, with analysts and insurers warning that mandates are a direct contributor to rising prices. This bill would add kidney function screening to the same no-cost sharing list for virtually all insured plans, at precisely the moment when Connect for Colorado and Outside Analysis project that net premiums for many consumers will roughly double as substances expire and base rates climb. The strongest conservative argument is that Colorado has already seen how screening mandates work in practice. They expand benefits for some but push premiums higher for everyone, especially unsubsidized and middle-income buyers. And this bill repeats that mistake instead of letting insurers and employers design kidney screening coverage based on actuary value and consumer demand. I talked a lot in committee that no state has mandated this and that we as a community, like 9 News Health did, should start getting into the community more. Several states encourage screening through task force or public health initiatives like Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, California, and Texas. I feel like this should be a community emphasized, especially for underserved populations who can't get to the doctor in the first place. We need to go to them. We need to come to them in a community effort to help screen the people of Colorado. 37 million Americans have chronic kidney disease and 90% don't even know it. It is a problem. But is it a problem to mandate the insurance companies or do we owe it to our communities, especially underserved communities to go to them and help screen them. So for that, I will be a no vote, but respect the sponsors for bringing this bill forward. Thank you. A.M.L. Bacon. Thank you. No. No. I want to – was I recognized? Oh, sorry. I was? A.M.L. Bacon, you were, yes. You were recognized. So I want to thank the representative from Douglas County for raising some of these issues. I think they're fair when we talk about health care. And I do know we're here on second reading, and I just want to put some things on the record for those who might look it up so we can save some time on third reading. Nobody? Okay. And so I do want to say this. Yes, Colorado would be the first, but we are a state that has to be, that is put in a very precarious position right now in figuring out our investments, particularly around health care. Yes, I do agree that we should do outreach in communities. In fact, from the public health perspective, the reason why we've been able to mitigate a lot of diseases is because we have seen that kind of outreach. But the only problem we have with that is outreach is great, but then when people have to actually go to the doctors to get screened, those screenings would not be covered. And especially in communities that are already struggling to finance health care. We have heard from communities, like our rural communities, if they're struggling to even keep hospitals open and there isn't money to support that, how could we be in a place to ask those who are particularly the most disenfranchised, who are also prone to these diseases, quite frankly, because of the quality of our food, right? That even though they would know the signs to be screened, how could they still be covered to do it, and that is the question. And so in regards to the costs, we do believe in responsible policymaking. There was an analysis done by the Colorado Department of Insurance, an actuarial analysis, and this is what we want to put on the record, not just for us, but to understand what's happening in health care costs, okay? In the actuarial reports on page three and four, According to our own division, this should cost $0.03 a month or $0.36 per year or $3.60 every 10 years. And what we heard from insurance companies was literally over 100 times that amount. And so it's one thing to figure out how much something is at cost versus how much something is to make a profit margin. And the saddest part is we're talking about preventative care with that. And so if we're hearing quotes back higher than three cents per month on a pill or a screening, I can't imagine what the differential is on a kidney transplant or dialysis. And when I said peekaboo earlier, and even for the conversation with our state employees, when people can't pay that the state pays that we pay for that ambulance ride we pay for that emergency room visit we pay for the admittance into a hospital we might even pay for dialysis and so yeah we're saying let's have this be covered here if we are the first i am sure it's going to get there only because we have learned so much about kidney disease in the last 10 15 years alone We have mastered the cost of treating type 2 And then for our babies God forbid who have to have ports think about those families and the stressors and what we can do to recognize earlier to support them better. When we put this in the exchange, and you heard from the state employees they negotiate every five years, when they negotiate, they will include this in their conversations. But this state needs to be responsible, and we need to be responsive to our communities. And if we have set up a whole task force, if we set up a whole actuarial study, we have come to the inclusion, per the recommendations, that the costs are not only able to easily be mitigated, but more importantly we can help save lives and I'm okay with being first I can appreciate our community's feelings on mandates I really can but sometimes we do them it's okay to disagree with them but sometimes we do them and sometimes down the line all of us can feel the benefits of that so the last time we did do a mandate in the state for coverage it was for breast cancer screening and osteoporosis. And some people didn't like it then, but I'm telling you, when I think about now reducing the stresses of that mammogram, I'm not going to get more specific because it's kind of gross. I want to say thank you, Colorado. Okay. So members, thank you very much for the discussion, including all of us across both sides of the aisle. We urge an I vote. Rep. Leader. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So just like your annual exam, this is straightforward preventative care. The Affordable Care Act requires coverage for cancer screening, as my good colleague said. Heart disease screening and diabetes screening. Kidney disease is the ninth leading cause of death globally. Early detection works, it saves money, and it saves lives. I ask for an aye vote. Reb Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I did hear when they were talking about the mammograms, the woman's chest exams. We did that last year and I have concerns because it's still not being implemented. Those who have sought them are being denied still. So I am scared by putting more mandates on this that will drive up costs. And we did something like this last year and patients are still being denied. So I'm curious how that's going to help with this disconnect for those who mostly need it and wondering if the sponsors have any answer to that. Rep around. Thank you Mr. Chair. So I come up here, and I want to go ahead and reiterate that I appreciate the sponsor for bringing this up. I understand it is needed. I have kidney failure history in my family. Thank God I don't have it. I've prevented it. I've tested for it myself because I know that history. The only thing is that in doing so, this is actually my concern is raising the premiums for everybody else. everybody else that doesn't have this history of kidney disease. And I was in ledge committee this morning on a supplemental for LCS, and the main focus of that supplemental was health, dental, and vision insurance. When premiums go up, it affects. I know this bill specifically is not going to affect us as a state, which is it was carved out which I don agree with at the same time because it was carved out because it created a fiscal note Now imagine what it going to do with the premiums to the people that are buying these insurances That's my main concern, is premiums go enough for everyone else. I paid for that testing. I requested that testing because I knew that I needed to do so because of my history, my family history. there were there were some testimonies in committee i was in committee for this one there was some testimonies in committee uh that of course these uh these these testimonies came forward and said i thank god that i tested for but because they were they were proactive about it now this this is this is not required yet but they they were able to save themselves because they were proactive on it now i understand not everybody can be proactive Sometimes it just happens out of nowhere, but at the same time, everybody else is going to have to pay higher premiums because of this mandate. I don't agree with a mandate, of course. I do agree that this is a problem. I'm at risk for kidney disease, but I am proactive about it, and I have those concerns. Rep. Leader. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And to my good colleague here, and I can't remember the county because you all got too many, but they should not be denying you. That's absolutely absurd. And this is preventative care services. This is for everybody, and they should not be denying you. This is why we are mandating it, just as with the screenings. And I will work with you with that. Let me know, because they should not be mandated now. It's passed a long time ago. And there's an appeal process, and they should have been absolutely covered as well as everybody should be absolutely covered with this. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1019. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed to say no. The bill passes. Mr. Shebo, please read the title of House Bill 1280.

It's not really the Leader Show, but you've got one more after this. So thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 26-1280 to the committee. Oh, yeah. Yep, that's proper motion. to the bill, rep leader. So I'm here to present House Bill 1280 concerning the continuation of regulation of hemodialysis treatment by the Department of Public Health and Environment. This bill is straightforward, but a vital piece of housekeeping for our state's health care system. It implements the recommendations from the 2025 Sunset Report to continue the regulations of hemodialysis clinic and technicians for another 11 years, extending the program's life to September 1st of 2037. them. To appreciate why this oversight matters, we have to look at what those patients go through. For a person with kidney failure, hemodialysis is quite literally their lifeline. Think of the machine as an artificial kidney. During a session, a patient's blood is pumped out of their body and through a specialized filter called a dialyzer This machine does the heavy lifting when their body can no longer do It scrubs toxins from the blood balances electrolytes and removes excess fluid This isn't a one-time procedure. Most patients visit one of Colorado's 83 licensed facilities three times a week for sessions that last about four hours each. Without this consistent, high-quality care, the buildup of toxins in the body become fatal very quickly. Because this process involves circulating a patient's entire blood supply through a machine, the margin for error is zero. That is where the Department of Public Health and Environment comes in. Representative Hamrick. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our state regulators ensure these clinics meet rigorous safety and sanitation standards. While the state doesn't license individual technicians, this program requires clinics to strictly verify the credentials of every technician on staff. These technicians are the ones performing vascular access, meaning they are responsible for the needles and sterile connection to the machine. It is a testament to the success of this current regulatory model that we have seen zero disciplinary actions in this program over the last five years. This system is working exactly as intended, quietly and effectively protecting Colorado patients. Financially, this bill is a win for taxpayers. The program is entirely cash-funded by the industry, meaning it pays for itself without requiring a single dollar from the general fund. Colleagues, this is about providing stability for a very vulnerable population. By extending this regulation to 2037, we are ensuring that when a Colorado neighbor walks into a dialysis clinic, They can trust that the water is pure, the machines are calibrated, and the staff is qualified. I respectfully ask for an aye vote on House Bill 26-1280.

Aye.

House Bill 1268 by Representatives McCormick and Smith, also Senator Lindstedt, concerning measures to advance renewable energy products on previously disturbed lands through the designation of renewable energy reinvestment areas.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1268 and the Energy and Environment Report. To the committee report. In committee, we brought a strike below amendment that incorporated a lot of feedback that we got from many stakeholders across the state to make this a workable solution for our local governments, for our tribes, for our oil and gas community, for the Department of Natural Resources and CDPHE. So it was simpler to bring a strike below amendment and we urge an aye vote on the committee report.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This bill addresses how we can better utilize disturbed lands, otherwise known as closed landfills or old oil and gas sites, some mining sites, and land that is not really able to be used for other purposes, sometimes known as brownfields. And in Colorado, there are potentially over 2,500 of these sites identified throughout our state. which amounts to over 61,000 acres of previously disturbed land, and the potential, even if just 10% of those lands were utilized for renewable energy projects, we could potentially provide enough electricity for an additional 1.4 million homes. So this is a great opportunity, and what this bill does, It creates a voluntary local government-led pathway for these renewable energy and storage projects to be developed on these brownfields or capped landfills and all of the things that are under the disturbed land definition. It provides planning and financing tools, not mandates, again, a voluntary tool to allow local governments to proactively identify these suitable areas for redevelopment if they choose to do so. This will incentivize development on these lands, which will help protect our agricultural lands across the state and reduce conflicts with agriculture and our natural areas. It is important to remember that utilizing these sites will also allow these local governments to use tax increment financing as a tool for public infrastructure associated with renewable energy projects. This will help attract those developers that are looking for pieces of land. So it's a win-win situation for the local governments as well as the developers that are coming in. It will be able to be utilized on private lands, so people that own land that could be partnered with their local government, they can utilize this tool. It will require community engagement in advance of renewable energy investment areas to make sure that there are the voices that need to be heard. We made sure we added in language to protect the tribes in the Bruno areas of our state. and it improves transparency for these local governments. So we are very excited about this tool. It did get through committee unanimously, which is also exciting. And we urge an aye vote on this bill for us to move forward in our state and utilize these lands that are presently just sitting there.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I was very excited when the representative from Boulder County asked me to co-prime because this really is a win-win. And we heard from a couple of mayors, one from Longmont where they're trying to reach their clean energy goals and another one from Greeley where they already have the urban renewal plan and they've got some areas that are brownfields where this sort of solar development would be perfect for their community. So I urge a yes vote because everyone's excited about this.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I come up here in support of this bill, members, because I love the fact it's not a mandate. It's an option. It's a good tool. My county, Wells County, already does it. Adams County kind of falling a little bit behind, but this is a good tool for them to use. with all the abandoned wells that are the orphan wells they call it in the county so um yeah i i always i always said that i all of the above type of energy i know uh source kind of kind of guy i know it contrary to popular belief i do agree with solar I do agree with wind My beliefs on that in more detail is a little bit different but I do believe in having all types of energy sources, and this actually gives a good tool for these counties to be able to use, so I come up here in support of this bill. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the

