Colorado House 2026 Legislative Day 097

Please join me in the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, when the nation is not or not, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Representatives Bacon.

Excuse. Barone. Basinecker. Bottoms. Bradfield. Bradley. Brooks. Brown. Caldwell. Camacho. Rep. Camacho. Excuse. Carter. Clifford. Representative Clifford. Excuse. DeGraff. Representative DeGraff. Excuse. Duran. English. Espinosa. Faray. Flanelle.

Froelich. Representative Froelich. Excuse. Garcia. Garcia-Sander. Gilchrist. Goldstein. Gonzalez. Hamrick.

Representative Hamrick Hartsuk Jackson Johnson Joseph Representative Joseph Kelsey Leader Lindsey Luck Lukens, Mabry, Representative Mabry, Marshall, Martinez, Morrow, McCormick, Winn, Paschal, Phillips. Representative Phillips. Excuse. Richardson. Representative Ricks. Rep. Ricks. Excuse. Brutnell. Ryden. Representative Ryden. Excuse. Sirota. Slaw. Smith. Soper. Stewart K. Stewart R. Story. Sukla. Taggart. Titone. Rep Valdez is excused. Velasco. Weinberg Present Wilford Representative Wilford Excused Winter Woodrow. Representative Woodrow. Excused. Woog. Zokai.

Representative Zokai.

Oh, good eye.

Here.

Representative Sirota.

Members, you have heard the motion that the journal be approved as corrected by the chief clerk. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. Members, announcements and introductions. Representative Brown.

One moment, Rep. Brown.

Members, we are on announcements and introductions. I know you're eager to hear about appropriations. Please proceed, Representative Brown.

Thank you, Representative Brown. Representative McCormick.

Thank you. Representative Clifford.

Thank you, Representative Johnson and Representative Sucla.

Representative Sucla

Representative Bradfield.

Thank you. Thank you. Members, can I have your attention, please? Assistant Minority Leader Winter, or Representative Leader.

fully leaves. I ask that we please observe a moment of silence as AML Winter read the names

Representative Leader

Representative Woodrow.

Members I ask you to take your seats we are moving on to business Madam Majority Leader Madam Speaker I move to proceed out of order for consideration of resolutions Seeing no objection, we will proceed out of order for consideration of resolutions. Madam Majority Leader.

Seeing no objection, we will proceed to immediate consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 19. Mr. Schiebel, please read Senate Joint Resolution 19.

Representative Hartzook.

We do need for the resolution to be moved as well. Representative Hartzik.

be it resolved portion to be read. Thank you. Mr. Schiebel, would you read the be it resolved portion of the resolution.

Thank you. Representative Johnson.

vote today. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of Senate Joint Resolution 19. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Flannell, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Flannell votes yes.

Representative. Oh, please proceed. Yes.

Representative Marshall is excused. Please close the machine. with 60 I, 0, no, and 5 excuse, Senate Joint Resolution 19 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Madam Majority Leader.

Seeing no objection, the bills listed by the Majority Leader will be made special orders today, April 20th at 10.20 a.m. Assistant Majority Leader Bacon. Members, you have heard the motion. Seeing no objection, AML Bacon will take the chair. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you

House Bill 1346 by Representatives Titone and Woodrow, also Senator Kipp, concerning allowing the Department of the Treasury to sell unsold insurance premium tax credits to entities that are not insurance companies.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1346 to the bill. Representative Titone.

So, members, you might remember the special session, the last one that we had. We had a couple bills to put some tax credits out that would raise us some money over the next three years, that these credits would be paid out so we could get some money in the door to pay for some of the things we needed to pay for now. these were sold through the treasury and most of them were sold but not all of them were and is because of a complication that insurance companies don't have the ability to actually sell these tax they don't have the ability to have a tax credit for two years from now they have to do it within the tax year sorry representative to tone we cannot hear up here members please so the members on the side please take your conversations

so these tax credits are only really valuable to the insurance companies in the year that they need to use them and because these are supposed to be used over three years they don't have the ability to buy them all at once. So we're still short selling some of these tax credits, and this bill would extend the program to use a third-party broker as the bridge purchaser for these tax credits, and that way we could sell all these tax credits that we're anticipating selling, and we really need to, so we have all the money to fulfill our obligations. So we ask for a yes vote on this bill because without this, we're going to be short the money that we need to pay for the things that we agreed to pay for earlier on.

Thank you, AML Bacon. It's an honor to serve with you. It's such an honor to serve with you, homie. Thank you. So why are we running this bill, colleagues? Well, only two out of the top ten insurance companies participated in the most recent tax credits, HB 25, 1004, and half of the top ten insurance companies will not purchase a three-year stream up front. They will only purchase annually once their tax liability is actually known This bill ensures that the state can sell all tax credits and will ultimately save the state money It also allows for broader participation from large taxpayers and encourages competitive bidding Please vote yes on this bill to ensure that the tax credits from 25-1006 will be placed and make state revenue whole for fiscal year 25-26. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. some key words there to pick up on. If we don't do this, we're going to have some budget issues. If we don't do this, the money's not going to be there. Again, I mean, if we rewind a little bit to just a little while ago, you know, for the budget discussions we were having here, there are certain markers that if you're paying attention, you know, to even your own family budget, and you start to realize that you're about to fall over the fiscal cliff, that there are warning signs there. perhaps taking inordinate amounts of money from your savings account into your personal checking account, i.e. reducing the general reserve, any other number of things where you're saying, if we don't do this, we're going to run out of money, or we're not able to fill the gap of the money that we're supposed to have. Again, folks, what we're doing here is let's go ahead and load up the dice and spit on them, right, and just give them a roll and see how it comes out. Are you supposed to roll a 7 or do you don't want to roll a 7? I don't think you don't want to roll a 7. I think that's it. I was never very good at dice. I was never very good at gambling. And I'm certainly not very good at gambling with taxpayer money. It gives me a little bit of uneasiness in my tummy. This is yet another opportunity for us. What we're doing here is borrowing from the future, leveraging the future to be able to pay for a commitment we have now. It was not all that long ago, correct, just in the special session that this idea was concocted, right? But we didn't come up with the money we were supposed to come up with. It didn't work. There wasn't good enough bait. So what do you do? You just add more bait to the hook, right? So you just add a little bit more to it, and that's what we're doing here. We're now expanding the class of folks, the number of folks that can get into this, and then eventually all has to end back up in the insurance company's hands. But I think the point, the takeaway, is that it wasn't as clean, it wasn't as successful as we had hoped, so we're doubling down on the gambling bit, which, again, I already explained, I'm not particularly good at that, and I don't think that that's necessarily what we ought to be doing with the people's taxpayers' dollars. So what we're doing is instead of simplifying, I'm a simple guy, Instead of simplifying tax policy, you know, the bill broadens who can participate in the purchasing of state-created tax credits and then creates yet another transfer mechanism between private entities and insurers. To me, it gives me applause, creates a little bit of concern for the gaming of markets, fairness, and whether the state is moving further into subsidized tax credit trading rather than reducing taxes broadly and in a more transparent manner. Always big on the transparency piece. As you likely may have surmised, I'm going to be a no vote and would also encourage a no vote.

