March 26, 2026 · 23,361 words · 13 speakers · 291 segments
Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Mr. Schiebel, please call the roll.
Representatives Bacon. Barone. Basinecker. Excused. Beaker pro tem is excused. Bottoms. Bradfield. Bradley. Brooks.
Yes, sir.
Brown. Caldwell.
Here.
Camacho. Carter. Clifford.
Here.
DeGraff. Duran. English. Representative English. Excuse. Espinoza. Representative Espinosa is excused. Foray. Flannell. Froelich. Rep. Froelich is excused. Garcia. Oh, Garcia. Representative Garcia. Excused. Garcia Sander. Gilchrist Goldstein Gonzalez Hamrick Hartsook Jackson Johnson Joseph Kelty Representative Kelty Excuse Leader. Lindsey. Luck. Lukens. Mabry. Representative Mabry is excused. Marshall. Representative Marshall. Marshall is excused. Martinez. Mauro. McCormick. Representative McCormick. There she is. Wynn. Representative Wynn. Pascal. Phillips. Richardson. Ricks. Representative Ricks is excused. Rootnell. Ryden. Sirota. Slaw. Smith. Rep Soper is excused. Stuart Kay. Stuart R. Story. Sukla. Representative Sukla Taggart Titone Valdez A Rep. Valdez is excused. Velasco. Representative Velasco. Weinberg is on the wall. Wilford. Representative Wilford is excused Winter Woodrow Woog Zokai and Madam Speaker
With 57 present, 8 excused, we do have a quorum, Madam Majority Leader.
Yeah, Madam Majority Leader, I think I'm going to give you like a C- for being in the well on time. Oh, the minority leader says a D. Oh.
I missed what, what did you say?
She gave me a C.
And you gave me a D? I'll remember that, Madam Speaker, and Minority Leader Caldwell.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Journal of Wednesday, March 25, 2026, be approved as corrected by the Chief Clerk.
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, we are going to move into announcements and introductions. I have an announcement. Representatives Brown, Sirota, and Taggart are excused at such time as necessary for the Joint Budget Committee meeting. No one signed up, so everyone who comes to the well owes me a dollar. Representative Woodrow.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, the... See, I don't even know what I'm talking about. The Committee on Finance will be hearing two bills today upon adjournment. In Room 112, we'll hear 1111 and 1132, and that just cost me a dollar. Thank you.
Representative Lukens.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. The House Education Committee will be meeting in Room 107 at 1.30. We will be hearing House Bill 1231 and Senate Bill 126. Thank you.
Representative Jackson.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Colleagues, I will be gone tomorrow and won't come back until Wednesday. And I've actually been approved to be excused.
So approved. Thank you. Representative Camacho.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Colleagues, the House Business Affairs and Labor Committee will meet at 1.30 and House Committee Room 112, and we'll be hearing House Bills 1190, 1261, and 1263 in that order. Thank you.
Representative Wilford members Wow Well done That was magical State Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs will meet 15 minutes upon adjournment in LSBA to hear Senate Bill 47, Senate Bill 120, Senate Bill 87, and House Concurrent Resolution 1001. Also, I have requested and received approval to be absent tomorrow, which is Friday.
Thank you, Representative Wilford. So approved. Representative Carter.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will be absent on Friday.
So approved. Seeing no further discussion, members, we are moving on to business. Madam Majority Leader.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move to add the following bills to the special orders calendar on March 26, 2026 at 9.16 a.m. House Bill 1101, House Bill 1193, Senate Bill 118, and House Bill 1210.
Seeing no objection, the bills listed by the majority leader will be added to the special orders calendar on March 26th at 9.16 a.m. Representative Zocay. Members, you have heard the motion. Seeing no objection, Representative Zocay will take the chair.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Okay. The committee will come to order. With your unanimous consent, the bills will be read by title unless there is a request for reading a bill at length. Committee reports are printed and in your bill folders. Floor amendments will be shown on the screen on iLegislate and in today's folder on your box account. Bills will be laid over upon motion of the majority leader, and the coat rule is relaxed. Madam Majority Leader.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to lay over Senate Bill 118 until after House Bill 1193.
Seeing no objection, Senate Bill 118 will be laid over until after House Bill 1193.
Madam Majority Leader. Madam Chair, I move to lay over House Bill 1195, Senate Bill 88, and House Bill 1304 until tomorrow.
Seeing no objection, House Bill 1195, Senate Bill 88, and House Bill 1304 will be laid over until tomorrow. Thank you. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1101.
House Bill 1101 by Representatives Espinoza and Soper, also Senators Lindstedt and Pelton B, concerning adding criminal offenses related to critical infrastructure components to criminal offenses involving commodity metals. Representative Espinoza.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move HB 1101.
Would you like to also move the Judiciary Committee report?
We didn't have a committee report, Madam.
We did?
We did.
And plus you need it because your amendment is to the committee report.
Oh, and the committee report.
Oh, to the committee report. Is there any discussion on the judiciary committee report?
Yes, Madam Chair, there is. I move L004 to HB1101. It was put on our desks on March 24th at 3.51 PM.
Yes. OK.
Do we have to restate that?
Yes.
Can you read it?
Rep. Spokinoza, I will just have you restate your motion to the committee report.
Yes. I move L004 to the committee report. It was a multi-page amendment that was put on our desks at 3. 51 on March 24th.
That is a proper motion and this was properly noticed and is displayed. Please proceed, Rep. Vespinoza.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd actually like to move L-005 to L-004 and ask that it be displayed.
That is a proper motion. And Amendment L5 to L4 is before us. Please proceed.
Thank you, Madam Chair. L-005 catches one error that we made that we failed to pick up in L-004. And what we were doing in L-004 is revising the whole section to make it clear where the original bill objective was meant to be. And then we forgot to add, replace without written certification with an affidavit stating, which is a change we had made in the original bill.
Is there any further discussion on L-5? seeing Rep. Garcia-Sander.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a question. Does this change the fiscal note at all because there's not an updated memo?
Rep. Espinoza. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. One moment, Rep.
Please proceed, Rep. Espinoza.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The question was imposed whether there would be any change in the fiscal note with regard to the changes. Since this was simply a structural change in the determination, in fact, there would be less of a fiscal note because ultimately we reduce the charge from an F5 to an F6. There would be less cost at the end of the day by the underlying amendment of L4. So L5 itself does nothing. Of course, it's just modifying a change in L4, but there is no change overall with the fiscal note because we actually reduced the level of charges that were previously in the bill, so you actually have a reduction in any cost that would have existed, and there were zero costs before, so there would be even less than zero costs now.
Is there any further discussion on L5? Seeing none of the question before us is the passage of L5 to L4. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. L5 passes. To L4.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Yes. So let me go through L4 a little bit.
What happened in the committee is we actually had a very good discussion over the original structure of actually the whole bill. My original bill simply placed the new criminal activity of critical infrastructure theft, which every member in this chamber should know is critical to every community that we have. Critical infrastructure theft has resulted in loss of streetlights because people are stealing the copper out of streetlights in the community. It involves RTD thefts that have resulted in downtime for RTD because people are going in the live areas of RTD and stealing critical infrastructure. It involves cell towers where people are going and taking out cell towers, critical copper materials, burning that off, and then trading it in scrap metals. This kind of harm is ubiquitous across all of our districts and all of our communities For many years we been trying to address this problem in terms of how do we get a handle on the issue What this bill did was take the previous catalytic converter approach that we had taken in criminal activity and applied it in the context of critical infrastructure. So by going to the scrap metal workers, the purchasers of the place where the thieves are now transacted with the stolen critical infrastructure, we're attempting to eliminate the market and in so doing be able to ensure that we give less of a reason or an ability for people to traffic in the stolen goods that are affecting all of our infrastructure. So what happened, though, in committee is having built the bill around the existing commodity metals language, it was my determination that the best penalty was to place it at an F5. The committee was not interested in placing this harm at an F5 and asked me to pass this through two seconds, but to address the larger question of whether an F5 in all circumstances made sense. And the original bill that we were working off of made not maintaining your affidavit book an F-5 penalty, depending on the level of the medals that were involved. This did not seem reasonable, and so when I went back and looked at it, although the bill was originally structured and placed the harm at the F-5 level because that was where it needed to be in the way the statute was written, it became clear that we needed to reorganize the whole statutory section. Hence, you have L-004, which does exactly that, and it specifically identifies three separate crimes that were preexisting in the statute and then properly aligns a criminal offense to those three different statutes, three different crimes. And so what you have now is crimes that more accurately reflect the level of the conduct or tie to the level of conduct that's there. Ultimately, the result is instead of having an F5, the highest charge that can be done even for the critical infrastructure is an F5, and that makes a big difference in terms of just the overall structure of how the bill is written and what is done. I encourage the adoption of L-004. It's a result of stakeholding with the Junkyard Scrap Metal Association. It's also involved all of the critical infrastructure that we've talked to, which you see defined in the bill as including transportation, housing, we call it covered entities, and communications. So this would be further defined on page 6. You can look at who the categories of victims in these circumstances are, and they are now all included in this bill. These are victims, as I said, that are present in every one of your districts and that really have requested that they could be part of this bill in order to try to get a handle on the billions of dollars of loss that they're facing across the various sectors. I would encourage you to aye vote on L-004.
Representative Bottoms.
Thank you, Chair. I do see this as an issue. This is a pretty egregious thing that going on in any kind of building groups I actually had this happen at our church where people cut all the catalytic converters off of our vehicles And I mean, it made our church bus sound cool, but I don't like this. This is bad. But here's the thing with the bill that I have a problem with. Because I do like the bill. I do like the fact that we're trying to shut this down. but I think we're coming at a little bit different angle than I would. I don't think going after the scrapyards and the trucking groups that do this is the way to accomplish it. And the reason is, if you've walked in this arena at all, it would be almost impossible to hold the salvage yards accountable for what's going on here. Now, I think when you have the salvage yards doing something and they can report, here's what I would suggest is give them incentives for reporting people that are doing things they shouldn't be doing, and then we have investigations immediately started, people arrested for this because they have been investigated within this arena. But to have the salvage yards attacked for this, I think this ends up being, I don't think it's the intent of the bill, but I think it ends up being an attack on business. We don't want to attack our businesses for going after bad guys. Let's go after bad guys and maybe give businesses incentives for going after these bad guys. For, like I said, reporting, making it aware to authorities that this group seems sketchy, this person seems sketchy. You know, why did this guy bring in 17 catalytic converters with fresh cuts? I see that as a very viable answer to this problem. But I don't see attacking the salvage yards for this because there's no way you're going to be able to do this properly. It's not going to happen. These salvage yards have no idea where most of this stuff comes from. And these things come in by the semi-loads from people that have put them in all over from different companies, corporations that they get. And then these trucks just take them to the salvage yards. And so I think this is going after the salvage yards. I don't think it's the right way to do this. And I think this turns into just an attack on business. And I don't think that is, I don't think, according to this amendment, I don't think this is the author of the amendment's heart. I don't think that's their intention here. And so let's amend this a little bit more and make it so that we're not going after the salvage yards in the process of this. And so at this point, I would be a no on this amendment unless we can amend this amendment.
Is there any further discussion? Reptograph.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So what I'm going to try to do is try to address some of those things, my colleague. This is a, you know, there's a lot here, and it's obviously a very big problem. Infrastructure gets metal. I've dealt with metal, not in terms of that, but in terms of hazmat, lead, and dealing with recyclables and all that. when I was an environmental manager. But the So in here you know it a really big problem because you know they going to get scrap metal prices for bringing in something that might cost you know a pound but they going to sell it for drug money for something like a pound And, you know, I think there's a lot better, I think we need to deal with the underlying cause before we go after our, and not hold this, you know, be focused on the scrap medallers because they're not the issue. The underlying cause is the criminality of the state. And when the criminality rises, especially when the governor imports them, then you're going to have a problem. So just to get through some of these, trying to clean up some of the language in more of a free market constitutional manner, making sure we recognize the rights of our scrap metal dealers. They really perform a very important function to take those metals that would otherwise go in the trash and be able to recycle them back in. And that cuts down significantly on energy use. And so one thing that we want to do is we want to make sure that we're not vilifying somebody who's providing a productive part of society. So I move L006 to House Bill 1101 and ask that it be displayed.