House Bill 1139 by Representatives Joseph and Leader, also Senator Cutter, concerning the use of artificial intelligence in health care.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1139 and the Health and Human Services Committee reports. To the committee report.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the bill is responding to a practical shift in health care. First, I want to back up because I want to thank my co-prime rep, Joseph, from Boulder for asking me to get on this important bill. It's critically necessary. So the bill responds to a practical shift in health care coverage, administration. So artificial intelligence systems are increasingly being used in utilization management and related processes that can influence whether care is approved or denied. Could be the issues with my other colleague. That technology can improve consistency and efficiency, but it also raises a basic accountability question. When an automated system influences a coverage decision, Who is responsible? What oversight exists? And what transparency should the state and Coloradans expect? So who is it affected? So who's affected? It's first the patients, the families, and because these decisions directly impact access to covered care and the ability to understand and appeal adverse outcomes. Second, carriers and entities concluding altilization review because the bill sets some guardrails for when and how AI systems are used and what must be disclosed to regulators. And third, providers, because the bill is aimed at ensuring the clinical decision making it not effectively displaced by automated outputs without meaningful human review.

Any further discussion on the committee report? Seeing none, the motion before us is the adoption of the committee report. All those in favor say aye.

All those opposed say no. The committee report is adopted. To the bill.

Yes.

I haven't.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I double down on moving L-006 to House Bill 1139 and ask that it be properly displayed. I move L006 for the record.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Sponsor, so much for the dialogue back and forth, for recognizing that this is such a complex area that time is good, and I urge a yes vote on this petition.

Rep. Joseph. Oh, I asked for a yes vote.

Rep. Barone. to the petition clause. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, the sponsor, for accepting this. And the reason I wanted to come up here and speak to this is because AI is such a new industry it such a new technology that coming forward Now I don disagree with regulating it because it's so new, but if we do make a mistake in one of these regulations, it's good to have this petition to be able to fix it. I know it's so new, we don't know very much about it. we're trying to figure it out but if any of these regulations actually hurt people hurt the citizens it's good to have this petition so we can actually fix it so I thank you for accepting it and I urge an aye vote thank you

Rep. Leader. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L007 to House Bill 1139 and ask for it to be properly displayed.

Thank you. And what this amendment does, it was kind of a technical cleanup. Page 8, line 23, just strike or delay from it. I ask for an aye vote.

Aye.

Brett Bradley. You stay up here with me. I like the bipartisan support. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I just wanted to come up here and support. I voted no in committee and just talked through it. They took out the unauthorized practice of psychotherapy, which is where I was having a little bit of a problem. They moved it from a safety clause to a petition clause. But I wanted to talk as a provider what is happening in the world of health care. In the world of health care, we're using AI to some to deny coverage, and that is not ethical. You need to go to a human being. So in the world of physical therapy, if you have 20 calendar visits per year, then if you want to use six of those, let's say, the provider has to go through what we call a utilization review and talk about why we need more visits. And we are usually talking to a human being. But now in the world of AI, if we don't start cleaning this up, then patients are going to get denied for visits based solely on AI. And so there has to be a human component to it. There also has to be a human component to the world of psychotherapy. We cannot use chatbots that are used to facilitate and affirm people, especially with suicidal ideation. We can't let that continue in the world of mental health therapy as well. So I stand corrected on my vote, even though I was a no in committee because we wanted to make some changes. This is a good bill, and I will be a yes vote today. Thank you.

Rep. Joseph. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to say this bill is about accountability within the health care system, and I ask for a yes vote on House Bill 26-11-39. Thank you.

of House Bill 1139. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. House Bill 1139 passes. Mr. Shebo, please read the title of the House Bill 1187.

Mr. Chair, it's an honor to serve with you. It's an honor to serve with you. Yes, sir. I move House Bill 1187.

Representative Stewart Thank you Mr. Chair This bill simply implements the recommendations of the sunset review process. We made no additional changes or amendments and we ask for your aye vote Seeing no further

say no. House Bill 1187

House Bill 1053 by Representative Morrow, also Senators Pelton B. and Wallace, concerning the administration of duties related to the ownership of a vehicle. Representative Morrow.

There are two committee reports. Oh, two committee reports. My apologies. To the Finance Committee report. Okay, Finance Committee report.

I'm sorry, Representative. we need to talk about the appropriations committee report. Appropriations committee report.

Is there any discussion on the appropriations committee report? Seeing none, the motion before us is the adoption of the appropriations committee report. All those in favor say aye.

All those opposed say no. The appropriations committee report is adopted. All right. Rep. Morrow to the finance committee report.

Is there any further discussion on the Finance Committee Report? Seeing none, the motion before us is the adoption of the Finance Committee Report. All those in favor say aye.

All those opposed say no. The Finance Committee Report is adopted. To the bill, Rep. Morrow.

That is properly displayed to the amendment.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the motion before us is the adoption of L2. All those in favor say aye.

All those opposed say no. L2 is adopted. And Rep. Mara, I've got to apologize for accidentally calling you Rep. Leader. It was just because it's been the Rep. Leader show this morning with three Rep. Leader bills. Rep. Mara, to the bill.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1053. All those in favor say aye.

All those opposed say no. House Bill 1053 passes.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1208 and the committee report.

In the committee report, we just added a 10-year review for the sunset.

AML winner. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to move Amendment 0-0-2 to the committee report.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Basically, we want to thank the sponsors for putting the 10-year sunset on this, but we're really asking for this amendment for the simple reason is is we're looking at six years out, there's going to be a whole different group of legislators in here at the building at the time, and I think that they should be able to make a decision on something like this before it goes into almost two full legislatures down the road. We've been trying to do this in a lot of other committees. We think it's good governance to let people take a look at this a little bit sooner. We make decisions right here, and people might have a different view on things in the next six years instead of ten years when they come in here. So I thank the bill sponsors for at least taking a look at this amendment, and I urge an aye vote. Rep Brooks?

Chair, thank you. I rise in support of the amendment. I'm sure we all at this point have had several of these sunsets come through the committees on which we sit, and I have seen something a little bit different this year than I remember from last session. the extensions reaching out 11, 12 years. It seems to have been kind of the standard. I believe that at 10, we're in a better position, but yet still I would ask, I believe, really just for the same rationale as expressed by my colleague that we don't really, let me rephrase it, I don know that we should be doing something when it comes to these reviews that outlive everybody that has the ability to have had any sort of institutional knowledge whatsoever of the program If we're able to drop it to six, it's really not much of a change from where we're at, but it does allow us the ability to ensure that there might be, I understand seats move around quite a bit around here, but it gives us the ability to potentially have some institutional knowledge about that program and ensure we're doing the right thing for Colorado and we're doing the right thing for the program. So I would ask for an aye vote on this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And it's good to stand here next to my patriota. I also rise in support of this amendment. The reason being is that I'm sure we all, yeah, like my colleague said, we've seen a lot of these sunsets come through. I've seen a lot of them. And honestly, I didn't even know these programs existed because of these sunsets. I know they existed. And I'm glad that I had some input on these programs. And to bring the sunset down a little bit closer, that will give somebody else the opportunity that might come into my spot to look at this again. Maybe another oil and gas guy. Maybe another person that's an all-of-the-above energy guy. So it's good to have these sunsets to where somebody that's coming in can actually look at it again and make sure that we actually still need it just to put their input on it, maybe change it a little bit. But it's good to have this, so I also support this amendment.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to my colleague from Las Animas, for bringing the amendment, I urge a no vote. And that is because this committee has not been met, has not been meeting for about three years, and this committee is just a federal requirement. So I believe that there's no need for a review earlier than 10 years. So I urge a no vote.

House Bill 1297 by Representatives Carter and Luck, also Senators Rich and Exum, concerning using uniform language to reference misdemeanor traffic offenses. Representative Luck.

To the bill.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1297. All those in favor say aye.

All those opposed say no. House Bill 1297 passes. Mr. Shebo, please read the title of House Bill 1194.

we're bringing this bill forward. It's a sunset for Combative Sports Office and Commission. We changed... I move House Bill 26-1194.

And the committee report. I'm sorry.

In committee, we did put an amendment that Dora actually asked for. It was a technical amendment, just technical changes to the bill. And we also made the two non-voting medical doctor members of the board voting members. And that is it. I ask for an aye vote.

Aye.

Representative Brown Thank you Mr. Chair Members, like I said this is a bill that's very needed to stay in compliance with federal law federal law for combative sports we actually need to have this board to comply with federal law up to this point now I had some ideas for some amendments but I shared them with Dora Dora came back to me and told me their reasoning why we shouldn't have them I agree. I'm not going to go over it right now because it's not necessary. I do agree that those amendments did not work. But this board has not met since 2020 because there has been no reasoning to meet. We still follow the federal law of combative sports and the safety aspects and the regulation of this industry. We understand the importance of the regulation of this industry for the safety aspect of the athletes that are competing and either boxing, MMA, all these combative sports. So I urge an aye vote on this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And just real quick, because we don't even need to prolong this, but what this Sunset is doing is continuing oversight, protects athletes and the public, expanding the law reflects the reality of modern sports as it has evolved, which is why it's now the Combative Sports. The Colorado Office of Combative Sports and the Combative Sports Commission, which is added in sports like, it's like mixed martial arts, kickboxing, and what is that? Is that Muay Thai? Muay Thai. Muay Thai. Yeah. There you go. because as the sports evolves, our responsibilities to protect the athletes who participate, and it has to evolve as well. So this sunset also ensures The athlete health must come first, preventing exploitation and conflicts of interest, protecting athletes from dangerous and unregulated events, and this is more so evidence-based regulation. So at its core, House Bill 26-1194 is about responsible governance. It protects athletes. It prevents exploitation. It strengthens safety standards, and it ensures Colorado, not outside interest, sets the rules for combative sports within our state. And for these reasons, we ask for your yes vote for House Bill 26-1194.

Aye.

House Bill 1303 by Representatives Bradley and Carter, also Senators Ball and Catlin, concerning technical changes to energy and carbon management statutes. Rep. Carter.