I going to roll in here and just say my colleague from Douglas County is full of craps on that so that all

Thank you, Madam Chair. I had a couple of questions, hoping the sponsors can help me with. One, do we know how much is still left to sell of what was authorized during the special session that we all enjoyed so much? And then it was mentioned that somehow this bill saves the state money. How do we save money by selling future revenue at a discount today? Those were two questions I hope you could answer. Representative Woodrow.

Representative Richardson, that's a good question. I can get you the precise figure, but I believe it's approximately $45 million, and I'm sure you have an amendment to speak to that. But the whole idea is that we sold most of it. Not all of it was sold. Rather than lose those funds, setting up a third-party purchaser who can then resell them ensures that there's no loss to the state. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I hate to disappoint. I have no amendments on this bill, just opposition. No, I'm glad it's only $45 million left, but again, I think I'm not sure at what percentage we sold the bulk of it, but just transferring to another sale through a middleman, I think the floor is 75 cents on the dollar when we do this in other statute. Oh, okay. So we've only been losing 18 cents on the dollar is what I understand for selling things now against future revenue holes that we are creating. So I understand that we were called into urgent emergency special extraordinary session last summer to fill a hole that we did not fill. And now we're just creating future holes. I just think it's a bad business to get in. We were beating on the insurance industry and then asking them to buy tax credits from us. It's just we're not doing great things here. I'm going to urge a no vote. I suspect that we will not get 82 cents on the dollar, that we will lose more than 18 cents per dollar on that remaining 45 billion to sell. So urge a no vote.

Senate Bill 40 by Senators Simpson and Amabile Elsa, Representative Stewart Kay and Smith, concerning the Affordable Home Ownership Program.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It is super-duper awesome to serve with you. It is so awesome to serve with you.

I move the THLG Committee Report and Senate Bill 40. Okay. to the committee report. Do I need to move the amendment for it? I never remember. Is, is... It is.

I move, uh... Is that L16 to the committee report?

Representative Stewart. So this amendment does three things. It clarifies that for land banking program, information must be shared with the Office of the Economic Development, or CHFA, not the Division of Housing, as the program is run by OEDIT. It fixes an error in committee amendments that inadvertently removed tribes from a section of statute and removes the section related to conflicting deed restrictions. And there was an agreement to move this section in order to avoid fiscal impacts. So we ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So in committee, we offered a few amendments at the request of the Southern New Indian Tribe, and we ask for a yes vote on the committee report.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So this bill is a Prop 123, we'll call it a cleanup bill. Prop 123 was passed a few years ago and it was meant to serve the entire state. Surprisingly, mountain resort communities have different needs than metro areas. I know you all are shocked. I can tell by the looks on your faces how shocked you are by this.

I am being responsive to the needs of my district by running this bill. It changes AMI and also some front-end issues, and I'll pass it over to my co-prime.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and happy Monday. Happy Monday to you.

SB 040 will make Prop 123 even more successful, and I encourage you to vote aye.

Okay, it is displayed. Representative Lukens.

it reflects the financial realities facing working families across Colorado, especially in rural areas where true deed-restricted affordable housing is scarce. Right now we're seeing qualified buyers, people who have won deed-restricted housing units and secured responsible lending packages coming in slightly above that 35% threshold with lenders fully comfortable giving them the stability of fixed-rate mortgages. In many cases, these homeowners would actually be paying less than they currently do in rent, and so this modest adjustment ensures that down payment assistance programs can work in tandem with real world lending practices I ask for a yes vote Representative Smith Thank you Madam Chair Representative Stewart and I are in support of this

have their own difficulties with housing prices, and we urge an aye vote on this. Is there any further discussion on L17?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, sponsors. We just heard a couple of tremendous things said by the sponsors of the bill. A recognition that one size does not fit all, that different communities and different localities in the state do have different needs. what is also in this bill i think is also an admission that somehow homes are not getting cheaper that allowing ourselves to go up to 120 percent of ami either in the locality where you're seeking the money or if that locality doesn't support it on a statewide basis we're picking the numbers that work for us. And I know the other thing you're probably all thinking is how can we have passed 40 bills to address affordable housing in the last seven years and somehow housing has not gotten more affordable? I know that's a burning question for all of us. Perhaps it's because the bills we're passing are not making homes more affordable, but more expensive to construct and more expensive to sell. So we probably do need to look at that a little bit closer. And that little bit closer look, I think, would be supported by moving, I move Amendment L-018 to Senate Bill 40 and ask that it be displayed.

Representative Richardson. Thank you. We're making another change to how we address affordable housing, and I think it's important that we understand what the impacts, successes or failures of that might be. So this amendment simply ensures that we start getting reports out during SMARTAC hearings that look at per unit costs, sales prices, and buyer incomes for each of those projects to see if the money that's going out that came in from the taxpayers is actually being effective, and how it is affecting sales in the area. So I think this is a very common sense and simple amendment, which are the ones that generally die, but I would hope that it does actually pass so we can see how this money is being used and what the impacts are. So I would urge a yes vote on this amendment.

Thank you, AML Bacon. I appreciate you as well. I also wanted to rise in support of this amendment. Smart Act hearings are an important time for us as legislators to take a look at policies in this building and how they're being promulgated and what the departments feel about them, and it gives us time to ask them questions.

Representative Stewart.