Representative DeGraff, can you move your amendment to the amendment?
I move L006 to L004 to HB 1101 and ask that it be displayed.
That is a proper motion. And L6 is before us.
Please proceed. All right. Oh, I thought I sent these to you. I thought those went to you. My apologies. I thought they already went to the sponsors. Okay. So just amending the strike below here, page 2, line 43. So at the very bottom, and then just after an owner, keeper, proprietor, collector, dealer who knowingly possesses critical infrastructure material in violation of this section commits unlawful possession of critical infrastructure materials. So for the purpose of, so the wording here that I'm going to insert is to just clear up a culpable mental state. Traditional criminal law requires and then due process protections against strict liability offenses. It directly prevents criminalization, innocent possession, ensuring enforcement targets, wrongful conduct, rather than the status of the circumstance. So, again, I don't think this is. So what this would do after material on line 43, after line 43, then insert when the owner, keeper, proprietor, collector, or dealer... when the owner, keeper, proprietor, collector, or dealer knows or reasonably should know the material was unlawfully obtained. So again, we're just taking it back to due process protections against strict liability offenses. It directly prevents criminalization. and innocent possession, ensuring enforcement targets wrongful conduct rather than status or circumstance. I think this is a compatible amendment with what we're trying to do, and so I ask for an aye vote.
Is there any further discussion on L6? Rep Espinoza, Rep Bottoms.
Thank you, Chair. This seems like what I was looking for earlier. This is an amendment to the amendment that would really get us there on the bill. That does make it, it takes the responsibility, does put it on the buyers, but also that they have to actually know that this is something illegal instead of just attacking them. Again, this falls into the category, let's not attack the business owners. Let's go after the actual criminals. The business owners are not the criminals here. And so we need to make sure this is in balance and isn't another anti-business, anti-innocent people bill. It's a pro-illegal agent bill. And this isn't doing this unless we put this amendment. We put this amendment in here, man, I am ready. Let's go at this bigger amendment and make it possible. But we need this amendment to it to make it possible.
Representative Zucla.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So I grew up with the Belt family. The Belt family has owned our salvage yard for 50 years. what they do there is they put out the containers for uh put out the containers to the different farms and everywhere they fill the containers up bring them in pay the farmer for it but what they do is every once in a while they'll look they'll get somebody that'll come in to this amendment and why this amendment is good and um they'll just feel like something isn't right so they'll get a hold of the local law enforcement, and they'll set up a sting, and then they'll catch them, and then they won't be taking the copper wire anymore off of the telephone poles or off of the power poles. I believe the amendment's good. I believe the bill's bad. We already do it where I live. Just let your salvage yards do what our salvage yards are doing, and when they have a problem, they get a hold of the law enforcement, they set up a sting, and they take care of the problem. Thank you.
Rep. Espinosa.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I urge a no vote on this amendment. I think it actually increases the liability to the scrapyard owners, which we worked very hard to ensure that they were not going to be liable. By this amendment, we would change the mens rea, which is very clearly in the statute. knows or should have known is a standard that is very difficult to prove. Moreover, in this circumstance, it would require some information that a scrapyard person is not the person to make that enforcement. If you look at the overall structure of the bill, if they have that feeling that we just heard about something being not right, there is an obligation as a separate section of the bill to do exactly what was said. They don't necessarily have to set up a sting, but they do have to set aside the material and let law enforcement come and make a determination over whether that material might have been stolen. Part of the bill also requires our scrapyard members to obtain information as they going along about where there have been thefts of certain kinds of material so that they have notice of where that material might be coming from if they receive it and it creates that kind of suspicion. But changing this obligation to the scrapyard dealers would actually undermine the protections that we've negotiated with the scrapyard companies to ensure that they have the greatest level of protection. That protection also exists because as long as they are acting in good faith, having a signature by the person who is selling the information that they have the authority to sell it, there is no liability for the scrapyard recipient, and their only obligation would be, as what was just described, if there's some concern that the medal that they have received is unlawfully obtained, they need to notify the law enforcement officer. This changes the standard at the front end and creates more liability than what we wanted to do in this bill, so we'd ask for a no vote on this bill.
Is there any further discussion on L6? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of L6 to L4. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The noes have it. L6 is lost. The question before us is L4. Is there any further discussion? Rep DeGraff.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate engaging in the conversation. So we can flesh this out for the citizens of Colorado and especially for the people that are in this line of work, that they understand what the intent of the bill is. Okay. Okay. I move L008 to L004 to HB1101 and ask that it be displayed.
That is a proper motion. and LA is before us please proceed Rep de Graff
thank you Madam Chair so this is just again wanting to make sure that we're not inadvertently criminalizing anybody so the purpose behind this is just watching the show So the reasoning for this amendment is to provide clear protection for legitimate businesses acting in good faith, particularly scrap dealers, recyclers, secondary market participants, reducing the chilling effects in lawful commerce and reducing incentives for overcompliance or refusal to transact. So what we're looking for is to improve economic fairness and neutrality. So L-008 to L-004 to House Bill 11, page 3 after line 28. Just wondering if maybe some people could relocate to off the floor.
Members. Members.
Thank you Rep Lukens for that Please take your conversations to the side We cannot hear our speaker Rep de Graff please continue Thank you Rep Lukens for that Please take your conversations to the side We cannot hear our speaker Rep DeGraff please continue
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I thought seconds were for debate, not social hour. Okay. So after line 23, after line 29, a person or entity subject to this subsection is not liable at the time of transaction or possession the person or entity maintained records of the transaction consistent with the applicable law and did not know or could not reasonably have known that the medal was unlawfully obtained. So again, the person or entity maintained records of the transaction consistent with the applicable law and then did not know or could not have reasonably known the medal was unlawfully obtained. So, again, I think this goes along with what the sponsor had mentioned earlier about the mens rea, the known, but just clarifies it inside the bill to make sure that we're not sweeping lawful transactions and business activity into this, which I would consider inadvertent, certainly not the intent.
Is there any further discussion on L8? Representative Soper.
Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And I just want to point out that really the provisions of L-008 are already encompassed within the strike below, which is going to be the bill itself. We already have a safe harbor provision when the business entity is keeping the business records, and that in and of itself does add the protection for the junkyard or salvage yard. So this is really not needed at all. Thank you.
Is there any further discussion on L8? Reptograph. Seeing no further discussion on L8, the question before us is the adoption of L008 to L004. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The no's have it. L8 is lost. To L4, Reptograph.
All right, I move L10. Oh, this is good with L9. I move L-9 to L-4 to House Bill 1101 and ask that it be displayed.
That is a proper motion. One moment while we get it displayed. L-9 is before us.
Please proceed. Okay. Okay, so this, the intent here, and of course doing a little bit of catch up on the strike below, is making sure that there's an affirmative defense to enhance procedural fairness, encourage standardized record keeping, and reduce arbitrary enforcement and outcomes. It complements but does not replace the prosecutorial burden under Amendment 1. So on page 3 after line 29, it is an affirmative defense to prosecution pursuant to this subsection that the defendant obtained the metal through documented commercial transaction and complied with all applicable record keeping and identification requirements at the time of the acquisition critical infrastructure material. So just making sure that if they have the documentation that they have it an affirmative defense that the defense obtained the medal through documented commercial transactions and complied with all the record keeping So again if they done their due diligence in making sure they following the law and something happens in the breakdown in the paperwork that they are protected I ask for an aye vote.
Is there any further? Rep. Espinosa.
Thank you, Madam Chair. In part, I just like putting that thing up and down. In regards to this amendment, I'd ask for a no vote because on page 3, subsection B2, we already have a provision which is, again, much more encompassing and a better protection. That was negotiated with the scrapyard dealers that the owner, keeper, proprietor, collector, or dealer does not violate the subsection 1-6 if the owner, keeper, proprietor, collector, or dealer has an affidavit stating that the transfer may lawfully transfer the critical infrastructure material. We believe that is a better way to address this rather than the negative approach that was taken in the amendment, and it would be inconsistent with the amended bill, L-004, so we would ask for no vote.
Is there any further discussion on L-009?
Seeing none, the question before is the adoption of L-9 to L-4. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The no's have it. L-9 is lost. To L-4, Rep de Graff.
Thank you, Madam Chair. and anything that is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program. So let's make this one five years so we can evaluate the effectiveness since we're putting this into play. Five years is a good time. So for Section 1.6, just putting a repeal date after five years. That's all it is to make sure that we come back to this, revisit it, make sure it's accomplishing what we want it to, be able to look at any arrest records, be able to look at the impacts on our scrap metal dealers, and just make sure that we have an intentional look at the effects of this bill before we just turn it loose in perpetuity. I move L10 to L4 to HP 1101.
That is a proper motion.
Assuming you would like that displayed.
I would.
And it is before us.
Is there any further discussion on L10? Rep Soper.
Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, we already have a three-year business records retention policy, so five years would be out of line with that. Second of all, we don't put automatic repeal dates for criminal provisions. That's because you want consistency and reliability within the law. If someone knows that a criminal code is going to be repealed within five years, obviously that adds questions as to the extent that that law is truly applicable. It also creates an element where we expect citizens to know the law and certainly know the criminal code. and if provisions of the criminal code are automatically repealing here and there, it becomes very, very, very difficult for a business entity or even a citizen to be able to know, understand, and follow the law. So that's why we would ask for a no vote.
Rep DeGraff.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So I get that, but we also need to come back and we need to revisit that and look and make sure that the intent is there. So, when you say that it's automatically repealed, yes, technically, without a vote, it's automatically, it comes before the body. It's not automatically repealed. It's automatically, this would automatically go to a review committee, and that review committee would look at it, and then they would make a determination as to whether this law was accomplishing what it intended, or whether the unintended consequences of this law had exceeded the actual value. So I disagree. I mean, look at how many sunset reviews do we have in here so far that they just keep coming and basically everything is more of an automatic renewal than an automatic repeal. This just makes sure that we come back, revisit it. Yes, the records, I'd be happy with three years if you wanted that, according to the records. But all it does, doesn't change anything. The law continues. It comes up for review. We make sure that we bring the data together. We bring the scrap metal dealers in, and we ask them what the effect is. And then we make sure that we are updating our laws. We're updating our knowledge based on the impact on the citizens of Colorado. the chances, the only thing guaranteed to come out of a bill like this is unintended consequences. If this achieves its intent, achieving your intent in anything is always miraculous. We always need to plan that the unintended consequences are the only thing that's guaranteed to happen. So we need to look at this. Five years is a good time to look at it. We need to look at it in five years to make sure that the unintended consequences have not been, have not become the real result of the bill. So I ask for an aye vote.
Rep Funnell.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I am going to disagree with my colleague from El Paso County. I think that this bill is incredibly important, especially for finding these people who are taking these medals. so a lot of times this requires expertise in order for them to take these metals from specific structures and it is clearly they need to be caught I don't think that this is something that's going to be stopped anytime soon and even if it does I would think that if this bill doesn't exist that it will continue then with the if this bill does stop that it would continue again so I think that this is a perfect solution for solving crimes when my colleagues across the aisle do not like to increase penalties on criminals. Thank you.