Can you move the bill, Rep. Carter? Can we move House Bill 26-1303? To the bill.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1303. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. House Bill 1303 passes. Mr. Shebo, please read the title to House Bill 1116.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move HB 1116 in the Health and Human Services Committee report.

Representative Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So in the committee, we had an amendment which striked some provisions in the bill. So that basically was helping to drive down the fiscal note to zero. which we got and I want to appreciate my co-prime for helping get that on there. So all we did was just make sure we minimize the fiscal note. So we asked for an aye vote on the committee report.

Aye.

nurses, are able to follow up with folks who maybe have been on psychiatric holds, those 72-hour holds. Current law says that it needs to be within two days. That it's kind of confusing, and it conflicts with some other programs and the other departments that say 72 hours. So we're just making it absolutely clear that it's actually three days that you have to follow up with them in some capacity or another, and also that it excludes holidays and weekends. The second part of this bill helps eliminate wait times for providers seeking outpatient mental health treatment. It does that by allowing the Behavioral Health Administration to accept certificates of inspection for their brick-and-mortar outpatient clinics from local county fire inspection teams, and so they don't have to get one from the state. So we encourage a yes vote. Rep Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank my co-prime for her work on this, working with the BHA and other stakeholders to get the bill to where it is now. As she said, obviously it does two things. obviously making sure we extend the wait time from 48 hours to 72 hours and excluding weekends and holidays we also wanted to make sure that this bill added clarity for our providers i spoke with my people in my district as well as my community health centers who wanted some clarity on some policies so this bill aims to do that as well as making sure that we have a more streamlined process to make sure there's consistency and specifications and policy to make sure that our providers know what the outlines are for these policies and so we ask for an aye vote on this bill

Aye.

Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to move Senate Bill 11 until after House Bill 1262.

House Bill 1262 by Representatives Stewart and Stewart, also Senators Ball and Roberts, concerning preserving patient access to compounded medical items. Representative Stewart Kay.

To the committee report. Oh, there's no committee report, so whatever. To the bill. To the bill. Whatever the stewards are doing. Steward R.

It is a delight to serve with you as well.

That is properly displayed to the amendment, Representative Stewart.

seeing none the motion enforces the adoption of L6 all those in favor say aye all those opposed say no L6 is adopted to the bill Representative Stewart Kay Thank you Mr Chair As many folks may know I am a board music therapist

That was Representative Stewart R. Now we will hear from Representative Stewart Kay.

It is a privilege to serve with you as well.

Rep Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, sponsors, recognizing that you put that into the messaging legislative declaration and not the statutory ledge deck. I would move L-005 to House Bill 1262 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Rep. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And this moves it into the statute itself because the short title does say clarity. Well, if we're going to be clear, because we understand compounding medications are very confusing and we outline what 503B is, we should also do the same for 503A. This outlines the context of the bill without setting a set definition. Understanding at the federal level and the state level, we don't have a definite definite of a 503A because that's more on the facility. But when we're talking about the context of this bill, it is important to align and identify which terminology we're using so we can offer the clarity that the short title of this bill is alluding to. I urge a yes vote.

Rep. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for that, Madam Sponsor. The thing I have concern with in this building is we always have lawyers come at play saying we need hard definition. We need it in statute. So we don't have any lawsuits. and now we're putting the definition in a ledge deck that has no legal qualifications. We never see any lawsuits, one, because a document had an unofficial ledge deck. Sure, it points to the intent, but it's not solidified in statute that this leaves ambiguity and it still doesn't leave the clarity that we need to prevent what this bill is trying to do is prevent lawsuits and I would urge a yes vote for clarity.

which is a state-level statutory thing. Representative Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I would just like clarity because we just, I just heard the sponsor say that this is what's at the federal, not at the state. But the whole intent of this bill is to follow state protocol. So we're aligning with what they're saying. I want to make sure we're aligned with that definition.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of L5. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. No. L5 fails. To the bill. Representative Johnson.

That is properly displayed. To the amendment.

there are medications that are compounded for animals because not all dogs and cats are created equal some folks have very small dogs and some folks have large dogs and they would need a different dosage. And so we actually think it's really, really critical for our furry pals that they also are protected in this bill. Thank you. I would have for a no vote. Representative Johnson.

Rep Stewart. Thank you Mr Chair and I do appreciate the conversation I had a conversation with the veterinarians and they wanted to make sure that this would not impact their ability to compound medications for their patients And so we ask for a no vote on this amendment because the veterinarians want to save the puppies and the kitties.

Rep Kelty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And going through the bill, I don't see where veterinarians are excluded, or rural agricultural areas and veterinarians out in that area are excluded. So I can completely see how this bill could have an unintended consequence. If it's agreed upon that the rural areas in agriculture should be excluded, then I would think that the sponsors of this bill would be in appreciation and a yes vote on this amendment, because that does exactly that. It excludes them so they can continue their business out in the agricultural world, which a lot of them don't understand and aren't a part of. So why don't we go ahead and, since we agree, accept the amendment.

Representative Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I would just like to ground the conversation in the fact that this topic has been floating around the Capitol since the end of last session. and as it's been moving forward through the process from last spring through summer through fall through december through january of this year the lobby has not been able to get on the same side of this the proponents of this bill have not been able to get the side of this i've been told multiple things that yes we want to make sure that this aligns with federal law we want it in statute no we want to be able to go beyond federal law and not have it in statute and kept in rulemaking and it keeps going back and forth when I talk. The last conversation I had with folks in January was we do not want this in statutory. We want it left to rule and we actually want the ability to go over federal because the U.S. Supreme Court said the states have the authority over the federal government when it comes to compounding abilities and because this has been going on back and forth within a few months, that's quick for policy. I move L-001 to House Bill 1262 and ask that it be properly displayed. That's what I'm...

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I said, the conversations just since last spring, that is less than a year ago, because we're not in spring yet for the May time frame, have been going back and forth with everybody, all the stakeholders involved in this. Do we want federal oversight? Do we want to go beyond federal scope? Do we want this in statute? Do we want to allow the flexibility and rules for our pharmacy board? And because it keeps swaying so fast, I would urge our colleagues to move to the petition, because what we face in this body, should this bill right now without this amendment go through, and something sways again because this is such a volatile, multifaceted topic we're talking about, we face potential lawsuits if we don have a way to save this or we face a special session and have to come back and fix this This petition clause allows us until August 1st to make sure we know the time frame we need and we're not going back and forth with these conversations and no one can stay on the same page. This ensures we don't have lawsuits. This ensures we have time to look at it. And I guarantee none of us want to see each other this summer in a special session. Give this time so we can figure out where all the stakeholders are. I urge a yes vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We appreciate the distaste for our safety clause. However, this is a really crucial issue for the health, welfare, and safety of Coloradans to ensure that they can continue to receive their medications in the way that they always have. again this bill changes nothing i want to be very clear this bill codifies what is already happening in colorado and it's incredibly crucial right now when we are seeing ambiguity in the law in other states people losing their medications that are compounded from places like texas we want to make sure that that doesn't happen and so we actually see this very differently and see the safety clause as a critical piece of protecting Coloradans' access to their medication. So I would ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I value that our colleague, the sponsor, just said this changes nothing. We have no active lawsuits in Colorado right now. We are still operating the same because we have a great pharmaceutical board in rules operating. the federal government just a few weeks ago actually approved 26 compounding medications. Nothing right now is in conflict except for the fact we can't get all our stakeholders in line here in Colorado with how back and forth we have been. We need time before we put this in so we're not coming back and chasing. Because I would hate to say this is the day I tried to warn you all next year when we're having a cleanup bill per this same topic because we rushed this through way too fast.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know I'm short, but I'm not that short. Also, what I agree with my colleague, what I also heard was this change is nothing. It's the same thing that's been going on in Colorado. It's not a problem in Colorado. Maybe in other states, but it's not a problem in Colorado at all. and that Colorado is actually doing things correctly. And for me, I'm not sure why this bill is even needed, but I especially don't understand why the safety clause is needed because the safety clause is used when there's an emergency situation. It's got to be done right now. But if it's something that Colorado is already doing, it's something that doesn't change anything, it's really not an emergency, then why, in God's sake, do we have a safety clause? We're overusing safety clauses where safety clauses are not needed. So if this is truly not a problem for Colorado, then there's not a reason that we cannot put a petition clause on there, because if there is an unintended consequence, I believe the voice of the people need to be heard. By a safety clause, you're cramming it down the throats of Colorado because it's an emergency. And it's already been established that it's not an emergency. It's already established that it's not even happening in Colorado. This is a bill that's looking for a problem that doesn't exist. So I firmly and strongly would like to ask for a yes vote on this amendment because a safety clause is not necessary This just shows the abuse that the safety clause is being used on bill after bill after bill because it wants to exclude and take away the voice of the people if they do have a problem We need to have a petition clause on this, not a safety clause. It's imperative. Thank you.

Aye.

No.

Rep. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I would just like to say it's very disheartening when we say that this has been very stakeholder, but key stakeholders have been left out since last year. I know when I was trying to talk to proponents of this bill outside of this chamber to being involved, I was excluded up until about end of January. We need to make sure that we're doing best by all of Colorado. I share the same concerns that people who testified on this bill, that these sponsors, who I call good friends, have voiced on compounding. And I'm fully in support of everything they're saying, that we need to make sure we're protecting patients. Compounding medications are something that I've spent most of last year researching. My research was done with one thing in mind, making sure patients come first, not special interests. like GLP-1s, which were the first driving organization back in May of 2025 to start the conversation on what is now HB 26-1262. I also have a personal stake in this. I have benefited from compounding meds both when I went through a chemo trial for 1.5 years, went on a nebulizer treatment for most of my young child life. As a chronic disease patient, I have benefited from this. On top of that, in rural Colorado where it's harder to get medications, I have seen why we need to allow our pharmacists, our hospitals to have the ability to compound both 503A and 503B. This is something very close to my heart. Colorado needs to make a strong stance that the safety, integrity, and accessibility of compounded medications are essential to the health and well-being of Coloradans. However, how Colorado goes about that is the real question. In all my research of all the legalities and practicalities of the ability to compound, my answer is we do not need a bill. Why mess with something that's already working on the fear of what's happening in other states or the what-ifs? Sure, House Bill 26-1262 would work for today and the next few years, but I am worried about the future if the federal level changes or if we get into a lawsuit like other states. Yes, this works right now. I said a couple weeks ago the federal government pointed out their support for compounding meds by approving 26 of them. But what happens if our current administration decides to change on this next year or a future administration decides at the federal level compounding is no longer supported because they get bought out by other interests? The U.S. Supreme Court has given states more authority on compounding meds. So my worry is that House Bill 26-1262 ties our hands at the state level by making a blanket match to whatever the federal level does. That means we are stuck in statute to match them when the U.S. Supreme Court said we should have the ability to go above that for the needs of our state because we have unique needs every single state.

I'm still going, sir. Oh, sorry, sorry.

I thought you were done and I was calling on Rep Stewart.

Can we? Members, can we please keep it down?

Rep Stewart.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of House Bill 1262. All those in favor say aye.

Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. House Bill 1262 passes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's an honor to serve with you. And an honor to serve with you. I move Senate Bill 11.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We're going to say a couple things about this piece of legislation, but we'd like to move a couple amendments first. So with that, I move L9 to Senate Bill 11 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Rep Basenecker. Minority Leader Caldwell. Thank you, Madam Chair. So L9, this was something that we came up with after working with some members on judiciary. They had some really great questions. They were very engaged. And so one of our colleagues from Denver and our colleague from Delta, they made some good points. And so what L9 does, it notes a reference to current law related to contempt of court powers and clarifies that if a public-facing social media company has messaging capabilities between users, those services are also under the scope of the warrant. And so again we really appreciate the effort from the members on judiciary which by the way was unanimous in House Judiciary and I believe we going to have one of the members speak to it as well

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I rise in full support of this amendment and appreciate being able to work with the sponsors on this amendment and the stakeholders. The issue that came up in House Judiciary, and I do want to lay this for the record, The bill contemplates or proposes having a speedier time frame for complying with search warrants for social media companies and dating apps. And the concern that came up, especially when it came to social media companies, is as we're trying to describe a platform and the component parts of the platform, that if a social media company is being accused of not complying with this search warrant, the first thing the corporate counsel is going to say is, well, what's the law on point? And they're going to turn to this when it becomes law, and they're going to review this very carefully, and if they're being subjected to fines from the Attorney General's office, they're going to try to find some way to have as a get-out, a jail-free card, as it were, in the law. And we're really worried that there's a gap, that if we don't specifically say the features and services of the covered platform, that all that could be argued and parsed out. And we wanted to make sure that even the messaging function within an app or within a website tied to social media, that that still could be part of the covered platform because it's important when you're serving a search warrant, that's really what you're after. If someone's putting a message on their public-facing social media, you, of course, don't need a search warrant for that even right now because it's public. You can see it. this really does concern what is much harder for law enforcement, and they are serving a warrant. They just are going to be asking, does this fall under the timely compliance of the bill, or can they drag their feet and take forever to comply? And we want to make sure that social media companies do comply with Colorado law, and I appreciate you guys working on this bill. Thank you.

Aye.

The ayes have it. L9 passes.

Speaker Pro Tembesnecker. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L11 to Senate Bill 11 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Minority Leader Caldwell. Thank you, Madam Chair. So we worked with a lot of different stakeholders in this, and what we wanted to make sure that we didn't do is capture the traditional online retail marketplaces that are almost exclusively just buying and selling goods. And so this is an amendment that we came to to make sure that we didn't catch up certain areas that we weren't intending to do. And so I would certainly ask for your support on this one.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, colleagues. I'll keep my remarks brief, but I will just say this. This bill presents a meaningful solution to a challenge that all too many families, victims, and survivors have faced in the state of Colorado, which is to say that it is increasingly difficult to get a search warrant to be honored by the very companies that I think are at the nexus of that public safety request Senate Bill 11 at the end of the day is a focused common bill It does not expand law enforcement authority or weaken constitutional protections. It simply ensures that when a Colorado court issues a valid search warrant, large social media platforms respond in a timely and reliable way. For too many families across our state, they have faced a loss that is unimaginable. losing a child, losing a loved one, losing a parent, in a way that certainly all of us can look back and say, my God, how terrible that that happened. On the back end of that tragedy, they've also faced uncertainty and in many cases non-responsiveness when it comes to being served a warrant or serving a warrant to the very company that was perhaps hosting some of that content or those conversations online. Regardless of who you are in the state of Colorado, you have a duty to respond to a warrant. Regardless of who you are in the state of Colorado, you have a right to justice when there's been a crime or the allegations of a crime, and the company is holding some critical information that could delay or otherwise hinder an investigation. At the end of the day, I think this bill is about fairness, ensuring that victims can receive a measure of justice, companies respond in a timely fashion, and hopefully law enforcement is able to do their job to the benefit of all of us. We ask for a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, this was a very emotional committee to hear the testimony of families. Many of these families, they lost children who were purchasing illicit drugs on social media. And what we heard from these parents was that, you know, they would they would warrants would be issued to the social media companies because the parents would get the phone. They would see the account that that sold the drugs to their kids that unfortunately equated to a fatal dose. And what we heard in testimony was sometimes it would take weeks, if not months, in order to get a response. And when it comes to something like this, time is of the essence. For every day that that account is still on there and that information is not being responded to and given to the authorities, it's potentially how many more children who are dying from things like fentanyl. And so this, as my co-prime said, is just saying, hey, just like any other brick-and-mortar business, there is a timeline that you need to respond to these warrants. And that's what it does. And so we certainly would appreciate your support on this. And I appreciate all the stakeholders. I appreciate all the families of the victims and all that they do on behalf of future Colorado families. Because that's an important thing to keep in mind is the parents who come here and they testify about their loved ones that they've lost. Their loved ones are gone. But they're still out there fighting because they're fighting to make sure that people like myself, like myself and Mr. Speaker Pro Tem, who have children, they're fighting on behalf of us and our kids and all the kids of Colorado. And so we just can't thank them enough. And so please, I would urge an eye on this bill. Thank you.

Aye. Aye.

Mr Schiebel please read the title of House Bill 1203 House Bill 1203 by Representatives Marshall and Bacon also Senators Benavidez and Liston concerning the modification of County Commissioner Elections Rep. Marshall.

To the committee report.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of the State Affairs Committee report. All those in favor say aye.

Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The State Affairs Committee report passes. To the bill.

Rep. Marshall.

One moment.

Rep. Marshall.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of L11. All those in favor say aye.

Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. L11 passes. To the bill, is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of House Bill 1203 as amended. All those in favor say aye.

Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. House Bill 1203 is amended and passes. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of House Bill 1207.

AML Bacon. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1207 in the committee report.

AML Bacon. Sorry. Thank you, members. In the committee report, we'll talk a little bit about this bill and why it's important, but in the business committee, we added an amendment to be sure that this data is still collected in the event that it is no longer required to be collected at the federal level. We also stated what information should be collected here at the state level in that event, and with that, we encourage an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Basically, what this bill does is it encourages transparency. And we know that Colorado's economy is strongest when opportunity is broad. Talent is fully utilized and businesses compete on innovation What this bill does is it requires reporting of EEO1 data This is data that businesses are already collecting, already reporting, along with their periodic filings, and that information would be reported to the Secretary of State. and we know that transparency matters because patterns of opportunity can be identified, workforce gaps can be better understood, policymakers can make informed decisions, businesses can benchmark progress, and workers can gain confidence in fair systems. And we would ask for an aye vote.

Emil Bacon. Thank you, members. We did have a good conversation about this, but for those who don't know where this forum comes from, this forum comes out of the Civil Rights Act, particularly Title VII that was passed in the 60s. It was a seminal civil rights bill, and it was particularly supported by Dr. King and his communities. What the data shows us and what the data is used for is accountability to ensure that there's true inclusion in the workforce. And with that, members, we ask for an aye vote.

Rep Brooks. Chair, thank you. With all due respect to bill sponsors, I mean, this is one that I have a lot of opposition to. You know, there's the ones that I say I don't like or I'm going to vote no on it. and then there's ones that I truly have some deep issues with, and this is one that I do. I think that that probably was evident in committee, as I do sit on the committee that this bill came through, and we did have a good discussion. There was a lot of discussion around this. To be perfectly honest, not to give any sort of spoiler alert, I'll probably have something to say on thirds, okay? I'm not at a point where I'm in agreement and I'm going to ask for a no vote for whatever that's worth. But then I expect that we'll probably have a little bit more to discuss on 30. So thank you.