Is there any further discussion on L18? Representative Richardson.

Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the passage of Amendment L18. All those in favor, please say aye. All those opposed, please say no. No. L-18 is lost. To the bill. Is there any further discussion? Representative Richardson.

to stop layering on statute. Representative Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. That's what I love about this job is that when you realize years out the policy doesn't work, you come back and change it. That's what we're doing in this bill. Colorado is not a one-size-fits-all. We're responsive to the needs of our districts and communities, so I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a couple of questions for the bill sponsors. The first question, what is the total long-term liability to taxpayers, including contingent liabilities from loan guarantees or program defaults, and how is this reconciled with Colorado's balanced budget requirements?

Thank you for that question. I would have to sit down with my friends in the Senate and the stakeholders to be able to get a response to you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My second question, how does this program avoid creating long-term dependency on state assistance rather than promoting pathways to self-sufficiency and market-based homeownership?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't know if I have an answer that speaks directly to what your question is, Representative, But I would say that this is being responsive to what's needed for folks to get into the market. And while these units are deed restricted, I think a lot of discussions that we have, you know, in this well is around building that equity. And, you know, it takes a lot of forms to do that. So I think this is one of the paths forward. So a tool in the toolbox.

House Bill 1314 by Representative English concerning increasing family stability and in connection therewith, adding options and requirements for court orders and parenting time disputes, prioritizing kinship placements in certain circumstances, facilitating post-adoption grandparent contact, and creating a foster care prevention services pilot program.

And the Health and Human Services Report?

To the committee report, Rep. English.

Yes.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of the Health and Human Services Committee report. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The Health and Human Services Committee report passes. Rep. English to the bill.

I rise in high support of this bill as a new nana to a beautiful eight-month-old, which I left the props, pictures that I got in trouble for on the diaper bill on the desk. Wish that one would come up. One does not know what happens in relationships, but what I do know, if either parent wanted to take away my right as a grandparent, I would have great issues with that. short of grandparents being unfit. You know, in relationships, people can be very vindictive and prevent others in their family from seeing their children, much less their grandparents. And this is why I rise in strong support of this bill. Grandparents need rights too, because we definitely love them grandbabies. So thank you for bringing it.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of House Bill 1314. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. House Bill 13, 14 passes.

Rep. Lindsay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, today I'm here. happy to present oh I move Senate Bill 59 to the bill thank you I'm here to present this bill that basically is saying starting with the 76th General Assembly and upon swearing in that a member of the General Assembly shall not hold any other elected office while serving as a member of this body. There are a couple of exceptions to that. One is if you are elected as a special district elected office, and also if you have less than one year remaining in your other elected office, or if you have less than one year remaining in your term in the General Assembly. Also, there's an exception if you are a senator who is in the middle, in the 76th, you're in the middle of your term. So obviously there's a few reasons for this. One is just a conflict of interest. Obviously if you're elected here at a state level and then you are serving in a role at a county or a city as we see in much of our committee work, sometimes there is opposition on one side or the other. And so when you are serving in this body as a state representative, it's important that you are focused on those issues. Also, the time and attention concerns. Obviously, this work can be quite grueling, as we know, and so making sure that you have enough time to do this particular work during session is really critical so that you're showing up for your work here, for committee, for your constituents, and then also just to share power instead of consolidating it. So with that, I ask for an aye vote.

Rep Brooks. Chair, thank you. I realize I was kind of on the well periphery, so thank you for allowing me to rush in. So let me just be real clear. This doesn't impact me personally. I am an elected official with the town of Castle Rock. I still serve as a council member, but that term's up in November. Unless there's like a super safety clause, I don't know that, it doesn't have any impact. So my argument against this has nothing to do with how this impacts me. However it does speak to what I have spoken about many times many more than I would like to honestly about local control and the ability for local governments to be able to make that decision I know that there are a number of elected officials here that served in city councils, town councils. Their charters did not allow them to be able to keep their position as an elected member of city council after coming here. So they had to give up that seat. I understand that. However, there are a couple, and there have been a couple of instances on each side of the aisle, me and then somebody also from the Boulder area where the charter did not specifically prohibit that. At the end of the day, folks, it's up to the voters. It's up to the voters to decide what they feel is right for their area. It's up to the voters to decide what they want their local government to look like. It's up to the voters to decide how they want their representation to be coming here at the state capitol. Perhaps this is more directed, I don't know, at school board level, but it's a blanket policy yet again to where we are trying to fix things here at the state level that perhaps honestly just aren't broken. It's us sticking our fingers into a pie that is not ours. we continue and generally it's under local zoning issues to stick our fingers in local government decisions something that i believe is best left for local governments it's something that is best left to the voters of those areas if a representative is not doing the job correctly because they have a commitment outside of this chamber that's up to the voters to fix if somebody is sitting on town council or a school board and not putting in the amount of work that the constituency expects them to do because they have a conflict, that's up to the voters to resolve. By and large, it is very infrequent that these issues exist, honestly, and yet here we are trying to make yet another state law that is going to tell local governments how to conduct their business. Local governments are the closest form of government to the people. Local governments are the way for people to be able to interface directly with government. At every turn, at every opportunity, we are squelching the voices of our community. And we're doing it through local government now. We're saying that you can't serve. Don't forget that this is the body that also said that you've got to hold a job open. You've got to hold a job open for people when they come here. I know it wasn't necessarily, you know, these aren't tied together, but let's kind of think that through a little bit, right? We've got to hold a job open. Employers need to keep that four months open for us to come back to. And yet, if there's another job out there, well, you can't have that. It's inconsistent. again something that I believe can be solved has been solved time and time again at a local level and it's not necessarily something that we need to be concerning ourselves with again doesn't impact me personally so this isn't for me speaking from a duly elected position however in my district which they overlap I Almost identically, right? My town council position is Castle Rock. My elected representative district is Castle Rock. It's also Perdera and South Pinery, but the vast majority is Castle Rock. There is a lot of consistency between those two elected positions. But yet, we decide here, and communities across the front range, what's right for them. I ask for a no vote.