Rep. Perron.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So I come up here. I want to ask the good representative that brought this amendment forward. It says it repeals effective five years after the effective date of this act unless reenacted by the General Assembly following a review of its effectiveness and impact. I'm confused about the timeline of it. Is this supposed to be a review before the five years to see the effectiveness? Because it seems like it is repealed effective five years after, and then there should be a review by the General Assembly. But then it says reenacted before that. So the timeline of this is kind of confusing here Reptograph Well I appreciate that That the standard language that comes out of the drafter So yes you take the start date and then unless just like in any other sunset clause unless the body takes affirmative action in that regard, it would sunset. It's just saying that this is a government program. We don't know how it's going to respond. One thing that we know about this program, again, is the unintended consequences are guaranteed. We don't know what the unintended consequences are, but we know they're guaranteed. They will occur. Now, what we're hoping is that this will have the effect that the sponsors actually intend. We're hoping, and it's, you know, that's what we're hopeful for. So what this does is it would repeal it. This is just a normal sunset language. This would repeal it at a certain date, five years after. And so what you have is you have the sunset. So we would have, so in five years, this would be enacted sometime after the session, right? So say in September, we have to look at the enacting clause here. So in September of 2031, I guess, 2031, sorry, I was getting ahead of myself, that it would repeal in September of 2031. So during the General Assembly session, the sunset bill, the bill to the sunset review, it would come up as a sunset review knowing that it's going to expire. And then during that time, during that General Assembly session of 2031, we would make it available, if they're still in business at the time, for the scrap meddlers, that they can come in and speak to it. So the automatic repeal is not getting rid of the automatic repeal just means we have an automatic review. This has what's built into here is, I mean, you can read automatically repeal, but what's built into here is the automatic review of the program. So if you don't want reviews of our programs, if we just are going to go under the assumption that a pilot program has, that the pilot program will have all of the intent and none of the ramifications and does not need to be fine-tuned, well, yeah, then you don't need a sunset clause. But maybe we step back and we go, maybe we need to reevaluate that. This is not just saying this is not getting rid of the law. This is not unpassing the law. This is not creating a gap in the law. This is not creating a gap in the law. It's just saying that at five years beforehand, We want to review it and look to see if it is accomplishing what we want it to accomplish. And then the general assembly at that point can say, is it accomplishing what we want it to accomplish? Yes. Then we re-hack the time, then we re-hack the end date, or we move it into perpetuity. We say it is working so well, you remove any subsequent sunset clause, and off it goes into the sunset forever. Right? So the only thing that this does is it guarantees that there's going to be a review of the process to make sure that it's achieving what it should achieve. There's no gap. There's no unpassing this law. There's no gap. There's no gap created by that because the review time would be in the General Assembly prior to the expiration date, and that would be in the hands of the General Assembly. So unless you confident enough that we are doing things perfectly in this bill then you don need a sunset clause If you aware that maybe there some aspects of this that might go off the rails when they get recycled from the train yard or something like that, if you can acknowledge that maybe this does not do exactly as it's intended, then we need a sunset clause to go back and review it. So I ask for an aye vote.
Rep Soper.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd ask for a no vote on this, but I will tell you in reading the amendment, let's actually look at what it says. This subsection, 1.6, is repealed effective five years after the effective date of this act. And then it goes on to unless reenacted by the General Assembly following a review. There's nothing in here that says that the review has to happen before the repeal or after the appeal. This is also not how we draft sunset provisions. That's very specific to occupations and licensures. What we normally do is either an act is repealed or it stands. We only review things in terms of occupations themselves. Additionally, for why this would not even pass constitutional muster is you're trying to bind a future General Assembly to act, and that would be unpermissible because as a General Assembly, we are granted plenary lawmaking authority for the state of Colorado, and one General Assembly cannot bind a future General Assembly. So if the intent here is to bind a future General Assembly to engage in a review, period, that would be impermissible. So there's many ways to analyze this. Every single way you analyze it comes up with the same answer to the equation, which is this is a bad amendment.
Representative DeGraff.
Well, I'll go discuss that with how it was drafted. But I'm not really sure how we have sunset in that case, how we have any sunset clause on any bill, because any sunset review is going to bind the future legislature to review that prior to the sunset. We've had multiple sunset reviews already, and those were enacted by General Assembly, people in the General Assembly that are no longer here. So they, five years ago, they bound us to this. to this. Now, if the General Assembly deems that they're not going to take this into review for whatever reason, then, but from this, I'm not really sure how this differs from the normal sunset review process because it just says it does end unless, unless, and the General Assembly just needs to bring it forward. I guess you're right in that sense that they're not actually bound to bring and perhaps we're not actually bound to bring any of these sunset bills and we could just let them slide off into the distance. So no different really than any sunset review, just making sure that this bill is accomplishing what it wants to do.
Is there any further discussion on L-10? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of L-10 to L-004. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed no. No. The no's have it. L-10 is lost. to L4 Is there any further discussion on L004 Seeing none the question before us is the adoption of L004 to the Judiciary Committee Report House Bill 1101 All those in favor say aye As amended I will say that one more time The question before us is the adoption of L-004 as amended to the Judiciary Committee Report. Okay. Third time's the charm. Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the adoption of L-004 as amended to the Judiciary Committee Report of House Bill 1101. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. L-004 passes. To the bill, is there any further discussion on House Bill 1101? Representative Sucla.
Okay, every year I do a farm auction. I sell over 100 cars, pickups, trucks. It's a three-day auction. I have 3,000 people come to that auction. And the first thing that happened to me here a few years ago is I sold some cars that didn't run. And when I sold those cars, after I'd sold them the very next day, I look out in the parking lot, and the person that had bought that car had a cutting torch going on in my parking lot. And I said, what are you doing? And they were cutting the catalytic converter off of the car because they said that the catalytic converter was more than what the car was worth. So they were going to take the catalytic converter, and they were going to sell it at the salvage yard, and then they were going to take the car to where they crushed the car. So what they were doing was they bought the car, they were dismantling it in a legal way because they bought the car from me at the farm auction. When we set up the auction, we set up the good stuff and then we set up the stuff that we call the junk and a lot of it is metal stuff. And a lot of it, I will have over a thousand consignors, meaning I'll have a thousand different people, farmers, people from all over the place that will bring me this stuff that we call the junk lines. and they'll take that then i'll auction it off and then they'll all different people will buy it so i have these different metal people that just buy the metal and they bid against each other to buy the metal and and and then after they buy it then we start loading this stuff up and it's multiple different things that they bought if they felt it was a good price and it was metal and then they take it to the salvage yard. So my concern about the bill is the salvage yard has no idea where it came from and am I going to be responsible with my auction company because I auctioned off that metal, which I knew that it came from the farmer, but there was no record that it came from the farmer. so my point about this bill is what about that instance to where those people bought the car cut the catalytic converter off which I stopped them because it was a fire hazard how are they going to be protected and how are you going to find out if it was stolen or not thank you
Rep Espinoza
thank you Madam Chair to my good representative from Montezuma, I think that hypothetical is totally inapplicable because we're dealing here with critical infrastructure, not salvaged junk cars, but even under the bill, that is already covered in terms of other commodity metal and they have those preexisting obligations. However, as the bill has been... we drafted, we would protect that individual because as the purchaser of the material from you, they are now the owner. They have a receipt that they purchase that from an auction. They take that and they sign an affidavit to the junkyard that they are the owner for purposes of selling and transferring that material. If it were critical infrastructure material, then that demonstrated it would come from an unlawful purpose, that would be covered from an IR bill because what we're doing is expanding the terminology and requirements on the junkyard to also look at these critical infrastructure materials. We already had obligations into the law to deal with commodity metals generally and to deal with catalytic converters. But once you purchase that car lawfully and you're the owner, even in that catalytic converter circumstance, which was previously in the bill, we've now provided a better protection by clearly delineating that as long as you sign an affidavit that you're the owner of that bill, the scrapyard junk dealer is permitted to receive that material, and it's no longer going to create jeopardy for that business. And so we tried to clean up a part of the law that was inconsistent and unclear and provide the safe harbor to make sure that everybody in this circumstance is getting what they need. What we're addressing, however, is critical infrastructure. And we put in the bill the obligation and a warning for the purchasers of this material that if it looks like it comes from critical infrastructure, and the best evidence of that, especially in the copper situation, is when the casing has been burned off rather than stripped or been left unstripped. That's an evidence that they are bringing this material that would be likely coming from an unlawful source. So we've, again, provided a safe harbor for when a scrap metal person dealing with critical infrastructure should have knowledge of that material potentially being unlawful. We've asked them to also maintain records and keep which they have an obligation to do under their profession anyway, keep track of and train their employees as to metals that have been stolen because those alerts go out nationally so that they will have many opportunities to understand material might be something they should be wary of because it would come from those procedures. So we would simply indicate that we believe we've handled the circumstances here and provided better protections by redrafting the legislation to indicate if you're the owner and sign off on it, the junkyard is no longer liable. They've got a protection. Furthermore, in the revised bill, we also made sure that the safe harbor exists if you are the purchaser of a large scrap metal yard and you purchase all of your material or all of the stuff is in a contract, for example, with Excel. You don't have to have an inspection of every single truck because you have that contract that's in existence with the company saying that you are always going to be receiving that material through contract. As a result of that, we've minimized the requirements that previously existed in the law, which did require an inspection of every scrap metal that went through to include those catalytic converters. We'd ask for an aye vote on the bill.
Thank you. Is there any further discussion? Rep Barone.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So I got one question for the bill sponsor real quick. The critical infrastructure, this... So a critical infrastructure that goes through an auction house and then goes to a salvage yard If that salvage yard finds that that critical infrastructure that was found stolen would it be traced back to the auction house and then the auction house would be liable for something like that under this bill? Madam Chair, I know this isn't the way we should be
dealing with the well. It's not supposed to be back and forth questions, but I'm happy to answer
that. No, debate is you put out a point and I will come back and respond to the point. But I will respond to the question that was posed, which is, no, that would not be going back to the auction house because the auction house has received the material. They become the owner for the purposes of transacting that material. I believe they also have an obligation not to make a determination of not selling unlawful things, like you wouldn't get cards that don't have titles or other things that you could already sell. So I don't believe there would be any liability on the auction house. They are making good faith transactions. they give a receipt to the purchaser of those transactions. That receipt will be sufficient for them to fill out an affidavit with the scrapyard. The scrapyard can then take that material without any kind of issue under the provisions of this bill. Not affected at all.
Rep. Barone.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I just want the bill sponsor to know that I'm not against this bill by any means. I just want to understand it a little bit better so I can be able to give my points a little bit better. so i i do a lot i do a lot of uh salvage recycling with steel rocky mountain rocky mountain recycling and commerce city is where i go uh anderson salvage and greely is where i go i take a lot of steel i agree with this bill to protect this this will this this will this affects actually oil and gas affects construction because a lot of people go and they steal this critical infrastructure off job sites to go get a quick buck at a salvage yard. And I agree with this, Bill, because we need to stop that, stop it at the salvage yard. When I go, I sign an alphabit saying this is my property, I use this property, I bought this property, or this is something that was left over from a job site. I'm legally signing an alphabit saying this with my ID and my ID number on that alphadavid. Now, I can easily put a wrong number, but they check my ID before they take the material. So they double-check that this is the correct information when I'm signing this alphadavid. So I agree with protecting these job sites and stopping these people that are stealing this critical infrastructure from job sites. I simply wanted to understand if this would affect another industry, which is the auction house. Okay, perfect. That's all I needed to know. But yes, I do agree with this bill. I agree with stopping these people from stealing this material from these job sites, from actual working infrastructure. So I urge an aye vote.
Members, if you can hear me clap once, if you can hear me clap twice, if you can hear me clap three times, We're still not really there. There we go. Excellent. Is there any further discussion on House Bill 1101? Seeing none, the question before us is its passage. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. House Bill 1101 passes.
