Colorado House 2026 Legislative Day 058

Amen. The House will come to order. Representative Wynn will lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Mr. Schiebel, please call the roll.

11 excused we do have a quorum

thank you madam speaker

madam speaker did you know that bun me is a Vietnamese dish with French bread and various East Asian meats? I did not. Great. Well, I would like to say in the spirit of that, of banh mi,

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 in favor, say aye. All those opposed, no. The motion is adopted. Members, we're going to move into announcements and introductions. Thank you, team. All right.

Representative Woodrow. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, the House Finance Committee will be meeting 10 minutes upon adjournment. 10 minutes upon adjournment in Room 112 to hear SB 39 and House Bill 1043. See you there.

Representative Wilford. Good morning, members. House, State, Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs will be meeting 10 minutes upon adjournment. In LSBA to hear House Bill 1252, House Bill 1254, Senate Bill 84, House Bill 1297, and House Bill 1303. Again, 10 minutes upon adjournment. Thanks.

Representative Smith. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, today we have Mothers Against Drunk Driving over here in the gallery. Please welcome them. We have our Transportation Safety Bill up on thirds. If you want to talk to anybody that has family victims of drunk and drug drivers, they are the group. Thank you.

Thank you Madam Chair And I just want to let everyone know that Miss Rodeo Colorado Lindsay Fancher is in the Capitol this morning She will be on the floor later today The Senate happened to want to steal her time first, so if you see the Senate, boo them. But we are excited to have Miss Colorado Rodeo here today, so when you see her, Tara, please go and ask her what rural Colorado rodeo, ranching, agriculture means to her. We are excited to welcome her to the Colorado Capitol.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. House Agriculture, Water, and Natural Resources Committee will meet 10 minutes upon adjournment in room 107 to have a short presentation and also hear House Bill 1253. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do not believe they are here yet. They got stuck in traffic. But as all of the education members know, I sit on a school board, a charter school, New Summit Charter Academy. I've sat on it since 2021. They are here today to watch what we do and take a tour of the Capitol. And they are very excited. They're right here. Hey, everybody. So please welcome New Summit Charter Academy. They snuck in. Thank you. They're very excited. I heard some of them are a little nervous, so let's make them feel welcome. Thank you so much. You bet. Welcome to the Capitol. Welcome to the House.

Thank you, Speaker. Today we are joined by patrons and staff from Arapahoe Libraries in Arapahoe County. They are sitting right up there. Libraries are essential. Yeah, give them a nice wave. Woo-hoo! We love libraries. We know libraries are essential to a healthy democracy by providing free access to information, welcoming spaces for community gathering and programs like this visit to the Capitol. Libraries help ensure that civic participation isn't limited to just a few. It truly is open to everyone. Thank you so much for being here.

Thank you so much, Madam Speaker. Today we have Energy and Environment Committee at 1.30 or after the opponent adjournment committees. And we are going to be hearing House Bill 1279 and House Bill 1246.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. First of all, I want to welcome students and teachers from Peak to Peak School here from my district in Lafayette. so they're all on the floor over there, so wave at them and say hi. I also want to announce that tomorrow at 8.30 in the morning, the Appropriations Committee will be meeting. We will hear five different bills, House Bill 1053, 1187, 1194, 1207, and 1280. See you there. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Speaker. Happy Friday Eve. Happy Friday Eve. So two announcements today. Today is Canada Friendship Day. Right now out on the Western Steps are a ceremony going on. We have the Director General and the Council here from Canada. We trade a lot with them. Guess what our number one trade is? Beef. We love beef. So we do a lot. They're one of our biggest trading partners in the state of Colorado. But today is Canada Friendship Day that being said second announcement is I need the capital choir to come on down because we clearly established I can sing And then we need Representative Luck to come stand here front and center so we can sing happy birthday Capitol Choir, you've been invited down to the well. People that have voices and it's not me, get down here. Everyone who's a singer, come on down. Good morning. You can stand front, center. All right, are we ready? One, two, three. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday, dear Stephanie. Happy birthday to you. Thank you. You like that? You appreciate that?

Happy birthday. Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you, everyone, for that. I just want to also announce that we have a bill drafter whose birthday it is today, too. So if you see Rebecca Bietti, please wish her a happy birthday also. Wonderful. Thank you.

Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move to proceed out of order for consideration of resolutions.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move for the immediate consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 15.

Senate Joint Resolution 15 by Senators Roberts and Amabile, also Representatives Lukens and Velasco, concerning the protection of the public's interest in the management of Colorado's national public lands.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move Senate Joint Resolution 15.

thank you madam speaker across colorado our public lands are woven into who we are they are where we hunt fish and hike they are the foundation of our local economies and our way of life coloradans are unified in this 88 percent of westerners visited national public lands this last year, and 84% support creating new national parks and monuments. That is a Colorado value. The stakes are clear. There is a concerted federal effort to centralize power in the hands of a few powerful private interests. It is of utmost importance that we at the state level declare our unwavering commitment to keeping these lands public, protected, and accessible for every Coloradan now and in the future. For my constituents on the Western Slope and all Coloradans who share this deep love of our public lands, I urge a yes vote on SJR 15.