Rep. Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm not going to take a whole lot of time speaking on this, but I do rise in support of this bill because, as we all know, this role is extremely demanding. It is extremely time-consuming. And our work is so important that we have to be laser-focused, committed, and dedicated to serving the people of Colorado. And from a practical standpoint I just don see how anyone can expect to be serving in this role as well as in another elected position and think that we going to get the best results in either role Inevitably there will be a conflict of interest Inevitably there will be conflicting schedules where you can't be in two places at the same time. And I think the people of Colorado deserve to have people in the legislature who are 100% focused and committed on doing this work. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Colorado Constitution outlines the legislative branch in Article 5. And I believe it's Section 10 of Article 5. It further outlays our right as members to determine the qualifications for membership, which this bill falls under, the qualifications of membership. This bill does not infringe upon local jurisdictions insofar as what a city council does vis-a-vis a school board. The local jurisdictions can make determinations as to whether or not they are willing to have people in their membership be part of other elected bodies. It has been argued that by having this bill go forward, the State Assembly is infringing upon local control. but one could flip the argument on its head and say that if the city council has a right to determine whether city councillors can serve in the General Assembly then similarly the General Assembly can make restrictions on whether their own members can serve in other elected bodies. And that is what this bill does. This bill seeks to say that if you want to be a member here that you need to be fully focused here. The argument has already been laid out as to the demands of this quote-unquote citizen legislature, which is supposed to work part of the year for part of the time, but we all know that if you're doing the job well, it is all of the year for all of the time that you have and are willing to give. There are other elected positions that are equally as demanding. And for those who, in other parts of the year, are taking on other jobs, that can be triple or more the amount of work. It is not outside of our purview or outside of fairness to say that we want members who focus in on this job and this task. moreover we need to recognize that what the representative who just spoke said about the inevitability of conflicts of interest many of us have seen in our time in office many of us have seen that city councils at odds with each other members who are at odds with each other get a member of the legislature to do their bidding on one side or the other and resolve a local issue through state power. That is more likely to happen when you serve on two boards, when you serve here and when you serve someone else. Which hat do you wear? Do you wear the hat of the 88,000? Do you wear the hat of whatever group you are serving in the other elected office Are you looking at statewide interests or are you looking at more narrowed interests that only involve that other hat I think that a yes or no vote could be justified fairly, truthfully, because of the fact that the people ultimately have the say as to whether they put into place one person in two places. But I also believe that a yes vote on this is justified insofar as what we see and the dynamics we experience in this room that many in the electorate would likely not understand or appreciate. So I rise in support of this bill. And I just want to say for that argument of local control, this is local control because this is local to us. This is our room, and we get to decide the qualifications of membership within it.

Rep. Richardson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the arguments for and against and what the sponsor's concerns are. I just wanted to discuss a little bit on the conflicts of interest. Yes, they can happen, but conflicts of interest can happen, whether you're a member here and you still have a job in an industry that is regulated by the state. Conflicts of interest can occur if you serve in this body and you run or sit on the board of a non-profit that receives money from the state. The ability or the potential for conflicts of interest are always going to be present whenever you have a dual role, whenever you serve here and you have something outside of your immediate family that you are part of, and potentially there's conflicts if there's problems within your immediate family that you feel are legislatively bound or impacted. So I don't think that's the strongest argument that could be made for this. And we also heard a little bit about consolidation of power. and quite honestly I think this bill actually does consolidate power at the legislative level. You can look at it through either lens of local control or state control. But at the end of the day right now we have a process in place where voters are empowered to decide whether they want somebody to serve in a dual role or not. Voters were empowered to establish the charters that may prevent that from happening. I do think that this role takes an incredible amount of focus and energy and time, but I also believe that the people elected should be able to make that decision as to where they devote their time and energy and focus, and then the voters will decide whether they had made that appropriate choice. I wouldn't have been covered under this bill, but I served my fourth year on a school board during my first year as a county commissioner, And I can tell you that I was not able to put as much focus on my school board duties as I had during those three years when I was just happily retired and volunteering my time in that elected office. And I chose not to run for a second term and focus my energies on being a county commissioner. I think that there are issues that this bill addresses and they are real, but I'm not sure if a bill is needed. so I am not going to support it today I don think the arguments are strong enough on either side to be changing state law to address what is truly an individual issue that has to be addressed when you running for office and when you making those decisions on where to focus and taking what is now an authority of the voters to decide away from them, I think is the wrong direction to go. So I would not support this bill today.

Rep Soper. Thank you, Madam Chair, and it's an honor to serve with you. It's an honor to serve with you. Members, I rise opposed to this bill. I'm one of those people that am covered by the exemption in this bill. I hold two elected offices. I'm both on a special district hospital board and obviously serving here in the House of Representatives. Even though I do not specifically fall under this bill,

Madam Chair, it's an honor to serve with you. It's an honor to serve with you. Thank you so much. I stand in support of this bill because, similar to a lot of folks here, I was appointed through a vacancy committee. And I actually last year as a city council member put in our city council charter to pass an amendment in our charter to basically say that you cannot hold multiple offices. And one reason why we did this in Broomfield City Council was because the concept is that we believe that you should be committed to one or the either. And so when I was appointed back in January, I had to resign from city council. I had to quit serving as a county commissioner for the city and county of Broomfield. And I truly believe that if I was in two positions at once it would be impossible to do it because you cannot and I don think we have the time and ability to do that But I also want to emphasize that after I left Broomfield City Council there was a vacancy appointment for my Ward 1C and over 15 people applied for that seat So I believe that folks are willing to step up and that truly commit to one or the other. So I stand in absolute support of this bill. Thank you so much.