Mr. Shebel, please read the title to House Bill 1193. House Bill 1193 by Representative Martinez concerning vision tests for pre students
Representative Martinez. Thank you, Madam Chair. It's an honor to serve with you. And an honor to serve with you, sir. I move House Bill 1193.
To the bill.
Members, this is a bill that was brought up in regards to vision screening and really why it's important. So first of all, one in 17 young children in general and one in four school-aged children has an undetected and untreated vision disorder that can interfere with their learning and development as students. vision disorders that are found and not treated can interfere with learning children can also fall behind in school show behavior problems in the classroom lag behind other children in school and reaching developmental milestones and even have permanent vision loss only 40 percent of children zero to five in colorado are getting vision screening this bill is designed to try to decrease that 60% gap.
Rep. Lindsay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to my colleague here for allowing me to join this bill. This bill takes on a personal note for me. This is my youngest son, Ewan. He's now 6 foot tall and 19 years old, but he was two years old the first time he got glasses and it was really important for him because of all the things that Rhett Martinez just said my son was acting up in class not learning as well because the kid couldn't see well so really important for our family to make sure that our kid had proper treatment vision screening glasses eventual surgeries oh he's so cute because these can be major problems. I mean, it is only your vision that impacts you the rest of your life. So it's really important that we are screening kids as early as possible so that we can get them treatment as early as possible because my son with his glasses and some surgeries, he actually now has a lower prescription than I do as I'm barely able to see anymore. So without an urgent I vote, really important school is the place that all kids are. Let's get them tested while they're there.
Thank you. Brett Martinez. Thank you, Madam Chair. So to put some context for all the members and those all listening, we already do this as a state. This is just bumping up the time frame that is allowed for it. So again, the whole goal of this is to make sure that students are getting tested earlier, we're able to identify their vision problems earlier, and being able to get them the help earlier so that again that they don't fall behind in this the software that is used is free there is zero fiscal notes attached to this and we just think that this is a good thing to being able to again get get kids the help that they need a little bit sooner and being able to go forward so we urge an aye vote. Rep Garcia Sander. Thank you Madam Chair. I too am a big fan of glasses and being able to see.
I voted no on this in committee, and I just want to explain why. Under current law, school districts must test the sight of all children in kindergarten and first through third fifth seventh and ninth grades This bill requires that school districts also test the vision of children in pre and it updates the statute to refer to vision instead of sight which is that semantics My concern comes from not the fiscal note coming from the State Department, but the actual fiscal note that will occur in some districts. So districts that operate a Head Start early childhood program, they're already required to conduct vision screenings for preschool students within 45 days of enrollment. And beginning in July, I'm sorry, beginning July 1st of 2026, the 148 school districts that participate in the state's universal preschool program are required to either do vision screenings or refer preschool students to a provider for screening. As a result, the bill will only increase costs for districts who are not already conducting vision screenings. For those districts, costs will vary based on current contracts for vision screening and the number of pre-kinder students enrolled. So in the rural school areas, this becomes an unfunded mandate because if we don't have a school nurse on site in one of our schools that contracts with a preschool or a local pre-kinder program, then that's going to incur a cost for the district to have the school nurse go out to these pre-kinder programs. So again, it's just the fact that it's an unfunded mandate for our rural schools that I voted no. Thank you.
Seeing no further, Representative DeGraff.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So, yeah, there's some pros. I'm not sure how we're going to have a $0 fiscal note. I mean, we'll have a $0 fiscal note from the state because we're pushing this down, but it is going to take time. It is going to be a requirement. It is going to take resources. And we, you know, I don't know why we don't just move maybe the ninth or the third grade or something down and say, you know, move it down to pre-K, and then you could actually say we did a trade-off and put it in pre-K. There are parents that, I mean, this seems rather innocuous. I don't know what the software is that's requiring that, but, you know, anything that's involving medical or screening or anything like that outside, I think we need to have parental involvement in there. and so move L001 to House Bill 11093 and ask that it be displayed.
Rep DeGraff, can I have you restate your motion
with the correct bill number? I thought I corrected it. I move L001 to House Bill 1193 and ask that it be displayed.
That is a proper motion. Please proceed.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So this is just striking vision of all children in pre-K and the vision and substitute vision of children in kindergarten and the vision. And then a school district may offer vision screening to a child in pre-K only with the written consent of the parent. So that way when the kid, that way that there's no surprises, that there's no habituation of anything medical going on in the school that does not have parental involvement and engagement. So this is just a simple idea to keep the parents at the forefront of this discussion and not, you know, I don't know why. I mean, as far as my son, I've got a son with amblyopia. We discovered that when he was little. He was pre-K. He was definitely pre-K and, you know, was having a difficult time reading and he would have to come. for his left eye. So we got that checked, we got him glasses, we did the drops, and now his vision is great and he has that spare eyeball to, should anything ever happen to the other. But as a parent, I think we need to normalize making sure that anything that's done with screening or anything like that is done in conjunction with the parents, so I ask for an aye vote.
Rep. Gonzalez.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I think this is a good amendment. It's very simple. Again, I think we should emphasize parental awareness and knowledge and consent, especially when it comes to our children. I think this is not a big ask. I think this is something that is reasonable, especially when we want to talk about parental choice. And I think parents want to be involved in all decision-making of their parents. again it's just an awareness it's a consent so i think it's something simple so i hope the sponsor will consider this amendment um it's nothing major so i ask for an aye vote
rett martinez thank you madam chair um i appreciate this amendment from my good colleague from el paso county um that but i do want to point out uh one thing and where we were unfortunately not going to be able to accept this amendment so uh when we're striking um and the first lines one through three in this, striking vision of all children in pre-kindergarten and substituting vision of children in kindergarten and the vision. The title of the bill and the intent of the bill is to get children tested in pre-K. So if we in fact accept this amendment, it defeats the entire purpose of the bill that we're running, which is to try to get vision screening for children earlier than kindergarten. So we respectfully ask for a no vote. Is there any further discussion on
L-001. Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of L-001 to House Bill 1193. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The no's have it. L-1 is lost. To the bill, Reptograph.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L-002 to House Bill 1193.
Ask that it be displayed. That is a proper motion. One moment, please. L2 is before us. Please proceed.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm a little surprised that looping parents in, even on something like this. And the reason, of course, is because it is, I think we need to habituate it in this body that we need to loop the parents in and not be determining that they are feeling like that they are wards of the state. and a school district for parents that don't like the involvement, don't like the engagement, don't like this entering kids into this normalization of medicalization in the school, that they could take their written verification, if they have one. This would decrease the burden on the program itself and decrease the cost to the schools that do have a cost of implementing this. And then this would be waived. So they have written verification of vision screening or an eye exam completed within the previous 12 months that this would suffice. or parents that take their kids to screening every year, especially if they have glasses that they would have the option of using that It purely voluntary on their part but a lot of parents do not like their kids being enrolled in the medical programs of the public school They want them to go there, get educated, play with their friends, and then come home, not be cycled in to a medical program run by the state.
Rep Barone.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I stand in agreeance with this amendment. My wife is a teacher at Bella Elementary. One thing that we do, that she does, is at the parent-teacher conferences, if she suspects a child needs glasses or needs some kind of vision checkup, she tells the parents, I have a concern with your child that he or she might not be able to read this program. When we're teaching, you might be able to read this. I would recommend you take them to an eye doctor. That's one way of doing it. But this one also, because I take my kids every year to get their eyes checked. Thank God they're good enough so they don't need glasses. but to mandate, not just mandate, but an unfunded mandate to the local school districts and counties to do this for every child when not every child doesn't need it. It basically just takes away the parents' ability to deal with them for themselves. We understand how our children are. We understand they might need it. We will take them in personally. But to mandate for every child to do it is, I don't agree with it. I'm going to the bill right now, but this amendment actually really does help. So I urge an aye vote on this amendment.
Rep. Lindsay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Folks, as we brought up, when we're moving this down to pre-kindergarten, that's a span of four years of a kiddo's life. And if we're waiting for a whole year to accept, like, a waiver, so much could change in that amount of time that directly impacts a little kidlet's eyeballs. So we need to be screening those kids as often as our bill is proposing. And also, it's so great that some folks take their kids to get screenings. That's awesome. Not every parent does that or is able to do that. So this is providing another access point for kids to get the care that they deserve. And also, yes, it might be a case where a teacher does, I mean, they're with kids every day. they see things. But that's also a burden put on teachers to be the ones who are now looking at kids to make sure that they're deciding whether kids need glasses or not. Whereas the screenings would be done by a trained professional taking that burden off the teachers. And with that, we ask for a no vote on this amendment. Thank you. Is there any further discussion on L002? Seeing none, the question before us is its passage. All those in favor say aye. all those opposed no the no's have it l2 is lost to the bill is there any further discussion on
house bill 1193 rep barone thank you madam chair so i want to come up here and talk to the bill a little bit i know i was going off on a rant a little bit on that on that amendment but it seems to me like this bill is basically just putting the government into parenting our children it It shouldn't be this way. It's our responsibility. We need, I know a lot of parents probably are new to being parents and everything, but we need to learn. We need to leave the parenting to the parents and not put government into parenting our parents I mean our kids We taking more and more steps towards that and we not allowing parents to be parents and learning to be a parent You know, I thank God I was grateful enough to be raised by parents that showed me how to be a parent, and that's great. I understand many didn't have that ability or didn't have the parents to do that. But at the same time, we have to learn. It's just like the saying goes, you give a man a fish, he eats for a day. You teach him how to fish, he will eat for a lifetime. It's the same thing for this parenting thing. We're just handing this over and we're not actually teaching these people to be parents. they're not learning themselves so I'm opposed to this bill for that simple reason we need to allow people to learn how to be parents to parent their kids don't put government in this anymore it's not right so I urge a no vote on this bill
is there any rep bottoms?
Thank you, Chair. The bill is not a bad bill. I do like the idea of vision screening for children. We did that with our children. And I like the idea of it. The problem I'm having is a couple of minutes ago, there was some language that was trying to make sure that you had parental consent. I understand, totally understand the bill sponsor's objection to the top part of that amendment saying, well, the bill is about pre-K and that statement was about kindergarten. I understand. That makes sense. But I still think we need to discuss the context of parental consent, that this is, why would you ever be doing these kind of things, any kind of medical procedures, any kind of, I know it's not a medical procedure, but it falls into those categories that you're doing screening on a child, some type of medical screening on a child, but the parents are not involved in the conversation. To me, that does not make sense. This would be a simple fix if we just added that small part back into this and have the conversation. Okay, this is screening for children. I like it. But just ask me first. I'm a parent. Just ask me first. Make sure that I know what's going on. Make sure that I'm aware of this. Now, this is part of the problem that we have in Colorado when it comes to any of these kind of subjects, is we don't have parental consent. I've run that version of that bill a few different years. in trying to get parental consent of any kind for any medical procedure. And it's constantly voted down, constantly voted against. It's usually, well, it's always unanimous if it's my bill that gets voted against. We've tried to work with this side of the aisle having to do with parental knowledge or parental notification, and that always gets beat down. and so I would like to address this parental consent issue a little more deeper I run 003 to 1193 and ask for it to be displayed slightly askew
That is a proper motion. Give us a moment while we display that slightly askew.
I move 003 to 1193.
And it is before us. Please proceed.
So this amendment basically just says we need parental consent. That's how simple it is. Tell the parent before you do something. That seems like common sense. It has been common sense for a few hundred years, and now we're taking it off the table over the last few years, taking it off the table, taking it off the table. Guys, this is a simple, I definitely will vote yes on this bill. but let parents know. Let parents know. That's all we're asking, and so I ask for an aye vote on this amendment. Don't keep things from parents. Don't hide things from parents. Don't just assume parents think a certain way or believe the way you do. I ask for an aye vote on this amendment.