AML Bacon. Thank you to my colleague. Are you Douglas County? Awesome. Thank you to my colleague. I think I want to just address something because I want to address the question of why are all the chambers against this? I did hear that. I don't want to make assumptions on the question. And then I do want to talk a little bit about another point of opposition by way of it being duplicative. And so on the one hand, while I cannot necessarily speak for businesses outside of what I've already heard them say, I do want to point out that not all of the chambers were actually opposed to this. And the ones who weren't included the women's chamber for a reason. Now, I will say that in regards to the data being collected, if on the one hand the businesses are opposed to it because they think it's duplicative, I'm not going to say that it's not. The reason why we are bringing this bill is because one as a matter that we are proposing of state priority we do believe that there is a state interest to understand this data And in response to what we seen from the federal government which could either be construed politically or at best in a non space when we hear from the federal government that they no longer want to do things at the federal level, they may also indicate that states have every right to move forward in the things that they feel like are important to them. And so in the event that this data may not be collected at the federal level, we want to say that we would still like it collected here at the state level because we still do believe in the values and the principles from which this came, which is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. I will also say that it is of concern that businesses don't want to gather this data if it is not for the duplication reasons. For many of you, you may not know this. A reason why this form is also used is, for one, if any entity, whether it's public or in the business sense, does want to create programming in which they support minorities, women, or any group that has been shown to not have representation, that in order to create programs according to case law, you need to demonstrate that there is a disparity. So for every economic development program that we have for women, every economic development program that we have for minorities, and particularly in the small business space, no entity can justify doing that if there is not a demonstration of a disparity. And you cannot learn that if the data is not collected. And so when I hear that businesses may not want to do this for other reasons other than I've mentioned, I think the thing that we have of question is then, then how are you going to demonstrate inclusion? How are you going to demonstrate then, even in the event that we feel you're discriminating, what evidence are you going to put forward, which could have been satisfied if you filled out the form? But more importantly, we do believe there's a community interest to know with businesses, particularly of this size, because this form is only for businesses with 100 or more employees or who are at least engaged 50 contractors to understand what their representation looks like and does it match this community. And we cannot do that if we do not see the data. And if there's an allegation that it does not, they're going to end up showing us this data anyway. because that is something that they would need to demonstrate in these cases. And so, you know, I do think that perhaps there might be some commentary, and I want to get ahead of this, and I want to thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, as well as when this happened for me in committee, because they showed tremendous grace for something that was difficult for me. when we start questioning whether or not these policies are impactful to the communities who fought for them. I think that is a bigger discussion than this form. This bill is not about affirmative action, and this bill isn't where we're going to put all of our hopes and expectations about racism on it. This bill is about the continuity of a practice that was well fought for, for the purposes that I just laid out. And if businesses don't want to do it, I understand that. No, they don't. That's why it was required in the first place. Right? And now we are in a place where we have made communal and cultural commitments in the good course of business to demonstrate that businesses care to support and be as inclusive as possible. And in the event that they're not, we have some mechanisms and tools to get back to that place. Rip Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I just want to reiterate that this is something that businesses are already doing. So this is not an increased burden or a new process. This is something they are already doing. They are already collecting this information. They are already filing their periodic reports. And because we want to make sure that we streamline this process and that it is not an additional burden on businesses, We are incorporating these things into their existing practices. And so I know that we will probably hear, you know, death by a thousand cuts, but this is something that they're already doing and reporting. Thank you. Rep. Kelty. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I was in committee when this bill was heard. and let me tell you my opinion on collection of data. I don't like it. I don't like collection of data in any way, shape, or form. So from one of the bill sponsors on here, they had another bill that was against using data for police, but then now you're saying that you're okay with the collection of the data. Well, the problem isn't the use of the data, it's the collection of the data. It's allowing those to collect data on individuals that you have no idea what it is or what's being done with it, And this is personal data. This belongs to the people. So you can't have one way and then have another. That's called hypocrisy. So when we were in there, not only were the chambers, the Colorado Springs County Chamber, the Aurora Chamber, Douglas, Denver, South Metro, the Colorado Retail Council, I mean, these are groups that represent hundreds of thousands of people across Colorado, they're all in an opposed position on this bill. All of them. Thousands and thousands of people in Colorado through these chambers, they're saying, no, we don't want this. There's a select few lobbyists that want it, and that's it. The people of Colorado have spoken through these chambers that they do not want this. Hundreds of thousands of people. Millions. Even the individual that is from the Colorado Competitive Council opposed this. I mean, the state of Colorado doesn't even want this. The state of Colorado, just so everyone understands, sells your data. The state of Colorado collects your data and they sell it. So now you're saying you want it to be collected. You're not even speaking out against the fact that the state of Colorado sells your data from the DMV. But then you target other groups like the police from actually using third-party data. I mean, it makes no sense. This bill is just very hypocritical. I mean through the people that came in there we saw experts from every realm testify why they oppose this bill The collection of the data is the problem. I can tell you the collection of data was used against me in getting a job. My racial data was used against me for me getting a job. So when I talk about the collection of data is the problem, that is the problem. That's the head of the snake that we wish to cut off. We keep coming at it from the tail of the snake. We need to cut it off at the head of the snake. That's a collection of data. So you can't say, okay, we're going to collect data for this, the state of Colorado, but other individuals want to use the data that's publicly available and able to purchase. We can't let them do it. We can't let them use it to solve crimes. If you don't like the use of data, then you shouldn't like the collection of the data. And for this bill to be put out here in the same week that we saw two bills against each other is ridiculous. We're supposed to make smart legislation. Knowing that your data is being collected, used and sold by the very state you live in, knowing that there are entities in Colorado, like all the chambers, all the groups that deal with business, I mean, across the board, the retail association, everywhere, across Colorado, they do not want this legislation. There were so many of them in there that said no, and a handful that said yes, and of course they have special interest in it. I'm asking for a no vote on this bill, because we have to be smarter when we put bills through this and start legislation. This is not it. The people have spoken. It's about high time that we actually listen to them. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to my colleague from El Paso County. I think there are a few things to respond to. And one, I don't want to disregard any experience, especially if you feel like you've been discriminated against. I will say there's nothing in the law that says that a person of any ethnicity cannot bring these cases. If you read Title VII, it says on the basis of. And so if you are targeted, and that's also an element, particularly named and targeted because of your identity, that doesn't preclude any civil rights cases. I think the difference, too, in what we do here and what this bill does, and thank you for the conversation on data. You know I've been deep in it with you, okay? But here's a fundamental difference, and I might stray a little bit, Madam Chair, just to address this point. This bill is about, and I want to tell you why there's a fundamental difference in how the form was crafted, okay? The form, again, is for businesses with 100 or more employees, which means we're taking into account its size so that we can disaggregate data. And what that means is the data that is presented is not personal. There aren't names, right? It is publicly available, and the only reason it's publicly available is because it's disaggregated. And so if you look at the form, it just simply asks the number. It doesn't say who. It doesn't have any other information like that. And so in regards to how that data is then used I guess it already a public forum so I not going to say that it not publicly out there And I don think it necessarily needs to be purchased because it kind of free right But the forum purpose was to take into account that it could give again a global kind of idea without identifying people. And so, given the conversations we've had about data, one, generally I don't think it's off the table for us to talk about, given the world that we're in right now. But the conversations we're typically having about data are personalized. It's because you are identified, you are targeted, and whatnot. And that is not what this form does. And it also was constructed, so it could not do that. And that's why the size of business matters. And so, one, in regards to the issues about discrimination or anti-discrimination, I think generally the laws are out there to protect us all for it. And two, the purpose of this form is to have, again, oh, I said the wrong word. Not disaggregated data. I'm sorry. Because to the whole point I'm making, that is literally the opposite of disaggregated. I apologize. But the aggregation of data. I'm sorry. I apologize for that. But the whole point of this form is to have aggregated data to give us a global sense of If there are critical mass of different types of experiences, then we can understand that critical mass influences culture. And that's what the point of the form is. The other point of the form, because, you know, in regards to the discrimination claim, you know, I did hear someone quote Dr. King. And that's kind of where I got emotional. because when you see the bill signing for the Civil Rights Act, you see Dr. King standing next to President Johnson because this whole act was part of their movement to be sure that there was something to check to be sure that businesses had some modicum of diversity and not just for black people, for all of the categories on the forum, which included gender, because part of the civil rights movement was also to address women's space in the workforce. So again, you know, I want to, at the very least, I want to say thank you for sharing your concerns, and I do not condone any of the things that happened to you. But the point of this form that came out of the statute was for aggregated data so that we are not identified to send cues for culture in the biggest businesses that have the most influences and impact on community. And so for that, again, members, we do encourage an aye vote on the form. Always happy to continue discussions about the programs in our culture for the last 60 years. But I do want to place the right types of responsibility on this and that this form not be responsible for things it is not responsible for. Rip Kelty. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you very much for that, for your words. Can I ask a question? In the bill, it states that in a state that, okay, a business in a state that employs 100 or more workers, to include the demographic, workforce data, blah, blah, blah. Does that mean that all 100 workers are within the state of Colorado? Because it doesn't specify that. And for me if I have a business and I have 100 employees and I have five that work in Colorado I have 20 that work in Idaho I have 100 employees but I only have a few here in Colorado By collecting this data on those who live in Colorado, it narrows it down to five people, or it could just be one person in Colorado. Now you have identified that an individual, if you know where they work, their data, their information. So is there a way that we can specify in the bill that is for people who have 100 employees within the state that work within the state of Colorado versus the nation or even the world? Rep. Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Rep. Kelty, for the question. This form is for businesses that are registered in Colorado with at least 100 employees regardless of if this person is working remotely out of the state. It is designed for the business to report the demographic data of their workforce regardless of where they may be working. And if we're open to discussing clarity around this issue, but it really is around the actual business itself and the makeup of that business, not the location of where their workers are assigned. Rep Kelty. Thank you for that. Well, and I would like to point out, though, I understand that it's for the business, but it's really the employees that I aim to protect, to keep them more identifiable when it comes to this data. So if you only have one employee of that business or two that live in Colorado, but, again, the business has 100 across the United States, then they're now identifiable, right? So by just process of elimination. Emil Bacon. Okay. So first, just to reiterate my co-prime's point, we have written this under Title VII, so that means these are for businesses that are registered in Colorado because that's the Secretary of State's purview. And businesses that are registered in Colorado could have employees everywhere, but they're registered here, and that's our tie to this, if that makes sense. So there could be a business that's registered and all their employees are remote or whatnot. I think the thing that I hear what you're saying in regards to how can the employees be found out, and that's what I want to address. One, I also want to realize that we are in a world in which people, the only way people would know where they live is if the employees put that out there. You know, where employees live aren't, like, posted on websites. You know what I mean? And even to some extent, if they say that they work out of an office, you can still be working out of an office remotely. And so I just want to point that out because part of the things that we have to protect for has to be over the things we can control. And what we can't control is if people want to let people know where they live. We don't ask employees to make that public anywhere for purposes of this to discern, if that makes sense. And so while I can hear what you're trying to protect for, we're happy to ask additional questions to see if there's something that we can do there. But there isn't anything else in law that compels people to let them know where they work anyway, and we can't control that. Now, to another point that's kind of similar, you asked something in committee. We can also tell people to tell us how they identify. If they don't want to identify at all, unfortunately. ethnicity we can't write it down because there's nothing that compels people you know to do things like that so i just want to offer that here we're happy to have continued conversations but for factually speaking these are for businesses that are registered in colorado and there's nothing that's compelling any business or the employees that work there to let people know where they live for that purpose and so happy to continue to talk about the things perhaps if there is elsewhere in law where we're compelling people to do something to put themselves out there. We're happy to continue to have that conversation. We just haven't come across that yet. Rip Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chair. And if you're asking if businesses would only report on, let's say, if they have over 100 employees and only five actually live in Colorado, if they would only report on those five, no, they would report on the entire 100. Does that make sense? If that's what your question was. Okay.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, that is what I'm getting at, is that if they only have five people in the entire company that work in Colorado, now they're easily to identify. And people are, the Internet has everything on it. So to be able to find someone, whether they put their address out there or not, it's out there. So I think my goal with this is to try to make sure the employee is protected from their data. I don't, like I said, I don't want collection of data in any way, shape, or form anyways, unless it's maybe medical for a medical need, you know, and that's up to them. But when it comes to just an employee and an employer just saying, yeah, I'm just going to, you know, report your data to the state, which we know sells the data anyways because it's, I mean, you can look that up and they admit that they do do it, I have a problem with that. I just want to make sure, and I understand you guys are going into business, but I'm trying to say, but what about the employee? What about me, the employee? What if they put my stuff out there, and I'm the one and only person that works in Colorado for said company, and they're reporting this because they have 100 people? Well, it's not going to be hard to figure out where I am because people get doxed all the time. They come after them. You can put one political post on the Internet, and, man, they're coming right at you. So as we know, as we know, as politicians, boy, I'm telling you what. So I just want to make sure that the employees, if there are 100 employees within the state, where it makes it harder for you to identify, oh, it's this guy or that guy, versus just 100 employees just anywhere. Rep Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is aggregate data for the 100 employees regardless of where they are. So we are not, it's not singling out people who may live in Colorado or not. This is unidentifiable data that is already being collected and reported. Rep Kelty. I understand that, but the problem is that you're now making it and putting it on a public site where federally you have to request the data and that kind of stuff. But am I wrong? You want this on a public website for anybody and everybody to find and go to. Is that correct? A.M.L. Bacon. So here's another thing I want to say about this. I also want you to remember this is already a form that's out there. So that means if someone wants to look up a business which still would list its address to where it's registered even federally, right? But it's not public. It is It is publicly available Federally All right Sorry I sorry for the dialogue We is not a cow thing We didn mean that Sorry That a committee thing I apologize

AML Bacon. So I just want to say, like, the federal form is already publicly available or there are means for the public to get it. The forms also name the businesses, and you can see where they're registered. and there are companies in Colorado still filling out the EEO form that say they're registered in Colorado. And that's why we're saying we're not doing anything new. I think, you know, I don't mean to be tongue-in-cheek about this, but in regards to they could figure out who we are, well, that might be a set of circumstances that's already happening with the federal form. And we are not doing anything different. The form is not different. It does not have information that is different from the federal form. I would say if we believe that people can't find our data and docs and do all of those things, we should address that. And we're going to have plenty of conversations in this building about precisely that. But even if we do it, the information that you're talking about, unless it's made public and to the extent that someone puts it out there, it would be considered private data and someone would have to actively look for it to get to the purposes that you're at. And in the event they want to do that, there is already a pathway for them to do it because this form is a federal form that is made publicly accessible. Now, I do agree that we have issues about the data, to your point. And if we want to talk about the means to which people are finding other people out, including buying that, I think that's for another statute and another legal premise that we need to address. But it's not something that this form would change or unchanged by way of the circumstances of the information because it has been a federal forum that's out there and publicly available for decades.