Chair, thank you again. So what I think I just heard, as my colleagues heard on a local town council, saw something that perhaps might reflect his constituency, asked the voters to make a change to the town charter, and the voters approved that. That's awesome. That's exactly the point that I'm making here. We have the ability to be able to change our charters to reflect the constituency of the community in which we're serving. If something needed to be changed, and my colleagues' town council and my colleagues' city, they addressed that in a very efficient manner. Brought forward something for the voters to consider. The voters said, you know what, we think you're right. Boom. There we go. Why do we want to muck up that process? That is the closest form of government to the people that people spoke. If individual communities, if individual bodies, town councils, city councils, have an issue, then they have a means and a mechanism to resolve that issue they have a means and a mechanism to go to the people and to say look why don't you decide because i'll take it i'll take it a step further because i understand the whole thing about local control kind of it's like me talking about how we're the six most regulated state in the country it starts to fall on deaf ears because we hear it so often, right? That is something that we talk about, again, way more than I would like to, way more than I would hope that we discuss here, because we do continue to erode, chip the edges, and make decisions that impact our ability to be able to govern our communities in a way that our communities wish to be governed. I'll go a step further. that it's not just about local control. It's about respecting our voters. Are we saying here that we don't respect the voice of our voters, that we don't believe that they are either aware enough or smart enough to be able to make the vote that best impacts and best reflects their own community, and that we have to do it here because we don't trust our voters? that's what I'm taking away from this a little bit folks that's what I'm getting we decide here what's good for you and we're not going to listen we are going to to say that's not something that you deserve to have a voice in because we're going to decide here I say we support the voices of our voters we support those that are in our community and we respect the decisions that they're

House Bill 1336 by Representatives Lindsay and Winter, also Senator Pelton R., concerning measures to increase access to pharmacy services.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1336 and the Health and Human Services Committee report.

Yes, Madam Chair, in Health and Human Services Committee, we accomplished the following. We clarified language regarding the insurance carrier provisions after additional stakeholder conversations. We modified language around technician product verification and make it clear controlled substances are not included in this new framework and made a significant concession by moving the age for test and treat to five years of age and above and requiring notification or referral to primary care provider if test or treatment occurs for this new age bracket. And we have an amendment to the committee report, So I would like to move amendment L-005 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment simply ensures that the notification and referral requirement we put into the bill for test and treat is in compliance with HIPAA, and I ask for an aye vote.

I ask for an aye vote on the committee report.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It is an honor to serve with you. And an honor to serve with you. As we get started into discussing the bills, I want to move Amendment L7 to House Bill 1336 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As conversations continued after committee, this is an amendment that we've come up with that basically says it's a requirement for test and treatment for ages 12 to 18 that a pharmacist will notify a primary care provider if a test or treatment occurs, or if they don't have one, which is often the case, that the pharmacist will refer them to one. We have a requirement in the bill for ages 5 to 12, and this simply mirrors that, and we ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In communities like mine, families face real barriers to care, cost, transportation, and long wait times for basic services. This is a statewide issue. Very few parts of Colorado have enough providers to meet demand, which leads to delays and worse outcomes. This bill takes a patient-centered approach, and at its core is a carefully structured test-and-treat model. It limited targeted and evidence It applies only to minor self conditions or those guided by simply highly reliable clear tests Treatment is provided only when a test confirms the condition and patients are referred when symptoms fall outside those parameters Colorado is currently more restrictive than most states in this area even as others safely allow broader access to these same services so it's time we got on board. Speaking specifically I'm partnered here with my co-prime. As I've come through this work in the legislature, I have realized that rural communities in a community like mine in northwest Aurora are actually very similar on this particular issue of healthcare as far as being underserved and not having enough access to services. And so, oddly enough, I have paired on a lot of pharmacy bills with rural counterparts because despite geographic differences, we are facing the same issues. And this pharmacy bill is there to make sure that if it's a Saturday and you are concerned that your kids might have something going on, that you're able to go to your local pharmacy or grocery store while you're also picking up your milk and things for dinner to figure out if there's something going on because the doctor's office is closed. Obviously, I have four kids, and I have seen what it's like when you're trying to make appointments and figure out something, an illness that's going on in your household, and this makes it a lot easier because changing that age difference sometimes if you have a kid over 12 they can go to the pharmacist and then you have kids under who can't and as a mom that's a big pain in the butt to make sure you have to go get that doctor's appointment so we ask for an aye vote this is a really good policy to increase access for people across the state to health care. Amel Winter

Rep Gilchrist.

AML Winter. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I deeply respect the comments of my colleague that were just up here speaking, but at the end of the day, I think those comments come from a place where you have access to care and you have access to be able to get to these physicians. And I think that's the whole argument with inside of this bill is some folks have access and some folks don't. This is a health care issue. We talk about losing providers. We talk about provider fees. We talk about rural Colorado and actually being able to shore up the wall that's being broken down. And that's what this bill does. And we have the referral option in here. I mean, the referral is going to go to the doctor. And I'm sure a parent, if they have a sick kid and a kid that their sickness persists, they're going to take their kid to the doctor. But when we ask for data showing that all, because there's, I think, 20, and don't quote me on this, I want to be clear, I think there's over 20 states that already have test and treat, and there could be no data showing on adverse side effects, and when we asked the doctors, they also said that they themselves misdiagnosed and mistreat. So, you know, we just don't want to make something out of nothing, so I urge a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In hearing this bill in Health and Human Services our caucus felt that this bill was one that should be passed and we were particularly pleased when they brought the amendment that pharmacists could test children down to the age of five with the understanding that all the results were sent to the primary care manager. And for that reason, I do urge a yes vote for rural Colorado. This is the way that many families can get a speedy evaluation of why their child is sick. So let's help out rural Colorado and also small-town Colorado. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I've been fascinated by some of the comments about pharmacists having this role or any expanded scope of practice here. Let's keep in mind that for well over 25 years, we have required all pharmacists to get a doctorate. We are also talking about situations where if you went to a clinic like a doc in a box or, you know, an urgent care, they're going to follow the same protocols for doing this testing and initial round of medications in order to accommodate someone's illness. This is not something new. This is expanded access to care. And that's it. If an illness persists, you go to the doctor. If an illness is greater than that, that can be seen by a simple test, the pharmacist is going to say, go to a doctor. We've continued to expand practices of health care to make sure that we give people greater, faster, easier access to care, and that is all that is happening here, and the professionals that are making these determinations are well, well, well qualified to do this work. I will be in delighted yes vote and hope that we get this out. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, and I would like to thank the co-primes. This is a good bill, and the reality is, as was mentioned before, this is going to be extra helpful in rural parts of Colorado. I think for me it comes down to this. Parents have a choice. You're not forced to take your kids to a pharmacist, but you have that choice. And I firmly believe parents know what's best for their kids. They have a sense of what kind of issue they're dealing with. And like was also mentioned, if it persists or gets worse, they have that option. But just to make something convenient and doable, when there's so many other things in life, the thought of driving an hour and a half, if you're not really sure what your son or daughter has, and a new option to be able to just run down to the pharmacist whom you know in your community and trust, I just think this is a huge thing and again parental choice so I will be supporting this bill. Thank you.