Rep Verone.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I'm coming up here again in support of this amendment for my previous statements that I said before the good representative came up here and ran this amendment. Come back to parents' consent. This is one step to teaching or allowing these parents to learn to be parents by actually asking their opinion. Give an opinion to do this to the parent. This is one way that they would learn, and in the future, it's going to be better for the child itself. So I do agree with this amendment. I urge an aye vote. Please bring it down to the parents.
Allow us to parent. Don't put government in parenting. Thank you. Minority Leader Caldwell.
Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, I think this is very much in line with a lot of things you see from our caucus, which is the parents need to be involved in these decisions. Even decisions that People may say, well, this is just a simple eye vision test. It doesn't matter. You need parental consent. The parents should not be finding out about it until after the fact when they're getting contact saying, hey, we did this thing with your child and then now they need XYZ. That's not when the parent should be finding out. The parent should be a part of the process from the very beginning. This is a good amendment. I certainly urge an eye vote on this.
Rep Bradley.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Such a simple amendment. These are our children. We are their parents. I know that that term is broad for some of you, but it's not for most of us, especially when it comes to our taxes and paying for copays and deductibles. I'm probably not going to have my child get tested at school. I'm going to go to my optometrist who I love. So I would like to know if you're going to do this at the school or wherever without my consent because it's my children. I am their parent. I figured you all had listened to me say parents enough yesterday and on social media last night that we are done having our rights usurped even if it is for a vision test. I don't understand I know we only have six weeks left of session and we're tired and we're tired of fighting, but this is a plain and simple amendment. And the people of Colorado, after I talked about the title board yesterday, are very perplexed about the fact that we're continuing to take parents out of the system, continuing to take parents out of health care, continuing to take parents out of the educational system. Just let us give consent on what we want our children to do. I'm tired of coming to the well and fighting for my constituents' rights for their children because they're parents. Maybe I need to come up here and read from Webster. I don't know. The definition of parents. So let's vote yes on this amendment, and let's move on with our day. Thank you.
Rep. Kelty. Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree with my colleagues, and I am definitely in support of this amendment. Whether you like to think of it or not, a vision test, anything that has to do with medical decisions, medical testing, needs to be known by and approved by a child's parent. We constantly violate and attack parental choice and the rights of parents when it comes to their children. The state is not to raise someone else's child. I'm raising my child. The state can stay right the heck out of it. This is a medical procedure that if a parent chooses to have their child go through, let them go through. Let them have written consent to do that. Otherwise, you don't do it. Schools shouldn't be in the realm of making medical decisions for other people's children. So I am absolutely in support of this amendment so we can stand by parental choice. Thank you. Is there any further discussion on L-003?
Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am a bit confused. maybe the bill sponsor can give a bit more clarity. Does this already exist in law? Because I remember when I was a kid, man, you had permission slips all of the time, and now there's all those portals with all the little buttons that you check and say yes, no, and maybe. So maybe if somebody could give clarity, because if this doesn't already exist, man, we are in a bad way in this state.
Amel Bacon. Sorry. That's right. son okay I don't know why I do that on microphone thank you Madam Chair we were talking about Adidas um I just want to point out I I can appreciate the sentiments but I just want folks to remember when you register your kids when you go to school they say here are the things we're going to do if you don't want this bill is to say that we can do vision screenings for pre-kindergarteners if you don't want your kid to do it just tell your school you don't want your kid to do it. That is the same with like, we can't force you guys to eat your kids. No, this is written. I'm sorry. I'm having a whole debate. I'm sorry. This is written consent. You could just say, I don't want to. This is actually a whole nother step. And I think it's actually more burdensome on parents than the requirement now. Okay. I don't know. Maybe this is just for me and you. We're just going to love the mic together. I'm sorry. But I just want folks to know that when you go and register your kids, generally speaking, the schools say, here are the things that we do. Here is the lunch schedule. And you can already you know unless it otherwise expressly written in law that you can opt out of things which is not what this does you can say you don want it Your kids don have to eat the lunch We have this all the time for example We have meat We have parents who are like, we don't eat meat, so you don't give the kids meat. We're like, we do cookies. I don't want you to give my kid food with nuts in it. So while I can appreciate it, I just do want folks to generally know that school districts, when you register your kids, we have student handbooks, we have student procedures, all of those things, and they say, this is what we're going to do this year, communicate with your teacher. The way the bill is written is to expand the program, but not to say that it must be done to the detriment, and it does not have an express provision that says that a parent cannot opt out of it. And that is the default when it comes to school district notices and services in which they provide. So I just wanted to add that. Thank you to my colleagues for a chance to chat.
Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for that answer. So that clears up part of it, but I think then, in light of what you're saying that it's an opt-out for the parents by default, that I would support this idea of actually having them opt-in. I think all of our decisions at the educational level should be opt-in. That's just a policy choice that I would say. Because I know that parents get busy, they don't read all of the things, and so if they have to opt in, then we're assured that we have their consent, whereas if they have to opt out, we have no real guarantee that they've even seen that. And so I would support this as a result of that.
Representative Bottoms.
I think there's another level of conversation here. This has never been done in pre-K before. And so we're just assuming certain things. We're assuming that all of these pre-Ks will automatically have this on their list of things that they're going to do, that they're automatically going to let all these parents know because this hasn't been done before, so this is going to be brand new information for pre-K parents. And then we're also assuming that the school, the pre-K, is giving all of this. They know it's part of what they're supposed to be including. Do they include it all? And then are they making sure that these parents know this? And then the parents, that this has never been part of the conversation, now are expected to know this is part of the conversation, and we're assuming that all this is going to happen. This goes against parental authority. It goes against common sense to assume that all of this is just going to naturally happen, and we're going to let people opt out of something. There should never be a, oh, it's okay to opt out. It should always be you opt in as a parent. Ask me. I'm the parent. Ask me. Give me the direct opportunity to opt into something if I decide, opt out of something if I decide, but it should be the decision of the parent, not just legislation that puts that in there. And, oh, parent, we hope you know what's going on. We hope that the pre-K is making sure that you know. We hope they told you these 20 new things that are going to be added in so that you can opt out of all these things if you're educated in all of this process, if you know what's going on. Guys, this is a continued overreach, continued overreach from the government in parental authority, parental rights, and the fact that our children have the right for the parents to make the decisions. The school does not own the child. The pre-K does not own the child. This legislature does not own the child. These programs do not own the child. Ask the parent That what this amendment says Ask the parent don ask a teacher a medical group a screening group That not the they need to have permission because someone someone took the time to ask the parent, not about, hey, here's a list of 40 things we're going to do. We hope this one's on there just because the government is so good at making sure that all the information is out there, but instead let's just do something crazy like ask the parent. Let me say it again. Ask the parent. That's what this amendment does. Not let them opt out maybe, but ask them, do you want this done to your child? Do you want this for your child? Ask them. Stop being an overreaching bureaucratic government institution and legislature that is making parents have to jump through all these hoops to be what? A parent. Ask the parent.
Before we continue, I want to make sure we are keeping our comments to vision screenings for pre-kindergarten. AML Bacon. Thank you. For what it's worth, thank you, Madam Chair, in regards to the direction. we did you know generally in our social contracts with saying to go to school there are a lot of decisions that are made about going to school including uh you know what time is recess to what are we going to learn there's a whole legal doctrine called in loco parentis that has been created for K-12 for a long time. And so even though I can hear and appreciate the notion of asking the parent, if we break that down for every decision, then we may have to reconsider how we deliver all of K-12. And so I want to reiterate the default. Two things. In current statute, and you can see on page two of the bill, It says the provisions of the section do not apply to any child whose parent or guardian objects on religious or personal grounds. And that is already in statute. That's been in statute for a long time, which is the general provision. And so while I can appreciate asking the parents, I would say that when we direct schools to notify parents of what's going on, It's not just, you know, if the schools are doing what they're supposed to do, they're talking to parents and asking them about the things that we do. The difference is this amendment asks for express written consent. And so I just wanted to reiterate that this, along with everything from what time they go to recess, what time school starts, what, you know, are we, what are the third grade standards? We don't one by one by one ask parents about all the things that they're going to do, but rather we do require disclosures about procedures like this to our colleague's point because it is about the body of the child. And you ask the parent, not with express written consent, do you object or not? So that happens in law. So thank you again to the bill's sponsors. I think what we're also noting is this is an expansion upon a program that already happens in kindergarten. Now we doing the same thing in pre so the underlying circumstances aren different than what already happening as well And again it is an existing law that anybody can opt out because we do believe that is a common sense approach Thank you for the feedback Hopefully now everybody knows because of this discussion, when you go to those preschool conferences, not preschool, preschool starting conferences, when you go and you register your students, this is why school districts hand out these things. This is why they ask you to talk to the principals, the homeroom teachers, all of those things. We do a lot in schools to support our kids. If you can't see straight, you can't learn. That's why it's connected here. Plus, if our youngest learners are struggling, they may not know how to articulate. So we help with things that we have found in the educational practice to know why young kids might struggle. And at the end of the day, the purpose of this bill is to help kids see. And it's not to disconnect families from school. It is sometimes to connect the experts to know what's going on with their students, to have a conversation with families, and to say we're going to offer this instead of having to go seek out an additional step, which this amendment proposes. And so again, thank you to the sponsors. Thank you for all of the discussion. I too encourage a no vote on the amendment. Representative DeGraff.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So, but when we go through this, and on day one, sign-ups, I mean, that's a great time to initial the box and say, do you consent to this? Do you consent to that? You're signing up for lots of different things. This would just be one, and then you have written consent. Instead of requiring parents to go through the hoops of finding out how to opt in, or opt out, rather, because this starts off with shall be tested, shall make, and then they will only be informed when a deficiency is found. So, again, I would say that this should be something that goes to the rest of the bill as well, for the rest of the program, vision of all children in pre-kindergarten and the vision and hearing in the first and second and fifth grades as comparable in all age groups. just put this on the list of all of the things that you have to opt in for, that you have to sign up for, because otherwise they have to go and find out and they have to make that positive. And this just puts that wedge in. So a sign-up, written consent, when there's so much written consent that has to go on already, just put this on the list. This is shall be tested, shall make, unless then the provisions of the section do not apply for a parent whose guardian objects on religious or personal grounds. So, I mean, I do appreciate that there's the allowance and the recognition that there might be some parents that object on religious or personal grounds, but we can just recognize that in advance and say, just provide positive written consent that this is okay. And it's really not even so much about the eye exam, right? You have this eye exam and it's not, you know, supposedly it's not intrusive. I don't know what kind of questions they're going to ask. I don't know what kind of software they're going to have. I don't know what, you know, the software you say is free. What is the eye exam? What does the eye exam entail? I don't know any of that stuff and neither do the parents and the parents trust in the school system right now is very low and rightfully so the parents should not be trusting the school system because of the things that the school system is doing. So, the school system should not be doing anything with the children, of which they do not have expressed consent. So just say, so parents know what's going on, and we just habituate that the school has, and that the parents are the parents, and that the school and the system and the state are not. That's all this is doing. It's just kind of asking for a level set that the parents are the parents, The school is not. The school has its role. The parents need to be expressly involved in what is going on with their kids, not just passively. And then you get to put whatever in front of the screen on them, because we know some of the things that they put on the screens in front of these kids is very harmful. So I recommend an aye vote. Representative Lindsay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Number one, I want to say, so as you know, my kids are all grown now. My youngest is 18. But my kids have gone through the public school system, and I think they're very lucky for it. They've had a great education. They've had a great experience in public school, number one. I just want to reiterate that. Number two, in my house, oddly enough, as liberal as me and my husband are, we have a division of labor when it comes to car repair. He makes sure all our cars are running. I was always in charge of school registration, making sure conferences were scheduled. Every year we have four kids. I would have to register those four kids and fill out five gazillion forms at the school until my hands were tired, going through all of this paperwork and many of these things where you have to say, oh, can we video your child? Oh, can we do this on campus? And you have to sign each form. You have to say that that's okay. and it's actually one of the greatest in my my opinion perks of not having kids at home anymore is that I don't have to fill out those forms anymore because it's a lot but that's the what I have to do as a parent when I'm registering my kids at school is make sure I'm understanding everything that's happening at the school and then I get to sign or not sign or check the box or not check the box and that is already established in statute we're not changing anything about that all we're saying is it's actually pretty important that kids can see. And so let's start that screening a little younger because we can catch it sooner so that by the time they're going into kindergarten where they actually need to be learning how to read, that they can do so because their eyes are working and they can see. And I will reiterate, a lot of times, and I speak for this with my son, they are so little when they're having these problems and this is all they know is what they are seeing and so if they're not seeing properly they know of no other way when i got glasses a couple years ago it's because my vision which has always been awesome was declining and i could no longer see but little kids when they're two and three and four sometimes they don't even know the difference to be able to articulate, wow, this is fuzzy, I can't see. And that naturally leads to some impediments when they're at school. And so with this, it's just offering a chance for kids to be able to use for their life one of their vital senses, which is eyesight. So with this, parents already have the opportunity when they're registering schools to look at all this stuff. This is unnecessary, and please vote no.