Does that make sense? I mean, you don't have to like it. I mean, I'm a good person. Well, that changes everything. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry. Yeah. Sorry. That's all right. And unfortunately, I was presenting a bill and wasn't present for the hearing when we had it in committee. And I did listen to the recording, but I had a couple of questions, kind of high level. I don't want to get into the weeds. The first one I think you've partially answered, but I guess a little concern remains that since 48, 49 percent of our workforce is actually in businesses smaller than 100, we're losing a lot of data by focusing on 100 and above. I understand the aggregation or disaggregation issues, but at the end of the day, we're trying to protect individuals. And I understand there's a protection of the overall culture as well, but I'll grapple with that one. But I was curious since I know the focus was on the EEO 1 forum for private businesses, but there's a EEO 4 that governments, present and we had the earlier discussion on commissioner makeup and potential issues at county levels but was there a thought of collecting from local governments as well as their large employers and I've got a couple of others and then the other lingering one and I'm probably good and need to do some more study but the contractors of 50 plus does that include anybody that's contracting nonprofits that are drawing down contract dollars as well as the traditional contractor AML Bacon Thank you. I love it when some of our representatives have like 80 counties, and I'm like, thank you to the representative from 93 counties. I appreciate it. There aren't 93 counties in Colorado. I do know that. Just the seven that you have. So here are a few quick answers. Right now, government entities are not required to do this reporting. And again, our purpose was to mirror what was already happening, even for the number of employees. So the EEO1 form is specifically for businesses that have 100 plus more. So if we did something other than that, that would be a new thing. And we didn't want to go down that road. and plus some of the smaller entities have that n size, right, that disaggregated problem just as a matter of policy. I will say that in regards to the public space, the public space does not need to turn in this form because their data is more accessible and can be found through other channels than through this form. In fact, this form was made for business because it doesn't have those same channels that the public sector does. And then depending on, and I think you were, I don't mean to, depending on your county or your own municipalities, they typically have their own hiring and procurement policies around this type of information. We see a lot of foundations. If you want to apply to them, they ask for similar information. And so in regards to the way to get the information, it's certainly through a different channel in the public sector than it would be in the private. And this does apply to any nonprofit. I think there are ways, I think if the business, I think you can still register as a business and be a nonprofit because nonprofits is tax status, not corporation status. And I would say yes. And so if you think about perhaps an organization that builds houses, right? And so, yes, this would apply. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of House Bill 1207.

Aye.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of Senate Bill 32. Senate Bill 32 by Senators Doherty and Mullica, also representatives for A&B Brown, concerning the promotion of immunization access.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question for the committee report. There is discussion. Okay.

One moment. L21 is properly displayed. Rep. Bradley.

Brett Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair. First off, I just want to thank my good colleague from Douglas County for her engagement on this bill, not only today on the floor, but also in committee. I know that as a health care worker, she cares very deeply about the health of her community, about the health of every Coloradan, and I am particularly honored to be able to work with her every day. We may not agree on everything, but it is a real privilege to be able to work with someone who really cares so much about the health of their community. We ask for a no vote on this particular amendment. I will say that adult recommendations are extremely important. As you may know, when your kid goes off to college, they are now an adult. Things like meningitis are particularly rampant in college campuses. I will also say that for anyone with an older adult in their lives, they know the importance of a shingles vaccine or a pneumonia vaccine. These are particularly beneficial for, again, adult populations. And it's important that we have evidence-based recommendations from the Board of Health based on scientific criteria, scientific recommendations from professional societies that we can rely upon. So with that, I ask for a no vote with the utmost respect for my colleague from Douglas County.

Retferay. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think there's always value in synthesizing the data and bringing that together so we can bring a better recommendation. So the more the merrier in terms of that data. So that's why we think we should have that in the bill. Rep. Bradley. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you. I didn't say thank you to the bill sponsors. Thank you for working so diligently with our side and kind of hearing our concerns. It gives me hope in this place that I've had a lot of. I appreciate that. I should have said that. some of our concerns is ACIP has only five recommendations for infant and adult vaccinations the American Academy of Pediatrics has over 70 I believe so I'm just wondering it says recommend for adults ever taken into consideration of all these but they then the Board of Health then still adopts the rules I'm just trying logistically I'm just trying to figure out if one only recommends five and one recommends over 70 then where do we go from there and who does the Board of Health listen to?

Rep Locke. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I want to just explain one of the concerns that I'm hearing about this section of the bill from outside of the building. As you know, once a section like this, this entire act, the Adult Immunization Act, gets added into statute, it is much easier to then amend. often the hardest thing is to get the whole infrastructure into place and once that's then done tweaks are much easier because then the argument becomes well all of that is current law and all we're doing is this one little tweak and so right now this is the biggest the the biggest part of the potential for a future build out of adult immunizations and for those who are fully supportive of adult immunizations, that may not be concerning. But for those in our communities who have been injured by vaccinations or who have seen their children injured by vaccinations, the idea of expanding the vaccination schedule to include everyone over 18 is concerning, especially since in the instance of the language proposed here, while right now it just says recommended, that the Board of Health shall adopt rules establishing a schedule of recommended adult immunizations. However, that recommended can quickly be removed, and all of a sudden, it's the Board of Health shall adopt rules establishing a schedule of adult immunizations, immunizations that then would be required. And I know that that is not currently the bill before us, but I do think that it's important as we build these things out to understand what is likely next to happen. When you look at the ledge deck of this particular bill, it does point to that. It points to the potential for those kinds of movements towards a forced vaccination. And I don't think that that is a chicken little comment in light of what we saw in COVID, where we saw vaccine passports mandated, where we saw people being refused services or access to particular buildings unless they showed that they had received a certain set of vaccinations. And this set up allows for the build out of that in future years. We're also seeing that in recent quarantine of unvaccinated students and staff due to measles outbreak. Again, it's not outside the pale of possibility that this will quickly be turned into not a recommendation by the Board of Health, but actually a mandate. And so the folks that I am hearing from are very concerned about that. They're concerned that this will shift into an expectation of paying for adult vaccinations and free vaccinations. And so I do rise in support of this amendment because it strikes that particular thing. It puts it back on the physicians and on their patients to decide what is best for them. And it limits the likelihood of future government action that would infringe upon people ability to move freely or to make their own decisions related to their health I ask for an aye vote Rhett Bradley

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of L-21. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The no's have it. L-21 is lost. To the Health and Human Services Committee report, Rep Luck.

L22 is properly displayed. Rep. Locke.

L21, L22 has been withdrawn. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of the committee report.

For the committee report?

Rep Luck.

amendment L2 0 to the committee report and asset be displayed one moment

But Bradley. Thank you, Madam Chair. This was a significant contentious part of this bill, and I just want to read to people that don't know what naturopaths do. It's a distinct primary health care system blending modern science with traditional natural therapies to support the body's innate ability to heal. They're licensed. They have a four-year graduate degree. They use holistic, non-invasive methods like nutrition, lifestyle counseling, botanical medicine to treat the root cause of illnesses. Naturopathy is based on six core principles, including the healing power of nature and treating the root cause and treating the whole person. It emphasizes prevention, education, and using the least forceful natural intervention necessary. We don't regulate on abortion clinics to recommend other alternatives. I don't understand in this bill how we're going after the very people that don't believe in maybe vaccinations, and we are now going to force this on them to do what they don't agree with doing. And if they're not, then I'm sure down the road we are going to go after them and liabilities and all the other things that we typically do in this building. This is compelled speech. This is compelled speech against a specialty practice in the medical field who doesn't believe that children may necessarily need to be vaccinated. And what list? What list are we going through? ACIP or the immunizations schedule established by the Board of Health, the ACIP only recommends five. so I'm sure they're going to fight whatever the state board of health adopts because they don't believe in 70 vaccinations of the AAP So then we're compelling speech in this group again. I don't know why we're targeting, I do know why we're targeting a group of doctors because they don't believe in doing this. They believe that there are natural remedies to keep a child healthy and to keep their immunity up. and so we're going to go after a certain group of doctors and make sure that they have to tell the parents what the immunization schedule is i think it's very very conflicting and concerning it's like a pt versus an md if an md thinks there should be surgery and a pt is like no i think that you need to do all these conservative things and not just get cut on it's the same thing why would we carve them out. This is a very clear, concise amendment. I think that the naturopath doctors are going to start suing the state of Colorado for forcing this. I urge an aye vote. Thank you. Rep. Farai. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate your perspective and what you're trying to do with this amendment. I don't think we're going to get there, and I would

Thank you, Madam Chair. I ask to move, or I will move L024 to the committee report and ask for it to be displayed.

Rep. Bradley. Thank you, Madam Chair. Quite a discussion on this one as well, taking pharmacy out of the vaccination ability. I don't think that in the spirit of safeguarding patients, rolling up to King Soopers to get some of these vaccinations without the pharmacist knowing your medical record, given a subjective, any kind of health history is an in-and-out type of thing. I do not believe that this safeguards patients. I think pharmacists may be in the hospitals. Different story. But the little clinic in all these places, inside pharmacies in King Soopers and Safeway, are not protecting patient safety. And there should be a standard for this. Vaccinations come with risks. And we're not even getting informed consent at some of the pediatric offices. This, to me, is a no-brainer. I don't think we talk about patients having a home for health. We talk about coming to PTs because we treat them for hours at a time and we know their subjective and objective histories. Popping into a King Soopers to get a shingles vaccination that comes with risks, especially for children who are just going in and their doctor has no idea that they're getting vaccinations at King Soopers, is going to put many people in jeopardy and harm's way. and I will be a backup of this will next year telling you all about it. I urge an aye vote on this. This should not be happening in our state. Thank you.