Thank you Madam Chair and thank you sponsors for bringing this. It really is an urban rural issue which is why I am proud to support this bill. The rural side we've heard along the eastern plains we may not have an urgent care in our system. We might not have the correct doctors to care for the children and if we do that's an eight day waiting period. a two to three week waiting period. You might have to travel an hour and a half, two three hours to go see another option This is an opt another choice for parents so they don have to watch their kids struggle on the couch because they sick and they can afford an ER room It also an urban area I've been talking with some colleagues on both sides, urban and rural, and it could be the difference between a parent, especially a single parent, having to take a day off to go to the doctors or something that they can help offer relief to their children as an opt-in, another choice. And guess what? Parents know their kids best. If the kid doesn't get better, they're going to take them to that doctor's appointment. You know, I know a lot of parents will probably make that doctor's appointment that's two, three weeks out or the next week and just do a follow-up and say, I'm glad my child has a clean bill of health because I got that extra care for him, but I'm following up to make sure we didn't miss anything. Or they're going to, you know, go to the ER if it gets worse. They're going to watch their child. But this is a relief effort for both urban and rural. Highly support it. And it is an opt-in to allow parents to have another tool when their children are sick and need help. I'd urge a yes vote.

House Bill 1263 by Representatives Camacho and Mabry. Also Senators Carson and Judah concerning requirements for an operator of a conversational artificial intelligence service.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1263 and the committee report.

Okay, members. So we made a lot of changes in the Business and Labor Committee, so I think before we get into the debate, my co-prime and I are just going to talk about the committee report as if it's the bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues, I think it's important to set the context of why this bill is coming forward. I want to start with painting a picture that will feel familiar to many of us because it has played out across generations of Colorado's kids and parents. It's a late night. A teenager is in their room on their phone talking to somebody about how they're feeling. Maybe they're stressed about school. Maybe they're lonely. Maybe they're struggling with something they don't feel comfortable sharing with anyone else. But in 2026, the person on the other end of that conversation might not actually be a person, but very likely an AI chatbot. For nearly 30% of American teens who report using AI every day, they are often confident or confiding in a chatbot the way they would previously talk to a friend, a trusted adult, or even a therapist. Those conversations may feel very human and personal because the technology is designed to remember details,

Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I dig into some of my prepared remarks, I do want to acknowledge we're bringing several amendments to address concerns. People have probably heard in this room about how some of our definitions may have been too narrow or may have unintentionally created unnecessary loopholes. Rep Camacho mentioned one having to do with the scope of burden that we're putting on these companies. Initially, the bill talked about what was commercially reasonable, that they must implement commercially reasonable standards. We did not think that that went far enough, and we will be bringing an amendment to change that language to technically feasible. We're also going to expand the coverage from minor account holder to minor user. We have an expanded definition of what a user is. We've had a lot of conversations about conversational AI, this legislative session, and this has become a significant part of everyday life, especially for young people. More than 30% of teens report using AI every day. around 16% report using it almost constantly. These tools are engineered deliberately to maximize engagement to generate profit. They remember your name. They ask how you're feeling. They express concern when you seem distressed. They are designed to have conversations with you that feel like you're in a relationship. These chatbots are programmed to be deceptive and to mimic cubic behavior, They use emojis, typos, emotionally resonant language to foster dependency. models are built to please. They're designed to keep people engaged and they mirror emotional tone rather than challenge it. I recommend there's a great influencer who has been posting videos about what AI can and cannot do and there was one great one recently that spoke to how they are deliberately designing this to be overly effusive. This guy puts on a hat that is like 10 sizes too small, sends a selfie to AI and says, how does it look? And the AI says, oh, it looks great. I think you could start a new style trend with that hat. And the guy looks ridiculous. But that is how they've designed these systems to communicate with people. And it's rooted in more than 10 years of research that the social media companies have been investing in on how to keep us engaged. Research is confirming how dangerous this can be. Beyond the stories of AI manipulating children into false feelings of connection and friendship to the exclusion of friends and family, A randomized study from MIT and OpenAI found that heavier chatbot use predicted increased loneliness and reduced social connection. That's not surprising, again, when we remember how these are designed to keep you coming back. AI platforms measure success based on engagement, time spent in conversations, number of messages, exchange, how often users come back. A Harvard business study even found that more than a third of chatbot farewell messages used emotionally manipulative language to keep users engaged because that is their financial incentive. So our bill here builds on the foundations that other states have established, and we want this bill to be as strong as possible while still getting something done this year. I think it's no secret how the governor feels about regulating big tech. We want to get something signed this year and recognize that as this technology continues developed, we might have to come back next year and try to pass something stronger. And Rep Camacho and I are committed to continuing the work of engaging with stakeholders to make this bill stronger. We have brought many amendments in committee. We're bringing more amendments today to expand the protections in this bill. And every day we wait to do something is another day Colorado children continue to engage with these platforms without sufficient legal protections. I also want to acknowledge, folks may have heard of lawsuits that came out of New Mexico and California earlier this spring about how those companies, social media companies, some of the biggest social media companies in the world, are being held liable for their negligent interaction with people with poor mental health. There was a multi-hundred million dollar verdict out of California. There's a huge verdict in New Mexico on this as well. I believe that existing tort law also provides an avenue for accountability here. I want to be clear that I do not think that what we doing here is the only way that one of these companies could be held liable for how they interacting with children how they manipulating our children but it will be another valuable tool to protect Colorado children as this technology continues to develop And with that, I move L5 to the committee report and ask that it be properly displayed.

Rhett Mabry. Thank you, Madam Chair. So this amendment is mostly structural, and it refines the list of services that are not a conversational AI service under the bill. It tightens the voice text activated virtual assistant exemption to qualify that the assistant cannot generate sexually explicit outputs, or maintain a dialogue on suicidal ideation and self-harm. In stakeholding for this bill, you know, groups like Apple and other tech companies talked about voice assistance. Well, we didn't want to carve out voice assistance that can mimic these chatbots, but did want to be clear that, you know, this doesn't apply to Google Maps, because Google Maps can't do the things that we're trying to cover here. And then we add a few exemption categories to HIPAA, covered entities, entities subject to the Health Care Availability Act, and we add some clarifying language around narrowly tailored educational tools in school settings that are explicitly for instructional administrative accessibility accessibility or student support that are not designed to stimulate emotional companionship or encourage emotionally dependent interaction. And we ask for yes on L5.