Is there any further discussion on L003 Seeing none the question before us is the passage of L3 to House Bill 1193 All those in favor say aye All those opposed no The no have it L is lost To the bill, is there any further discussion on House Bill 1193? Seeing none, the question before us is its passage. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. L-93 passes.
Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 118. Senate Bill 118 by Senators Coleman and Simpson, also Representative Clifford, concerning the payment of designated benefits to a charitable organization upon the death of a donor.
Representative Clifford. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 118.
To the bill.
Thank you. Members, this bill is about legacy gifts to nonprofit organizations. It's a very specific niche that needed some corrections. One of the issues that we've had in this area in the state of Colorado is in the worst of those situations, someone has left a gift to a nonprofit, and at the result of that, because of rules that were adopted by some of the financial institutions based on interpretations of law, both federal and state, some of our laws caused them to interpret that some of these funds could only be transferred to a person and not directly to the organization. As a result of those things, we've had situations where money, sometimes very large amounts of money, have had to be deposited into one of the executives of those organizations' personal accounts, causing all sorts of issues, and that is precisely what this bill is about. The result of this bill has come from a significant amount of engagement from the nonprofit association, the Colorado Bar Association, the Colorado Creditors Bar, Colorado Banking Association, credit unions. We've had just about every kind of judiciary for finances that do these types of transactions engaged in this very length and deep stake-holding process. the language that came out of these measures has been, for lack of better words, looked at upside one way and down the other by too many lawyers in a room and too many bankers in a room. If you've ever wanted to lock yourself in a meeting with all the lawyers and all the bankers at one time, The only thing that is more tentilating than that is doing the same with law enforcement officers. So this has been a very fun bill for me to engage with. Fortunately, they worked out all of their differences. We're very proud of where this ended up, and I urge a yes vote.
Is there any further discussion on Senate Bill 118? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of Senate Bill 118. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. Ayes have it. Senate Bill 118 passes.
Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1210. House Bill 1210 by Representatives Bacon and Mabry, also Senators Weissman and Judah, concerning limiting the use of intimate personal data to make inferences that impact a person's financial position.
Representative Mabry. Thank you Madam Chair It dope to serve with you It is totally dope to serve with you sir Madam Chair we move House Bill 1210 and the Business and Labor Committee Report
To the Committee Report.
Okay, so, members, we're going to talk about the Committee Report as if it's our bill presentation because in the Committee, we brought a strike below. We brought a strike below that was in response to a massive amount of stakeholder feedback, and I will get into that. But first, I want to talk a little bit about why we're bringing this bill and why it's so important. So I think everybody understands that our phones have become extensions of our brains. We put our most intimate thoughts into our phones, our texts, our searches, our geolocation data. and the biggest companies in the world are collecting that data and selling it to other companies who are using it to decide how much to charge us as individuals for things like plane tickets, groceries, medicine when your kid is sick. And this isn't science fiction. This isn't the minority report. This is real, and it's called surveillance pricing. It's happening right now. And we, I am sure, will hear that this is about innovation and discounts. But the largest companies in the world are not investing millions of dollars into this technology to make less money. These tools exist to take advantage of our personal data to set individualized prices, not based on the laws of supply and demand, but based on our personal pain points. The distinction that's critical here is that in a fair market, prices move based on supply and demand. When demand rises, prices for everybody rise equally. When supply increases, prices come down. That is how markets are supposed to work. What surveillance pricing does is it rigs the market. It doesn't adjust prices based on market conditions. It adjusts prices based on you, who you are, what you're going through, how desperate you might be. at any given moment. It's not the free market. It's exploitation dressed up with technology. And if we don't act now, this practice will only accelerate. Every year, the data gets more granular, the algorithms get more sophisticated, and the gap between what the corporations know about us and what we know about what they're doing with our data grows wider. The window to establish meaningful guardrails is now. So I want to talk a little bit about how this bill works. So this bill is not a ban on algorithmic pricing. It's not a ban on dynamic pricing or wage setting. Instead, it constructs a pipeline of interlocking definitions with each definition feeding into the next, narrowing the scope of what is ultimately prohibited. And I have a chart if anybody wants the chart. Surveillance data. That means your data. And we've defined this based on your online behaviors. So they're looking at your Google searches. They're looking at your email. They're looking at your geolocation data. Then they put that data into an algorithm. And that data and the algorithm are the deciding factor in setting an individualized price. Not a uniform discount. Not a loyalty program. We brought amendments to carve those out So companies collect this surveillance data which is your browsing history geographic location and that is setting not only how much we are paying but how much we are making Perfect Union tested this with ride share drivers in Los Angeles Drivers sat in a room and searched for rides at the same time. 63% of the time one driver was offered less money for the exact same ride. Companies are using personal data to charge the rider as much as possible while paying the driver as little as possible. And think about what that means for affordability and working families. You can't budget when the price of the same item changes based on who is looking at it. You can't plan when your paycheck is determined by an algorithm you cannot see. Surveillance pricing strips away the basic predictability and fairness that families depend on to make ends meet. This is a kitchen table issue because families can't budget if the price of the kitchen table keeps changing depending on who walks into the store. And also, by the way, there's no discount if there's no set price. That is something that we've got to keep reiterating. What actually is the price? And we have amendments that say if you offer a discount that is an offer that is lower than a price that was previously known by a consumer, that does not qualify. as surveillance pricing. So a discount from what? Now let's be clear about one thing. Colorado already prohibits unfair and deceptive trade practices under section 61105. There's a strong argument here that surveillance pricing, secretly using consumers' consumer data to charge them more without their knowledge, already falls within our laws about deceptive pricing. But here's the problem. The companies are hiding behind the complexity of the algorithm. The pricing happens in a black box. Consumers don't know. Regulators struggle to see it, and the companies argue that because it's automated, it's somehow different from the deceptive pricing our existing laws already exist to address. We are here to add clarity. You do not get to evade consumer protections by routing deceptive practices through a complicated algorithm. This bill classifies violations as deceptive trade practices, gives the Attorney General enforcement authority. We also strip the private right of action in response to feedback from the opposition. When Instacart announced that it would use AI to set grocery prices based on individualized data, consumers were furious and the company reversed course. As the New York Times put it, this issue sits at the intersection of two things all of us hate, being scammed and being spied on. People don't want to be ripped off. This puts Colorado on the right side of that fight. And we urge a yes vote on the committee report. I'll pass it to my co-prime sponsor, and we got some amendments we're going to bring to the committee report, too.
Assistant Majority Leader Bacon. Thank you so much, and thank you to my co-prime for introducing the bill. members and to everyone watching today, whether they're in this chamber or online, I have a few questions for you. Do you know how much data is actually out there about you? How do you feel about people using that data to determine how much they think you would pay for something? And then on the other side of that, how do you feel about them using that data that's out there in places we may not even know to determine how much you should be paid? At the end of the day, we have called this bill Surveillance, Wage Setting, and Surveillance. surveillance prices because that is what's happening and it sounds exactly like that title. And we're not talking about the information you might give to the grocery store. We're talking about your browser history. We're talking about posts you made in 2009, if you were alive. We're talking about any other pieces that could be found out about you online. And not only could it be found out, it is being found out by technology that can do analytics faster than at this point the speed of light. So what that means is when we go into the grocery store, and if you didn't know this, how many of you now are seeing prices on little screens instead of on paper? How many of you know your phone lights up when you're near the store or when you're in the store? So what that means is, in the old world, where consumers had bargaining power, a.k.a. supply and demand, we are now playing against a supercomputer to determine how much we might pay for milk, for diapers, for shoes, for anything it is that we need. In the year 2026, I might be aging myself. I do it all the time here. Some of us remember a reference to what happens when we hand over some of our powers to machinery that thinks for us. And so what's really important about this bill is that we recognize that that behavior is happening and that we are able to put guardrails. Because here's the last thing we know to be true in this world in which we're talking about affordability and generally the way business works. I usually don't get mad at business because I understand it. At the end of the day, the purpose of business is to make money. Board members have a fiduciary duty to maximize profits. And the first thing they teach you in business school is to bring in more money. If you want to maximize those profits, you've got to figure out how to bring in more money, and you've got to figure out how to pay less in expenses. Well, bringing in more money is prices, and paying less expenses is our wages. And so, if we are going to move into this world, the question is, what kind of standing do we want to have as consumers? What are we up against? And what should we call deceptive trade practices? And so we're not talking just about base prices for everyone. We're talking about prices made just for you. Have you ever been at an airport standing next to someone going the same direction and wonder why you pay four more dollars than the person standing next to you? That's an individualized price. And guess what? Those who drive have been standing next to each other looking at requests to go to the same hotel. And a driver gets an offer that's five more dollars less than the person standing next to him. That's an individualized price or wage. And so what our bill does, and thank you to my co-prime, it sets a series of events. If there is surveillance done and you gather that surveillance and put it through this algorithm and then you gave it to an individual person That is what we are naming surveillance wage setting and surveillance price setting And so again, thank you to my co-prime. We took a lot of feedback. We are working to make this as operable as possible. we have pulled out of the bill loyalty programs we have some additional language to help be specific on what that is and we talk to other industries that use particular information like banking so that we can narrow this down and get this right and here's the last thing i'll say in the world we might already live in a space where you can kind of eyeball someone and see how much they might want to pay for something. But what we're talking about here is that times a million. And not just being able to look someone up and down and see what they're interested in. You're able to find the archives of their whole life online and use that in those negotiations. Well, if we're talking about me trying to buy a house, that is a deep imbalance. And when we're talking about what are the things that we can afford now, we as consumers don't get to fully be a part of that discussion. And lastly, I would say, we do need business to be able to operate. But over the last couple centuries in the history of our country, we have always struck these balances because we also need people to live. There is a reason why we have antitrust laws. There's a reason why we have anti-deceptive practices laws, and it is to protect the consumer's ability to actually engage. And this is the 21st century version of it, and we are ready to understand it and to set guardrails that can actually keep our markets healthy, because at the end of the day, everybody is a consumer. And so with that, members, we have a few amendments. Okay? I would like to move. I will move. I'm sorry. I move L3 and ask that it be displayed.
L3 is properly displayed. Please proceed.