Is it Rep Bradley? Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the bill sponsor. Very respectful conversation. I appreciate it because it can be contentious, but access versus patient safety. And I understand in rural Colorado that's what we're talking about, but patient safety must come first. I will always stand for patient safety. Vaccinations come with a risk, very serious risk for some of these, and I just don't deem it appropriate to put access over patient safety. So I would urge an aye vote on this amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move amendment L023 and ask that it be displayed. One moment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment is pretty simple. It just strikes some sections of the bill. The sections that it strikes are basically all the same, and they are speaking to the limitations on liability. limitations on liability basically they're saying that if the vaccine is administered properly any consequence of the vaccine is not to be held any any impact that that vaccine has will not actually cause the administering individual to be held responsible and i do not think that we should exempt folks from that kind of liability. And so I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the good representative from Penrose for bringing this. Again, we have research government providing Blinket immunity to vaccine manufacturers is opposed by very large margins across all groups, unaffiliated Democrat, Republicans in the high 70%. If anyone wants to come look at this chart, you may. We heard testimony in committee, and one of the ladies that was vaccine injured told me that I could read her testimony. To address the liability piece in this bill, a recent federal poll done by Fabrizio, Lee, and Associates found that people across the political spectrum overwhelmingly agreed that the vaccine liability shield should be removed. Among Republicans, 79%. Independents, 74%. Democrats, 67%. Please ask yourselves, have any of my constituents, any Colorado citizens, the people I am here to represent, asked me to have all entities who are part of vaccine administration be given a liability shield i would guess that hasn't happened if vaccines are so safe then why does everyone down the chain in the process need liability protection it a very good point if if the vaccine the vaccines are either safe or they not if they safe then you don need liability protection If they are not then you need to put liability protection on every person involved in this chain Why can't we let these products stand on their own merit like every other product in the market? I propose the liability piece of this bill should be removed. The bill repeatedly specifies who isn't liable when there is a vaccine injury or death. No mentions of who is. The huge burden falls on the families of those injured or killed by vaccines. And we heard a lot of testimony about that. Already this session, there has been a huge discussion on whether there's no choice but to cut the funds of caregivers for the disabled due to Colorado's fiscal crisis. Colorado cannot afford this bill. Do you plan on using Colorado taxpayers to purchase vaccines in the future? Only 12.6% of Coloradans have received a COVID vaccine so far this season. Let me repeat that. Only 12% in the state of Colorado have gotten a COVID vaccine. Only 30% have received the flu shot. This seems like a lot of wasted money that the state doesn't have. If you are so worried about access and insurance, then go ahead and add an amendment saying that insurance must continue to cover vaccines, whether they are recommended by ASAP or of shared clinical decision-making status. Liability piece out, ensuring insurance coverage in. Proponents of this bill seem to believe that their side represents real science and what is coming out of D.C. is junk science. A few reminders of what the real science has brought us. Chronic disease in children going from 12% in the 1980s to 54% by 2011. Not one vaccine on the AAP schedule getting to market with an inert placebo-controlled trial. So harmful to children. Biden's FDA wanting to wait 75 years to release the Pfizer trial data. Dr. Paul Offit publishing in AAP's Pediatrics that each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10,000 vaccines at one time. This would later go on in AAP's Bible, The Red Book, to which pediatricians across the country translated this to mean infants can safely be given countless doses of vaccines all at once. Vioxx and opioids all complete disasters that still took a while to get off the market, although opioids are still on the market. This is the concern from the community that came out against this bill, is that we still don't understand what these mass amounts of vaccines are doing, although we do that chronic disease in children has almost quadrupled in 30 years. Other clinical data that we have, could vaccines result in more sickness to children than the diseases they were created to prevent? Peer-reviewed published research and government data suggests the answer is yes. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has now paid out over $4 billion, with a B, dollars. While this is an enormous amount of money, it pales in comparison to the billions of dollars worth of autism claims that the vaccine court unfairly dismissed in the omnibus autism proceeding. Because the amount is bombed by consumers, vaccine manufacturers have no incentive to make their products safer. Our vaccine program relies upon 1980s vaccine technology at the very latest in a 2020 world. In 2016, the government's vaccine adverse event reporting system received almost 60,000 reports, including 432 deaths, about 1,100 permanent disabilities, 4,100 hospitalizations, and about 10,000 emergency room visits. According to HHS, fewer than 1% of adverse events are reported. So let me just tell you, fewer than 1% get reported, and this is how many disabilities and hospitalizations have occurred because of vaccinations The least we can do we can talk out of both sides of our mouth If one side of our mouth is saying that vaccinations are safe then there should not be any liability shields. But we know they're not safe, and that's why we're shielding everyone from the doctors to the manufacturers to the pharmacists or the pharmacies. We cannot do that. Either say that they're safe and move forward and remove all these shields or tell consumers that there is some risk involved and be done with it. But we can't continue to talk out of both sides of our mouth. People of Colorado are watching and they're sick of it. Please vote yes. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I apologize. I do agree it's a Friday and it's been a long week. So my apologies for confusing the record, for confusing the listener. This actual, the liability doesn't apply to administering the vaccines. It is focused on the handling, storage, or distribution of the vaccines. And so I just wanted to clarify that. Even still, the arguments stand that we should not be giving this special liability exemption in this way, as was stated by the prior speaker. we should handle this in light of the ways we handle all of these kinds of situations and not make this carve out i will also note that the way that this language is currently written and i'll just read it to you so that you can follow along i'm on in section 11 just by way of an example there are three examples in this bill or three sections that have examples in this bill and it's 4-8 where a claim brought on or before january 30th 2029 against the hospital clinic, pharmacy, manufacturer, wholesaler, or provider arises from injuries resulting from the handling, storage, or distribution of vaccines required by this Part 17, the hospital clinic, pharmacy, manufacturer, wholesaler, or provider is not liable unless the injuries are the result, unless the injuries are the result of negligent failure of an employee of the hospital clinic, pharmacy, manufacturer, wholesaler, or provider to conform to recognized standards of practice. Now, my concern is that a judge may read this to only require negligence. That's what it says, is not liable unless the injuries are the result of the negligent failure, which means that if there is an intentional or reckless failure, that which is a higher bar, those wouldn't be covered by this, and there would be no liability. And while there are judges who may say if you satisfy the negligent failure and it's something at a higher level we're going to actually incorporate that into it that's not strictly speaking what the language says and so i am very concerned about that i continue to ask for an aye vote rep for a thank you madam

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This bill, I just have to find my notes here. Do we need to make a motion? We'll do that in a minute, yeah. This legislation is focused on supporting the full range of dedicated health care providers and entities who are vital to broad vaccine delivery in our state. Vaccines have put diseases like polio in the history books, but we are at risk of losing decades of progress in the current uncertain federal times. Recent outbreaks, including the measles cases here in Colorado and across the nation, have demonstrated how quickly vaccine-preventable diseases can resurface when coverage and confidence decline. This bill ensures that Colorado has a transparent and evidence-based framework for immunization policy and provides clarity for providers, pharmacies, clinics, and hospitals who administer vaccines every day. and with that I'll turn it over to my good colleague

Thank you ma'am I have nothing to add

Thank you Madam Chair at this moment we move L019 to Senate Bill 32 and ask that it be properly displayed

Thank you, Madam Chair. Now I have something to say. I wanted to introduce this amendment. One of the things that we heard over and over in Health Committee was the manufacturer liability, and so we are going to take that out, and hopefully we have your support and a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And just to appreciate the words of my colleague here, we have heard the concerns, and we also know that there is significant liability protections that exist in federal law. And so based on the fact that this provision is currently duplicated in federal law, we feel like we can take this out of state law, and it is no longer necessary. So we ask for an aye vote on this amendment.

Thank you. Thank you. I did not know that we would be able to get to a good place on this. The people that came out to testify feel heard. They don't love this bill, but the fact that you can be injured and have devastating effects like death, permanent disabilities, and a lot of these constituents spoke to their children being harmed. I think that is only fair. I really from the bottom of my heart appreciate it and so do the constituents. They feel heard and a lot of times they haven't for the last couple years. So thank you and thank you for them. I appreciate it and I urge an aye vote on this amendment.

Rep. Block. thank you madam chair I move amendment L to six and ask that it be displayed One moment

Thank you, Madam Chair. So this amendment would simply require that before a pharmacist could administer a vaccine, that the pharmacist would need to obtain parental consent. I think that is a reasonable request that a parent should be able to know what vaccines his or her child is receiving at the local King Soopers or Walgreens, wherever they're going. And so I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that the reason we're bringing this amendment is because we didn't have a lot of clarity. In Colorado, a 12-year-old generally cannot legally provide informed consent for vaccines on their own. A parent or guardian must give consent for routine vaccinations. Under Colorado statutes, minors usually need parental consent for medical treatment. There are limited exceptions where minors can consent themselves, but we know that for vaccinations this should be happening. Schools require signed parental consent forms. Pediatricians generally will not vaccinate a 12-year-old without parental permission. There's ethical considerations. And so I think that this is a good amendment just to kind of provide clarity on who can consent and who can't. Cognitive ability. We talk about this all the time, you guys. For kids under the age, I think 25, that don't have the frontal lobe knowledge, I don't think a lot of parents understand informed consent and are not getting informed consent for their children regardless. But this just clears it up. We know that a 12-year-old cannot, well, I have a 19-year-old. I don't know that he can conceptualize what a vaccine does. Sorry, Cole. But we want to make sure that this group of kids have the notification, their parents can talk through it with them so they understand that there might be risk involved. This just adds that clarity into this bill, and I would recommend an aye vote.

Brett Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks again to my good colleague from Douglas County. We're going to ask for a no vote on this amendment. I think actually the reason that I'm going to ask for a no vote is in many ways some of the reasons that my good colleague from Douglas County mentioned, which is that there is already parental consent happening and that writing it into statute at this point in time would not only be redundant, but it would be unnecessary. And so we also don't want to preclude the opportunity for some teenagers to seek care. And, you know, even if their parents agree to put another barrier in between them, an access to a safe and effective treatment and vaccine would be, I think, inappropriate. So we ask for no vote, but I appreciate the thought.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Amendment L25 and ask that it be displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Same discussion, different area of the bill. Parental rights, the ability of parents to know what their children are being exposed to. This particular amendment says that before a child can receive the HPV vaccine, that the child must obtain parental consent. Pretty straightforward, just making sure that parents know what's going on with their kids and that they who have all of that unique information about their particular child are part of the conversation. We had a former legislator, our former minority leader, in fact, who would often get up here at the well and explain how her particular child's medical history informed a greater degree of scrutiny of any sort of common administering of drugs or treatments and that the child didn't always understand the paradigm, the boundaries, that her particular condition required her to stick within, and it was essential that the mother be part of that particular conversation. We heard it earlier on the bill. We were told not all dogs and cats are created equal in the same way. Not all kids have the same composition. They are inherently equal and valuable, but they are not all of the same composition, and we should enable the decision makers who care the most about them and know the most about them to be at the table as they make these all-important decisions. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, another great amendment. I went with, I go with my children to all of their doctor's appointments. And if I need to step out of the room for something, I will, but not very often. I talked to my pediatrician about the HPV vaccine for a very long time because there has been a lot of research saying it can cause sterility. I know that that is, a lot of people have said, no, it doesn't. There's not research to base that on. and then I had heard that it could increase cervical cancer in girls and it could increase testicular cancer in boys so we sat there and we talked and we had a very long discussion about this so that we could come up with a plan on the best case scenario for my child I have been very vulnerable and told you I have vaccinated all of my children with every single vaccination and then I started noticing some things so I'm not an anti-vaxxer I come to you with my head out of the sand to tell you that there has been some liability issues with all of these things and to not be able to consent to that as a parent and walk your children through the complications and the risk factors to these things is is bad i mean we were seeing disabilities we're seeing autism rates go through the roof we need to be able to at least have the parental consent added to this, especially the HPV virus that continues to change as far as the research goes. So I think this is a very easy amendment and I ask for an