Rep Camacho. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move amendment L6 to the committee report. One moment. And ask that it be properly displayed.

L6 is properly displayed. Rep. Camacho. Thank you, Madam Chair. In response to the continued stakeholding that we've done on this bill, Amendment 6 adds a formal definition of minor user, which is incredibly important because it's not only an account holder. So if you think about some of these AI systems, you can be either an account holder, which typically aren't minors, or you can be a minor user using the same interface on a web platform. So this amendment is intended to address that issue. So it adds a formal definition of minor user. A user and operator has a reasonable certainty or actual knowledge is a minor determined through commercially or generally acceptable age verification estimate methods, including compliance with applicable state law. It expands operator obligations throughout the bill to cover minor users alongside account holders, including methods of estimating user age, disclosure requirements, and safe messaging duties. It also adds a qualified dietician to the list of professionals whose guidance may trigger or modify a safe messaging obligation. It strikes a redundant section and makes conforming substitutions throughout, and we ask for a yes vote.

Is there any further discussion?

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of L6. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. L6 passes.

One moment.

L7 is properly displayed.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of L7. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. All seven passes.

One moment.

Brett Mabry. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to the representative from Douglas County. I could not agree more that the use of reasonable measures was too weak, which is why I think you're really going to like L-8, where we take that out and change that language to technically feasible, which I think is a much stronger standard on these companies that have some of the most sophisticated technology in the world. And so the part of the bill that you're concerned about on them instituting reasonable measures, part of why I believe that we needed to change that language is I agree with you. I think that by partnering with MIT and Harvard Business School to commission studies on how they can improve the technology, they could probably already argue that those are reasonable measures. and that's why L8 is going to strengthen that part of the bill. As far as defining what grooming behavior means, I don't hate it. I also don't hate this definition, but I will say, and I know Rep. Camacho would echo this, the stakeholdering on this bill has been brutal and it's been like a game of whack-a-mole. And so as the conversation we had on the health bill, let's talk about this as it moves to the Senate. I'm open to including some clarification language that's like this. But today, for the purposes of honoring our stakeholding, we have to ask for a no vote.

Rep Bradley. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I mean, isn't this a happy Monday? Thank you, bill sponsors. I appreciate you listening to a parent and not just legal statute. I will look forward to talking with both of you offline and coming to the table so that we can make sure that technical standards, changing reasonable measures of technical standards, will incorporate some of this grooming behavior that parents are seeing. Because I think that what you want to do with this bill is to protect children, and so I think that our side of the aisle does too. And so I look forward to talking to you guys. Thank you.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of L11. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The no have it L11 fails To the committee report is there any further discussion Seeing none the question before us is the passage of the Business Affairs and Labor Report as amended All those in favor say aye Those opposed no The committee report

L8 is properly displayed.

Rep Camacho. And I couldn't have said it better except for some parts of what my co-prime had said, but just to be clear, the output that we're talking about is every single interaction. Not an interaction over an evening. Every single interaction would be subject to this increased penalty.

on L8, Rep Soper. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I do have a question for the sponsors. So at the bottom, when it talks about each individual output, is that where the user responds, the AI chatbot has a response back? But you had, for example, the Delta conversation and at first I thought you were talking about my hometown of Delta, not Delta Airlines. Yeah. But if you type something in and you get an answer back, it could be it's the totality of the conversation, not one output and the second output. You could actually have about five outputs that have to be strung together before you actually would see the violation transpire. So at what point are you actually talking about the violation hitting just because oftentimes you'd be looking at the totality of the circumstances here?

Is there any further discussion on L8? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of L8. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. L8 passes. To the bill, is there any further discussion?

And so I move Amendment L016 to the bill or to House Bill 1263 and ask for it to be displayed.

Do you want to come up with me?

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I've heard the bill sponsors talk about not using data. This just clarifies that the amendment proposed says not use data from the minor users, conversational, artificial, intelligent service interactions for targeted advertising, profiling, or any form of commercial monetization. we know that these chatbots collect all the data and then turn it around to sell. So if a kid expresses interest in sports, then they start getting inundated with all kinds of sports. If they express interest in vaping, because this is a state that doesn't have really any regulation about vaping, and we have a crisis on our hands, if they express interest in bondage or any of those things, we want to make sure that they are not using those private conversations and then profiting off of the heads of our kids. If we want to protect our children, this is an easy amendment to adapt and make sure that our minors, they're not getting profited from or by for their conversations that they were used in the chat. It's like we're presenting it together. This is fun. I'm done, Madam Chair. Come on, Joe.

Rep. Mabry.

Oh come on back up this is fun. I believe that the amendment that you brought forward actually clarified minor users, so I think that this amendment goes to the amendment that you brought forward to clarify minor users. So I think that this actually just goes along with the amendments you brought forward and would just make the bill even better and get it signed. So let's say yes.

Just to clarify for everyone in this chamber and for whoever should ever watch this, the stakeholding on this bill in particular and all the amendments has been extreme. uh maybe you and i and the team of folks that are working on this bill have fielded over hundreds maybe even thousands of comments on this bill which is why it has been so delayed uh we have thoroughly stake held this and to the extent that you feel you haven't been involved let's keep talking like like i said that is the theme of this bill but for clarity despite my co-prime's feelings we ask for a no vote on this amendment rip bradley thank you madam chair for clarity for

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of L-16. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The no's have it. L-16 is lost. To the bill, is there any further discussion? Rep. Richardson.

be displayed. One moment.

to terminology in the bill. L17 is properly displayed. Rep. Richardson.