Okay. Thank you, members. The crux of this amendment is for us to have taken some feedback to further narrow and clarify the definition of online behavior. The original bill referenced behaviors. We narrowed it to online to be more specific to talk about the actions that we have now set expectations around. Further, it clarifies that discounted prices can be offered that are lower, though, than the initial price offered. And the reason why that's important, when people say this is a discount, you can't call it a discount if you don't know what the base price is, to know if this is less than that. And so that's why we added that there. We also added subscription programs to the loyalty program exemptions. and we added that all financial documents that are required as part of a financial application like a mortgage be exempted and with that members we ask for an aye vote representative nabry uh thank you madam chair i do uh uh just want to add a little bit to this So again this is in response to stakeholder feedback
We have been working with industry really closely on this bill. Again, that's why there was a strike below. One of the things I want to highlight in terms of the discount below the price previously offered to the consumer, we have many, many, many clear, explicit carve-outs in this bill. that state that it is not about discounts that are equally offered, right? Again, I'll refer folks back to the chart. You can offer a discount. You just can't base that discount on spying on me. That's clear. And so I want to be clear that this insert of the language about below the price previously offered to the customer, it's clarification language that we're offering in response to stakeholding, but they already shouldn't have been worried about it because this chain of definitions, unless they were basing that price on spying on somebody, and that was the reason why they got that price, then any other discount is not covered. And we've added lots of clarifying language, including this, to that. And with that, we ask for a yes vote on L3.
Any further discussion on L003? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of L003 to the committee report. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. The amendment passes. To the committee report.
Representative Bacon. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L4 and ask that it be displayed.
L4 is properly displayed. Please proceed.
Thank you. Members, this is a cleanup amendment. Where we had this definition was not in a proper place in the bill, and so we are simply moving the definition of loyalty program to the definition section of the bill. And with that, we ask for an aye vote.
Any further discussion on L-004? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of L-004 to the committee report. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. To the committee report. Representative Richardson.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd first like to begin by complimenting the sponsors for coordinating their footwear today. All right. All righty. I do appreciate the previous two amendments to the committee report. They do help clarify a few things, but this still is a relatively broad bill that could inadvertently capture those that really don't know they're doing wrong or really aren't doing wrong. So I move Amendment L-007 to 1210 and ask that it be displayed.
Representative Richardson, could you restate your motion to the committee report?
I could indeed. I would move L007 to the committee report of HB 1210 and ask that it be displayed. Was that properly grammatical?
The amendment is properly displayed. Please proceed.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. So this amendment is intended to prevent a regulatory blindside by requiring clear rules and public guidance before enforcement begins It gives businesses time to adjust and ensure the law is applied consistently and predictably rather than being defined through litigation after the fact. If you look to the top of the amendment, line 3, that states this section takes effect January 1, 2029, This is Section 3 that requires that those that are using these algorithms publish their procedures and ensures that this publication isn't required prior to the completion of the AG's rulemaking. The second part, the larger body of text, does talk to clarification of key terms, but rather than just giving the Attorney General broad authority to create rules, it gives some guardrails on what those rules should be focused on. It clarifies the legislature's intent for the rulemaking by explicitly stating that we want him to, or her at the time, to include definitions, clarifying compliance standards, and providing disclosure models to the businesses prior to their requirement to actually put their disclosures out publicly. So it's really just ensured process-wise to make sure that everybody has good clarity on what the expectations are on both sides and try to prevent some of the finer details from having to be worked out in court after the fact. So I would urge a yes vote.
Representative Brooks. Chair, thank you. I would like to commend my colleague for running an amendment to clarify. Quite a concept, sir. And I appreciate it, not only for your intent, but then also for the business community and being able to have that clarification. I believe this is a very fair amendment. This isn't any sort of amendment meant to create a structural defect in the bill. This is fair, and I would support a yes vote.
Ask for it. Any further discussion?
Representative Mabry. Thank you, Madam Chair. First, I want to thank the amendment sponsor for bringing the amendment. We're asking for a no vote for several reasons. One, this section does not take effect until January 1, 2029. Let's think about January 1, 2023. Did anybody in this room use ChatGBT to write their speeches in January 1, 2023? Definitely not. the world has changed massively in three years. I think it is really unclear how fast this technology will develop in that time, which is part of why I want to bring this forward. And I will just note respectfully, this bill at its core is a line that comes from ChatGBT. the next thing that uh i want to point out is we are working in close partnership with the attorney general's office on this bill and i am grateful to have their partnership because our current attorney general is a consumer protection attorney i don't know who the next attorney general is going to be the next thing i'll say is the definition A lot of it was taken directly from language, from industry. That's why we brought a strike below. And I can pass out a 13-page memo that responds to the 20 pages of feedback and all the amendments that we've taken. Of course, we're still getting feedback on how to clarify the language. That's why we brought L3. We're going to keep working on that. But we are clarifying these terms already based on feedback from stakeholders. And for those reasons, urge you no vote.
Representative Richardson.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the sponsor. I do appreciate good stakeholding or whatever that term is and close coordination with the AG, but there is a separation of powers, and that's going to come immediately upon the approval of this bill, and I also appreciate the continued efforts to refine definitions, but we are on seconds. The refinement of this bill is pretty much going to end at the end of seconds. So unless there's more amendments that bring more clarity, I believe we really should be providing the AG with some very specific guidance on what still needs to be clarified. Once this bill passes, he's on his own. We should chart a course for him. I would still urge a yes vote.
Any further discussion on L-007? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of L-007 to the committee report. All in favor say aye.
Aye.
All opposed, no.
No.
The amendment fails. To the committee report, Representative Richardson.
All righty. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
You're very welcome. It was a startling turn of events.
I move L006 to the committee report of HB 1210 and ask that it be displayed.
The amendment is properly displayed. Please proceed.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Since we're not going to make an effort to ensure that we have very clear guidance on the streets before this bill takes effect, and as the sponsor said, many of the elements are still working definitions, so we really don't know what is going to hit the streets when this is enacted, if it's passed. This amendment ensures the bill targets real harm, not just simple technical violations. It requires a knowing action and a meaningful economic impact, not just an economic impact, while protecting businesses that are making good-faith compliance efforts. Without this amendment, the bill risks becoming a kind of a gotcha enforcement tool rather than a consumer protection law. if we're not going to narrow this bill down and make sure it's very clearly defined what is actually a violation we need to make sure that nobody is taken to court unless there's a substantial impact on somebody so I would urge a yes vote
any further discussion on LL Representative Garcia Sander
hey cuz thank you Madam Cuz Chair So I support this because I obviously wasn in committee for this but it still kind of confusing to me how this is provable And I know that one of the sponsors discussed drivers standing next to each other and showing each other hey, this is what this ride is coming up for me, and it was different. But I know that when I have used a ride share service, a ride service, I might request a certain type of car. Now you can request a gender of a driver or, you know, you can look at their ratings and request a five-star or whatever rating of a driver. And so I'm just curious, like, could prices be coming up differently because people are requesting different services? I'm going to pay more for a Mercedes ride versus a Honda ride, maybe. So I'm just curious about that, and I go back to, is it provable beyond a reasonable doubt that prices are being set based on surveillance data versus consumer choice?
Any further discussion on Representative Mabry? Representative Garcia-Sander.
Sorry, I urge an aye vote on this amendment.
Representative Mabry.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We're going to ask for a no vote on this amendment for a few reasons. Number one, the reason why we're bringing this bill is because the technology is developing incredibly rapidly. It's incredibly complicated, and as I mentioned in my opening remarks, we believe that what's happening here is likely already illegal under unfair and deceptive trade practicing laws related to pricing. but now the defense is this algorithmic black box is what's setting the price it's too complicated we are calling that out what this would do is it would give companies an opportunity in court to say hey i just am using this price setting tool i don't really know what's going on and And that is me operating in good faith as a reasonable business operates in this space because they're all doing it. The other thing I will point out is this is civil law, and in civil law, the standard is not beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard is higher or the standard is lower in civil law. We are treating this as a consumer protection violation just like any other. We have so many. We probably passed 20 consumer protection violations a year in a bipartisan manner. The enforcement, how businesses deal with them, is quite clear. Businesses know how to deal with Consumer Protection Act claims, and this unnecessarily narrows the scope of the Consumer Protection Act, and we ask for a no vote.
Any further discussion on L006? Seeing none. The question before us is the adoption of L06 to the committee report. All in favor say aye. All opposed, no. The amendment fails. To the committee report, Representative DeGraff.
All right. I move. L011, the committee report.
Would you like it displayed properly Representative DeGraff Properly improperly How do you feel so moved Well it looks pretty good so go on ahead
Excellent. I appreciate that, Madam Chair. So, the purpose of this amendment, these two sections here, on the committee report, a person shall not use an individualized wage-setting algorithm to determine compensation for a worker or applicant based on surveillance data that is unrelated to the workers' or applicants' job duties, qualifications, productivity, or experience. Compensation is based on seniority, merit, quantity, or quality of production, credentialing, geographic labor, or other bona fide business factors, so long as such factors are disclosed to the employer or the applicant request. And so the purpose here is to narrow the bill a little bit to permit demonstrable misuse of surveillance data while preserving lawful market activity. The lawful market activity, of course, would be determining wages. You might use an algorithm to measure productivity. You might, you know, for a lot of reasons. So narrow the bill to prohibit the demonstrable misuse of surveillance data while preserving lawful market activity, reducing ambiguity, and limiting litigation abuse. So I don't think the sponsors, despite being lawyers, want to open this up just for massive litigation. This would limit it by, again, preserving lawful market activity and reducing ambiguity. So I think this fits well within the intent of the bill. to not, since we can't get rid of the data, then it's important that we do not misuse the data and this precludes misusing the data but then does not step out, does not just put some guardrails on what we're talking about here.
Representative Mabry.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, we're going to ask for a no vote. We feel like this language is already covered. in the strike below where we have a specific call out to data specific to individual worker that is related to the task. The worker is hired to perform, including data associated with worker performance or generation of new business. That language is quite broad. It was brought in consultation with stakeholders, and we asked for a no vote.
Any further discussion on L11? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of L11 to the committee report. All in favor say aye. All opposed, no. The no's have it. The amendment fails. To the committee report. Representative DeGraff.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L010 to the committee report for House Bill 1210.
L10 is properly displayed. Please proceed.
Okay. This strike development published reasonable procedures and maintain reasonable internal procedures. And basically this is going to eliminate compelled public disclosure of internal systems that could expose proprietary information and invite opportunistic litigation while preserving transparency for directly affected individuals So that is the purpose of these strikethroughs or these substitutions to disclose and provide to affected workers or consumers on request to eliminate compelled public disclosure of internal systems that could expose proprietary information. I ask for an aye vote.
Representative Mabry.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, the language of the strike below doesn't mandate what needs to be disclosed. We have plenty and plenty of laws that regulate what employers are supposed to tell employees in terms of what their relationship is going to be. All this section of the bill says is that an employer is supposed to inform an employee if this sort of data collection is happening. We think that's reasonable. We don't say how they have to disclose it. We don't say that they have to disclose any algorithm or anything. They can just say, hey, we track your hours by looking at how many keystrokes you're putting in, and that would be fine. We're not specific here. It's not compelled speech because we have plenty of regulations that are already like this, and we ask for a no vote.
Any further discussion on L10? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of L10 to the committee reports. All in favor, say aye.
Aye.
All those opposed, say no.
No.
The no's have it. The amendment fails. To the committee report, Representative DeGraff.
I move L-008 to House Bill, the committee report for House Bill 1210. All right.
It is displayed. Please proceed.