Thank you, Madam Chair. And as we said in that previous amendment, we're going to ask for a no

Thank you, Chair. I've been listening to the discussion that keeps saying that consent is already in the system required for this. But interestingly, I sat in Health and Human Services, and the sponsor of this bill standing to my left was the chair of that Health and Human Services last year when I tried to get parental consent on any medical procedure for a minor in any circumstances And it was voted unanimously against by every Democrat on that committee, including the chair standing beside me. So I'm not buying that there's consent written into that stuff. We do not have consent in the state of Colorado. We don't even have parental notification requirements in the state of Colorado. No consent, no parental notifications. And so this previous amendment and this amendment right here, these are both necessary because there is no parental consent. And when people say that there is, then why did they vote against it?

thank you madam chair and I am apologies to the bill sponsors for not getting this amendment to you sooner it's just off the printer and it's yeah I it's it's as a result of conversations we're having currently in real time, I move amendment L28 and ask that it be displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So as I raised when we were talking about the liability question, I am concerned that the language, the plain language of this bill, does limit liability to only those instances of negligent failure. It's very clear. is not liable unless the injuries are the result of the negligent failure. That's a really low bar, and that excludes intentional or reckless behavior or failure. And so I am adding into this one section this higher standard, and I am doing it as a placeholder for the future, largely because there are other sections in this bill that also have the same problem, and we in the time we had did not have enough time to actually do an amendment to get all of the different sections. But I think it's very important for the body to look at this because I don't know about you, but I think that people who are intentionally failing and causing harm to folks within this space should be held to a higher standard of liability, not be exempt from it. And while I do understand that a judge may look at this differently and may apply other things, The plain reading should be clear that they have the authority to do that. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We appreciate, again, to my good colleague from Penrose, I certainly appreciate the intent of this amendment. We believe that the kind of behavior that she is talking about, specifically intentional harm, is already covered in law. and the reckless standard, I don't know if that is the appropriate standard in this particular case. So without having had more time to digest this amendment, we're going to ask for a no vote based on what we believe is redundant in it being redundant in current law.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Sat there so long, I kind of lost track of where I should be. As a ranking member of the Health and Human Services Committee, I feel compelled to be down here just to say a few words. We felt that this bill had some really significant flaws. We really thought that maybe some of the amendments that came forward would be accepted. Obviously, they were not. But we really believe that this needs to have some greater thought. Perhaps it needs to come back to committee where we can discuss it more thoroughly. So at this time, I urge a no vote on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to make sure I level set regarding what I believe this bill is about and how I believe it's about access. It's about that misinformation and that disinformation. And using science-based research to both end the misinformation and disinformation, but also I believe my population has a very interesting pass with vaccinations. We have a complicated history, and it's very painful with African Americans and vaccines in this country. My body and our bodies have often been used as experiments to determine whether treatments work. The most notorious example, obviously, is the Tuskegee experiment, but it's not the only one. We've been unwilling participants in both the war on disease and the war on vaccination. Vaccines have always been a part of my family history personally. As a dependent, when my father was deployed overseas, the United States Department of Defense did not play when it came to vaccinations. I received a host of immunizations so I could travel overseas. Years later, when I entered the Army myself, I was given another full round of vaccinations. It has long been a part of my life and my service. But in 2020, through misinformation and disinformation, my father died because there was no COVID vaccination. And in 2021, my brother passed away because he would not take the COVID vaccination once it was available. And this is the tragedy of this moment. African Americans should not be the victims of a system that once exploded our bodies and now floods our communities with this misinformation and this disinformation. We deserve the truth. We deserve the same protections. We deserve to make decisions based on facts and not fear. And for these reasons, I will be a yes on this bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. and I appreciate the good representative from Adams in Arapahoe. We have lots of discussions on a lot of different things, and I appreciate his love for the law and his expertise for the law, and I am saddened by his story. I will tell you that as a physical therapist, I lost a lot of patients that believe that the vaccination played a part in that So I think we can both come with different opinions on this I have a lot of patients that were hurt because of said vaccination so for me to come up here is to support my community as well. I had one that received them and then couldn't walk straight. I had another one that received a vaccination and was so dizzy that we had to wait for this to pass. so I can appreciate both sides of this. I appreciate that this is a permissive bill and not a mandate as of right now, but I will tell you that the people on my side feel like this bill is voluntary so the state won't be at the mercy of the federal government, and they don't believe this is a lack of access. And so I am up here to speak for them and to speak for the injuries that they have had because of vaccine-related injuries. I also think that as a state, we should demand better informed consent. I am a mom of four kids. I've never been given informed consent on a single vaccination. I was a vaccinator. I told you guys that. Not once did somebody sit me down or hand me a pamphlet and tell me these are the risks to your child or the rewards for vaccinating against X, Y, and Z. I just believed. Hook, line, and sinker. just believed in the medical community that says they will do no harm. And so for me, not having informed consent, and what is informed consent? It's what it is and what it prevents. The benefits, the known side effects and risks, the contraindications, alternatives to vaccinations. I can assure you that I don't think any of us have been given alternatives to vaccinations unless you're taking your children to naturopathic doctors, which we have now mandated on them to talk about vaccinations. It's not just handing a form. It's not just auto-approval. These things can cause severe allergic reactions, seizures, myocarditis, myocarditis, pericarditis. We are seeing the results of this on the football fields in children with enlarged hearts. and what is happening, the least we can do is provide informed consent. So hopefully next year, because I tried to pass a bill on informed consent for COVID vaccines for children, and it was killed, and the very next day school-based health centers showed up. So maybe we can have some bipartisanship next year to protect our children and give the actual informed consent that parents and children deserve, especially when there's risks involved with the do no harm mentality. I am grateful that you listened about the manufacturer piece. I'm a little concerned about negligent failure from the good representative from Penrose. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't understand the law as great as she does. and I just with bills like this I want to stand for the community that is worried that we are just trying to get out from under federal law I urge a no vote on this bill. Rep. Furet. Thank you Madam Chair this is the longest I've ever been in the well and I'm still standing. It's been a really long tough week for a lot of people for different reasons and I just want to acknowledge that We started today off with a pretty heavy moment of personal privilege, and the ask was for us to do better. And this is a really heavy topic and I think that we manage that with grace with dignity We compromised We hurt each other And that doesn happen a lot so I just want to acknowledge that It is a great way to end Friday and thank you all for your service

Aye.

No.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the committee rise and report.

Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.

Mr. Shebel, please read.

Representative Lukens

Johnson amendment to the report of the committee of the whole Representative Johnson moved to amend the report of the committee of the whole to verse the action taken by the committee in not adopting the following Johnson amendment L1 to House Bill 1262 to show that said amendment passed that House Bill 1262 is amended passed

Thank you Mr. Speaker Pro Tem I move the first Johnson amendment to the committee of the whole and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. Again, colleagues, now that it's quiet and everyone's in the room, I very much urge a petition clause. I know I have a reputation in this building against the safety. For this one, we need time. We've been hearing about the concept of compounding this building since last spring. And since then, we've seen debates on whether it should be matching statute with federal or matching with the U.S. Supreme Court on if we go above federal. We've heard, do we want this in rules? Do we want this in statute? And this has changed at least five or six times in these conversations. And I'm still not sure if we know where we want to go. Adding petition allows 90 more days of safety until August 1st in case something changes at the federal level and we have to come and fix it so we don't have to come back in a special session or see a lawsuit. I urge yes vote. Representative Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. This bill actually

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. And I'm just confused because we heard that right now this fixes nothing. We're already doing it. We are safe. This is in case something else happens. We have time to do this. Our compounding ability in the state right now through the rule process is solid. We haven't had lawsuits at the state level. Other states have. Colorado has not. Our patients still have the ability to compound and get access to those medications. This is not an urgent thing. In the immediate, we have time to make sure we get this right.

Any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of the first Johnson Amendment to the report of the Committee of the Whole.

I guess we're now. Representatives Valdez and Zocay are excused. Please close the machine. With 21 a.m., 37 no, and 7 excused, the amendment is lost.

to the report of the Committee of the Whole. Representative Johnson moved to amend the part of the committee of the whole to verse the action taken by the committee and not adopting the following Johnson Amendment, L3 to House Bill 1262, to show that said amendment passed, that House Bill 1262 is amended passed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. I move the second Johnson Amendment to the committee of the whole and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. And what this does is it excludes veterinary use, our animal, our livestock industries. I've spoke with our ag folks. I've spoke in my district. I spoke on this last year in many stakeholder meetings, and it was universally understood that we were not affecting animals and livestock. This is what we had came to the conclusion on. No one wanted to touch this realm. urge that we put this in statute so we don't have unintended consequences in agriculture in pets and stick to what we had been stakeholding all of last year because in all the discussions and i had multiple stakeholdings with many many many many folks over 100 people they all said they agree that they agree that we should have veterinary use excluded so let's just keep to that and make sure what's clear as day i urge a yes vote representative stewart thank you mr

Representative McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem, and I apologize for not being here earlier. Veterinarians are allowed to be compounders under the Pharmacy Act and under the Veterinary Practice Act. We depend on compounding in a variety of ways for all kinds of animals, and we absolutely need to be in this bill, so I urge a no vote on this amendment.

Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine. Members, please proceed to vote.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the first Luck Amendment to the report of the Committee of the Whole.

Representative Luck. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. I move the first Luck Amendment to the committee of the whole report and ask that it be displayed. That's a proper motion. One moment. The amendment is displayed. Please tell us about your amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. In this bill, there is some direction giving to naturopaths, and part of that direction reflects a requirement to actually recommend to their patients the vaccination schedule, not just to provide it to them, in order to be able to treat children under the age of 8 and younger. This recommendation goes against many naturopaths' actual belief system, And it is a form of compelled speech, and so I ask that we take this particular requirement out. There is already another requirement in the bill that says that the naturopath has to provide information about the immunization schedule. But providing that information in order to allow for informed consent is markedly different than acting as a care provider and saying that they align with these recommendations and encourage them to be followed. And so many naturopaths actually are precluded from serving children as a result of this, and so I'm asking for it to be struck. Thank you.

Representative Brown. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. We ask for a no vote.

Mr. Sheebel, please open the machine. Members, please proceed to vote.

Mr. Schiebel please read the second

representative luck thank you Mr. Speaker Pro Tem I move the second luck amendment to the committee of the whole report and ask that it be displayed one moment

Thank you Mr Speaker Pro Tem This amendment says that before a child can be given the HPV vaccination a parent must consent to that particular vaccination I ask for an aye vote

Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the adoption of the second Luck Amendment to the report of the committee the whole.

Please close the machine. With 19 a.m., 40 no, and 6 excused, the amendment is lost.

Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine. Members, please proceed to vote.

the report of the Committee of the Whole is adopted. Announcements, introductions.

Thank you, Representative Woodrow.

Seeing no objection, the balance of the calendar will be laid over until Monday, March 16th. Madam Majority Leader.

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