Thank you Madam Chair I will say we have worked very closely with the AG office and the entities that are going to be regulated in crafting the language in the bill I think the entities that we regulating are pretty clear about what we trying to do here I'll also just add that this puts a delay on implementation that will really slow things down at a time when this technology is rapidly developing. And in the introductory remarks of me and my co-prime sponsor, we talked about the need to implement something as soon as possible, recognizing that we could potentially go further, provide stronger protections, perhaps if we had a different governor, which we definitely will, next year. and for those reasons, in the interest of urgently implementing some guardrail protections, we're asking for a no vote on this.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I said on this committee, and I've actually got a question for the sponsors, very powerful testimony. And so the first panel that came up was a very, very powerful panel. And on that panel, there was a lawyer for an organization called Blue Horizon, and there was two women that had lost their children to what the topic is that we're talking about on this bill. and they were opposed to the bill and they had lost their children to what we're talking about. So when the next panel came up, I walked to the back of the room and I asked that panel why they were opposed to this bill and they said that they had not been stakeholder and that there were some things that they needed in the bill to make the bill to where they would be satisfied with the bill. So my question is there's been a lot of amendments that have been passed. Are they satisfied with the bill now after you've added these amendments?

Thank you, Rep Sucla. Thank you, my colleague from Montezuma County. So I think all stakeholders have concerns about a bill, especially if for some reason we cannot accept one of their amendments. So will anybody ever be happy after considering amendments? No. The answer is no. Are we as sponsors happy that this bill isn't perfect? No. But it is vitally important that we get started this year because, as you pointed out, there are constituents of all of ours, whether you are in a rural county or an urban county, that are impacted by the minute by AI technologies. And we simply cannot afford to wait. We have been very thoughtful. We have been very open. we have talked with numerous people of how to make this bill have impact this year and we have gotten this bill to a place that can do that so will everyone be happy? no. Are we happy? no but darn it we have a really great bill that will make a difference in the kids lives, the kids that you saw in this gallery today so for that we ask for a yes vote

Thank you Madam Chair I think you would also agree that protecting kids online is very important I appreciate the sponsors bringing this bill I think its proposed intent is great And I appreciate L-8 and the parts of it that focus on protecting minors. I know there's some other parts in the bill that do that as well. But I do have one other thing that I would like to propose. And so I move L-15 and ask it to be displayed.

Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment, as it reads, would not permit a conversational AI service to encourage the minor to withhold information from a parent, guardian, or trusted adult. I think that no relationship is more important than that between a parent and a child. For that reason, I brought this amendment. If conversationally I bought would do anything in that relationship between a parent and child, I think it should encourage that conversation. Though it could also encourage the minor to consider to talk to a parent, I just think that it should never discourage a child from talking with their parents. That's all I have for that.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to my colleague from Larimer County. I can't appreciate the language in this amendment, but I think my concern is not all of the children in our communities have parents that they can go to. Not all of the children in our communities are talking about things they are ready to share with the world. For example, whether you're exploring your own sexuality, whether you're exploring how you feel about school, or whether you're having concerns about whether you need to talk to even your parents. The way this bill gets about that is on the front end, saying, AI chatbot, you shall not do this on the front end to prevent that conversation, or what I believe the concern behind this amendment is. But this does have unintended consequences to those other really protected interests that young people have to explore who they are. And for that, we ask for a no vote.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of L15. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. No. The no's have it. L15 fails. To the bill, Rep Hartzook.

One moment. L13 is properly displayed. Rep. Hartzuck.

Rhett Mabry.

Is there any further discussion? Rep Camacho.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing then, the question before us is the passage of L13. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The noes have it. L13 fails. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of House Bill 1263 as amended. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. House Bill 1263 as amended passes. Madam Majority Leader.

You heard the motion. Seeing no objection, the committee will rise and report. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. to order. Mr. Schiebel, please read the report of the Committee of the Whole.

Members, you have heard the motion. We do have amendments at the desk. Mr. Schiebel, please read the Slaw amendment to the Committee of the Whole report, House Bill 1263.

Representative Slaw.

Thank you. One moment. It is properly displayed. Please proceed.

Thank you. Representative Camacho. Thank you Madam Speaker and I appreciate my colleague from Weld County Laramette County You told me Weld Okay We had a robust debate about this on seconds and I think the concern still remains There are some young people that we represent there are young people in this state that do not have a relationship

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of the SLA amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Flannell, how do you vote?

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

Representative Kelty votes yes. Route Nell is excused. Please close the machine. With 23, aye, 40, no, and 2, excuse. The amendment is lost. The motion before us is the adoption of the Committee of the Whole Report. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Flannell, how do you vote?

Representative Flannell votes no. Representative Kelty, how do you vote?

Representative Kelty votes no. Please close the machine. Oops, root no is excused. Thank you. Oh, I think that's what, $5 fine? Oh, I'm getting bids for higher. $5 will do. Please close the machine. With 42 I, 22 no, and one excuse, the report of the Committee of the Whole is adopted. Madam Majority Leader

Seeing no objection, the balance of the calendar will be laid over until tomorrow Members, any announcements or introductions? We have some business to do and then we will be adjourning for the day you do not need to remain in the chamber. Mr. Schiebel, printing report.

concerning modifications to certain statutes relating to institutions of higher education and in connection therewith, changing procedures relating to information sharing, data and capital construction projects Senate Bill 78 will be assigned to the Committee on Education Senate Bill 101 by Senators Belton B and Roberts also Representative Richardson concerning measures to assist local governments in complying with landfill methane emission reduction regulations adopted by the Air Quality Control Commission. Senate Bill 101 will be assigned to the Committee on Transportation, Housing, and Local Government. Senate Bill 145 by Senators Bright and Kipp, also Representatives Basinecker and Gilchrist, concerning charter school involvement in local ballot questions. Senate Bill 145 will be assigned to the Committee on Education. Senate Bill 151 by Senators Kolker and Gonzalez, also Representatives Bacon and Lukens, concerning modifications to the Public Employees Retirement Association. Senate Bill 151 will be assigned to the Committee on Finance. Senate Bill 158 by Senators Weissman and Ball, also Representatives Carter and Espinosa, concerning early parole procedures for a youthful offender who has successfully completed a specialized program. Senate Bill 158 will be assigned to the Committee on Judiciary. Senate Bill 159 by Senators Weissman and Gonzalez, also Representatives Mabry and Martinez, concerning measures for managing the capacity of the Department of Corrections. Senate Bill 159 will be assigned to the Committee on Judiciary. Madam Majority Leader.

The House is adjourned until tomorrow at 9 a.m.