Okay, so the purpose of this amendment is to provide clear and administrable definition preventing the overbreadth that could unintentionally capture routine, business analytics, loyalty programs, or fraud tools, so data obtained through, substitute data collected through monitoring, tracking, or inference about the consumer or worker that is not voluntarily provided by the individual and not reasonably necessary to complete the transaction or provide the requested product or service. So again, the purpose of this is to provide clear and administrable definition, preventing overbreadth that could unintentionally capture routine business analytics. I ask for an aye vote.
Any further discussion on L-008? Representative Mabry.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We ask for a no vote on this amendment. It is not necessary because the definitions only matter if they're working together. So there has to be the surveillance data, which includes the definition of online behaviors that further narrows it, and then that has to be put through a price and wage setting algorithm that then is the determining factor in setting your price. And so if all those things aren't happening, then you're not covered by this bill. And for those reasons, we ask for a no vote.
Representative Kelty.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I actually am in support of the amendment. I disagree. I think having this additional language in there helps solidify the fact that if the data is collected through involuntary status, that they would be able to then... That way, that wouldn't be needed to complete the transaction. So I am in support of the amendment. Thank you.
Any further discussion on L-008? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of L-008 to the committee report. All in favor say aye. All opposed, no. The no's have it. The amendment fails. To the committee report.
Representative DeGraff. All right. I move L010 or 012 to House Bill 12, committee report for House Bill 12.
The amendment is properly displayed. Please proceed.
It's just saying that a person shall not use surveillance data to set a price for a specific consumer when such data is unrelated to the transaction, product, or service, which is used primarily to exploit a consumer's vulnerability or impair the consumer's ability to make voluntary and informed decision. This subsection does not prohibit price differentiate based on demand, inventory, cost, purchase, history, loyalty programs, or other bona fide business factors related to the transaction. So this converts the bill from a broad restriction on individualized pricing into a targeted prohibition on exploitative practices to preserve dynamic pricing, discounts, and competitive behavior while addressing manipulation concerns. So, again, looking to limit the abuse of the data, not necessarily the data itself. I ask for an aye vote.
Representative Mabry.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the intent of this amendment because I actually view it as generally the intent of the bill. We're going to ask for a no vote because believe these things are already covered in other amendments that we brought, another language that is in this bill that we've written with consulting some of the country's most foremost consumer protection attorneys who are doing this work nationally as well as local stakeholders. So I appreciate the intent of the amendment asking for no.
Any further discussion on L12? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of L12 to the committee report. All in favor say aye. All opposed no. The no's have it. The amendment fails. To the committee report. Any further discussion to the committee report? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of the committee report. All in favor say aye. All opposed no. The ayes have it. The committee report passes to the bill.
Representative Richardson. Thank you, Madam Chair and sponsors. I absolutely agree that consumers and wage earners should not be exploited by the use of their data. I do oppose the bill even as amended. It's still overly broad. It's still overly vague in very important parts. And I believe it's overly simplistic in its treatment of wage setting. It's overly broad. The definitions of surveillance data and individualized are so wide that they could pull in routine legitimate practices that businesses use to differentiate themselves in the marketplace Individualized kind of though I think was somewhat defined, still includes classes and tiers and other things that are not defined as comparisons. Surveillance data includes inferred behaviors and purchase history that isn't narrowly targeted for abuse, it risks negotiating or regulating standard analytics used by nearly all businesses today. And vagueness, the bill still hinges on whether the algorithm is a substantial factor in setting price or wages, and that's being now defined as more than incidental. And that may sound like it's given us a good definition to work with, but if a software suggests a price, is that substantial? If HR tools recommend a pay band, is that substantial? Or more than incidental, if scheduling software actually affects hours and earnings, is that substantial under this bill? No one will really know where these lines are until the courts decide, and that isn't going to be helpful to anybody. We really shouldn't regulate first and define later. When we come to the wage setting piece, and I think this is intended to disrupt certain systems, but it really disrupts real compensation systems and goes much deeper than I think is advertised. It requires wages be based solely on worker-specific job-related data and imposes disclosures and legal challenge rights. That really collides with the reality of how wages are set. Pay decisions often rightfully include market conditions, staffing needs, geography, and retention and recruiting pressures. It also wraps up incentives, commissions, and task assignments impacting earnings, which are real things, but they aren't wages. They're outside of wages, but this pulls them in. So I do think that while the bill is well-intentioned, it opens up a Pandora's box rather than closing one. And I could not help but think in committee and then as the sponsor presented, the amount of data that can be collected from folks, what they can infer about folks, how it can be used to influence folks, that this is the exact type of surveillance data that folks running for office expect consultants to use to target voters, to sway their opinions. We're saying that something that is used in the realm that we work in is absolutely inappropriate in the private sector. And for all those reasons, I am on no vote today.
AML Winter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I also rise in opposition to this bill. I think the bill will increase prices for Colorado shoppers at the end of the day, and as we're hitting these high inflationary rates that we've been facing in this state for some time, I think it's going to create some issues. It also regulates routine workplace management decisions. And my good colleague from Albert County touched on some of that. There's so many metrics when we look at these things, and by over-regulating them, I think that going to really create some problems in the workspace It impose costly compliance requirements on businesses as well And at the end of the day that gets passed on down to the consumer So I think in a bill where they're trying to help the consumer, this over-regulation, of course, is going to go on top of the business, and we know what happens when over-regulation happens to a business. It trickles down to the consumer. And then I think it's going to create conflicting AI regulatory frameworks in Colorado. And, you know, as we try to write law, we try to avoid conflicts like that that end up having to possibly be adjudicated down the road. I think it's overly broad. I think it risks consumers, workers, and businesses alike. And for those reasons, I will be a no on 1210.
Any further discussion? AML Bacon. Thank you. I do realize we were trying to move on. But I just wanted to say, in regards to this conversation, I do think for all of us, we have been in a place, particularly as legislators, to help respond to our neighbors who are trying to understand the world in which we are engaging. And so to have this conversation is actually very important. I did want to end on by sharing stories that we heard in committee. We heard from people who came from the disability community who couldn't tell when they were targeted, not only for items, but they could tell because of the lives that they led, they were not only targeted for prices and items generally, but they could tell that they were charged more. We heard stories about people who elsewhere on the Internet have just talked about an allergy, whether or not it was even public, and it shows up in setting their prices. And so we're not just talking about, you know, Facebook posts. We're talking about spaces that people might believe they have an expectation of privacy as well. If you look in the bill, we actually name the behaviors to include information gotten by data scraping, right? And what that means is the world out there is not clear for us as consumers in regards to all the information that could be legally or even illegally gotten. And there isn't a bar on that use. And so again, I want to thank my co-prime and thank everyone for the conversations today. We do encourage an aye vote. Representative Kelty.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I wanted to come up here in my disappointment in the bill and why I will be a no vote. In the bill, and I don't think it's intended, but the broader view and the way this bill is written, which is far too broad. It talks about the automated decisions. It takes away, it talks about employee scheduling, work assignments and things like that. What this bill actually can end up doing, and again, I don't think it's intended to do this, but I like to look between the cracks, and this is a crack I found, and I do believe that this is going to impede or interfere with an employer's ability to use scheduling data and to use employee work data to be able to decide whether that employee is not showing up for work, they showing up late any type of information like that that they can use to actually need to terminate an employee who isn adhering to the work schedule or taking advantage of it In here I did look through everything in here It doesn protect anything from an employer being able to use this data
Actually, it does just the opposite. It says that they can't use this data to be able to use with an employee that is continually not going with the guidelines of their employment. The chilling effect on termination decisions, it says termination decisions often rely on documented attendance records, system-generated reports. Those records are classified as surveillance-derived, which it does talk in the bill about employee surveillance data, and it says or process a log rhythmically. Employers may not be able to terminate based on these records. So in order to be able to effectively terminate an employee who needs to be terminated, you won't be able to actually use this information to be able to do so. And for me, as an employer, you need to know whether your employees are actually doing the job, coming on time, doing what they're supposed to be doing. And if they're not, you're not forbidding the employer, because it's written so broadly, from being able to effectively gather the information that they need to be able to make an effective decision with their employees. And it could be either way. It could either be to protect them, or it could be in the needs to have to terminate them. So I do suggest that this bill go back and be looked at again, be rewritten, or at least includes some information in there that actually protects the employer from being able to run their business effectively. I ask for a no vote.
Representative Mabry.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to illustrate to people again one more time how this works. Surveillance data, price and wage-setting algorithm, substantial factor, individualized. Surveillance data is narrowed to online behaviors. So these conversations that we're having about what employers are able to do, I don't know how many employers out there are looking at our Google search history to set our wages or our schedule. It is online behaviors that this bill is narrowed to. And we narrowed that definition even further with L3 to make sure that is what we're talking about. It's data that they infer from data scraping, data purchase, web browsing history, geolocation, or purchase history. I do not think those are regular practices of businesses in setting wages, and so I do just want to push back on that part of the conversation.
Representative Kelty.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I actually disagree with the analogy that you just heard. I understand that L3 does outline online behaviors, but isn't specified that's the only thing. So without the narrowed language to where it's taking out the whole broad scope of automated decision system surveillance data, you're actually asking for problems, and I'm asking, again, for a no vote.
Any further discussion on House Bill 1210? Seeing none, the question is the adoption of House Bill 1210 as amended. Those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Those opposed, no.
No.
The ayes have it. House Bill 1210 as amended is passed. Majority Leader Duran.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the committee rise and report. Thank you.
the committee will rise and report
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.
will come back to order.
Mr. Schiebel, please read the report of the Committee of the Whole.
Madam Speaker, your Committee of the Whole begs
leave to report as under consideration the following attached bills being the second reading thereof and making the following recommendations are on. House Bills 1101 as amended, 1193, 1210 as amended, passed on second reading, order and gross placed on the calendar for third reading and final passage. Senate Bill 118 passed on second reading, ordered revised and placed on the calendar for third reading and final passage.
Representative Garcia, you can make the motion from your chair. Members, you have heard the proclaimed motion.
We do have an amendment at the desk Mr Schiebel please read the Bottoms Amendment to the Committee of the Whole report House Bill 1193 Representative Bottoms move to amend the report of the Committee of the Whole to reverse the action taken by the Committee, not adopting the following Bottoms Amendment, L3 to House Bill 1193, to show that said amendment passed that House Bill 1193 is amended past.
Members, members, Representative Bottoms.
I move to amend the report of the Committee of the Whole.
If you could move the Bottoms Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report.
I move the Bottoms Amendment to amend the report of the Committee of the Whole.
We will take that motion. It is properly displayed. Please proceed.
Just giving us another opportunity to ask the parents before we do something to their children. It seems pretty simple. and I'm very pro-parent, I'm very pro-child, and I'm very pro-parental consent, very pro-parental knowledge, and I think this amendment squares that up pretty solidly, so I ask for an aye vote.
Representative Martinez.
We request a no vote.
Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of the Bottoms Amendment to the Committee of the Whole report. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Slaw, how do you vote?
Yes.
Representative Slaw votes yes. Joseph, Ricks, Marshall Joseph and Marshall are excused Please close the machine. With 21 aye, 38 no, and 6 excused, 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 Slaw, how do you vote?
No, ma'am.
Representative Slaw votes no. Representative Ricks. Please close the machine With 39 I 20 no and 6 excused the report of the Committee of the Whole is adopted Additional announcements? Introductions?
I have one announcement. Representative Lindsay will replace Representative English on House Business Affairs and Labor for today only.
Madam Majority Leader.
Oh, we have an announcement.
Representative Valdez. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Energy and Environment will not be meeting this afternoon at 1.30 as planned.
Madam Majority Leader.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move to lay over the balance of the calendar until Friday, March 27, 2026.
Seeing no objection, the balance of the calendar will be laid over until tomorrow. Madam Majority Leader.
Madam Speaker, I move that the House stand in recess until later today.
The House will stand in recess until later today.
Thank you. Thank you.