Thank you so much, Madam Speaker. And it's a pleasure to bring this forward with my co-sponsor, Rep. Lucans. We both represent a beautiful Western Slope district. And I think the goal for all of us must be for everyone in Colorado to have access to cleaner and clean water. And this would not be possible without protecting the water. in public lands. And we know that environmental justice is a vital piece of conservation to make sure that we protect everyone and that we continue pushing forward so that that's the reality, that everyone has access to cleaner and clean water. I grew up next to a plastic factory, so we know that many of our community members or neighbors live in areas that are very polluted, that don't have access to clean air, don't have access to clean water, and we live in areas that are very risky when it comes to wildfire and other natural disasters. In our district, healthy forest means open roads and thriving communities and an economic uptick and visitors coming to visit. And we also have the most visited national forest in our district, the White River National Forest. And it's so, so important for all of us to stand together and fight for our public lands and make sure that they stay public. So we urge a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the representatives to bring this bill. Public lands are very important. I come from the West Slope, and something that's a little bit different is I've been on those public lands all my life. I don't want to tell you how old I am, but I can guarantee you I've got more dirt, mud, and boots that comes from public lands than probably anybody in here. And what was not said, and I think that it needs to be said in this, is we talked about, first of all, the public lands are protected. The BLM, which is the Bureau of Land Management, which we have a lot of it in southwest Colorado, if you go and you look at their mission statement, it says that their main mission statement is multi-use. So I didn't hear in this resolution anything that was talked about ranching, grazing, energy production, timber, things that the rural communities thrive on. I remember what my grandfather used to tell me about how you create new money. You could build a computer for $100 and sell it to somebody for $500. You didn't create any money, you just gave somebody another $400 with the money that was already in the system. But if you have a cow herd and you have a brand new baby and that baby is worth $1,000, You just injected $1,000 into the system that's never been there before. If you cut down a tree because you need to manage the forest, because if you don't, it's going to burn down to the ground, you have injected new money because natural re-soils, oil and gas, is what injects new money into the system, not trading computers around. In the rural Colorado, we depend on those public lands. We recreate on them. We hunt on them. we graze them so that we can prevent the forest fires we work in unison, I'm a mountain bike rider we've built some of the best mountain bike trails in southwest Colorado where I live but what is wrong with this resolution is that it does not include multi-use and that is what's the most important thing about public lands we all use it, we all take care of it and we need to have that in this It is just not a museum where people that come from I call it the concrete jungle Where I live is where you go every summer to go play and that is where I live We respect that land We love that land and we need to include all of these other things that has to do with public lands, and that's why I'm going to be a regretful no on the resolution. Thank

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

Co-sponsors.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move to lay over House Bill 1130 until tomorrow.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1237. House Bill 1237 by Representative Smith-Intaggart, also Senator Lindstedt, concerning modifications to select statutory provisions to improve transportation safety. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1237 on third reading and final passage.

Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. DeGraff Garcia Sander Luck Valdez Please close the machine

and 2 excused

Co-sponsors

Mr Schiebel please read the title to House Bill 1107 House Bill 1107 by Representatives Frey and Paschal also Senator Cutter concerning measures to increase access to services and facilities that provide medical care. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1107 on third reading and final passage.

Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Winter and Woog. Please close the machine.

Co-sponsors.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1238. House Bill 1238 by Representatives Johnson and Lukens, also Senators Baisley and Linstead. Concerning emergency medical services provided in the state and in connection therewith, designating emergency medical services, including ambulance services and air ambulance services, to be essential services. Madam Majority Leader.

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

Co-sponsors.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 46 Senate Bill 46 by Senators Frizzell and Ball also Representatives Richardson and Zocay concerning procedural requirements for the administration of property tax and a connection therewith, modifying deadlines and certain requirements for transmitting information related to taxable property Madam Majority Leader

Clifford. Please close the machine.

Co-sponsors.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1200. House Bill 1200 by Representatives Garcia-Sander and Martinez, also Senator Pelton B, concerning required payments upon registration of a vehicle for a member of the United States Armed Forces serving outside the state. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1200 on third reading and final passage.

Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Clifford? Clifford? Please close the machine.

Co-sponsors?

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1257. House Bill 1257 by Representatives Gonzales and Rutanel, also Senators Liston and Milka concerning the local regulation of massage facilities. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1257 on third reading and final passage.

Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Frolick Luck and Sukla. Please close the meeting. the machine.

Co-sponsors.

Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move to proceed out of order for consideration of Senate amendments to House bills.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1064. House Bill 1064 by Representatives Jackson and Wright, and also Senator Immobile, concerning modifications to the youthful offender system. Madam Majority Leader, I'm looking for some sponsors. Yes, where are they?

Representative Jackson. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move that the House concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1064.

Please proceed. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Colleagues, basically what the amendment does is it makes the implementation of these recommendations subject to available appropriations, capacity, infrastructure, and staffing, and I would ask for a yes vote.

Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Sucla. Please close the machine.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move for the repassage of House Bill 1064 as amended.

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

Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1115. House Bill 1115 by Representatives Besenekar and Stuart Kay, also Senators Roberts and Bright, concerning modifications to the prepaid wireless telecommunications service charges. Speaker Pro Tem Besenekar. Thank you, Madam Speaker. A little presumptuous, but... Really? I do move to concur in Senate amendments to House Bill 1115. Representative Stewart. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Roses are red, violets are blue. When you call 911, you want them to answer, don't you? Well done. Speaker Pro Tem Basinecker. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Senate made a couple technical adjustments to the bill. We support these changes, and we would ask for your support.

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

Please close the machine.

House Bill 11...

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move for the repassage of House Bill 1115 as amended.

Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Joseph? Please close the machine.

Co-sponsors.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1013. House Bill 1013 by Representatives Sirota and Mabry also Senators Cutter and Weissman concerning the use of a ratio utility billing system by a landlord to allocate utility charges to tenants Representative Mabry Thank you, Madam Speaker. We move to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1013. Please proceed. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Neither one of us prepared a poem, but the Senate... I don't do that. Yeah, I don't really do that. The Senate brought an amendment regarding the use of rubs and submetering on new builds and starting in July 1st, 2027, about how new builds will be submetered rather than bulk metered, and we asked for an aye vote.

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

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move for the repassage of House Bill 1013 as amended.

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

22 no and 2 excused,

Co-sponsors.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1040. House Bill 1040 by Representatives Froehlich, just Representative Froehlich, also Senator Cutter, concerning the sterilization rights of a person with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Representative Froelich. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Occasionally the Senate does something okay. They found a minor flaw, and so I will say it's all right, it's okay to agree. To concur with the Senate is the way to be. I move to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill, whatever. To House Bill 1040. 1040. I'm thinking that Representatives Slough, Flannell, Goldstein, and Wynn are just stunned at the gobbling, the poetry. Welcome to the House.

to House Bill 1040. Mr Schiebel please open the machine and members proceed to vote Rep. Sukla. Please close the machine.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move for the repassage of House Bill 1040 as amended.

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

Co-sponsors.

Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move for the following bills to meet special orders on March 14th. Let's back up. March 12th, 2026 at 9.51 a.m. House Bill 1259, House Bill 1229, House Bill 1232, House Bill 1239, House Bill 1079, and House Bill 1244.

Representative Carter. for the whole consideration of special words.

Representative Carter will take the chair.

Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1259.

Thank you Mr Chair This is a bill that makes various technical changes and cleanups to Title 26 which is the statute governing the Department of Early Childhood I ran the bill in 22. That was House Bill 1295, which established the new Department of Early Childhood and the new universal pre-K program. And in the course of doing so, we also moved hundreds of pages of statute, and we are now at a point where we have identified some things that maybe got missed or lost in the shuffle and require some clarification and other programmatic needs that have come up in the course of this new department and new program that we are just making simple tweaks to. So the bill makes some clarifications regarding CCAP, the Colorado Child Care Assistance Program, make some clarifications and codifications related to the universal preschool program and child care licensing. We also are extending the existing license exemption for family, friend, and neighbor care indefinitely. And that particular provision does require, it does necessitate the safety clause, which came up in committee yesterday. and I just wanted to be clear that without a safety clause that provision repeals on September 1st and so it is important that we do not lose this particular part of statute. We are making some tweaks and changes to boards and commissions, the ECLC and the Rules Advisory Council in terms of membership and creating efficiencies there. I ask for your aye vote.

Mr. Chair, in the spirit of cleaning up and just keeping things from getting into the mission creep of, it seems like these things are always growing, so I move out 001 to, and if you haven't gotten it already, to House Bill 1259 and ask that it be displayed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The purpose of the amendment, it just simply reads, strike designee and substitute designee. The representative of the Behavioral Health Administration serving on the commission serves in an advisory capacity and does not have voting authority on the commission recommendations. So the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the Behavioral Health Administration provides subject matter expertise to the commission while preventing an expansion of voting authority that could shift the balance of the body beyond its intended coordination role. So it's just to, again, to ensure that the Behavioral Health Administration is there as an advisory and not as a voting member. That's it.

They just would not be voting members or be turned into voting members. It's just to preclude that from occurring so that they are not... We had an example of it yesterday where the assistant minority leader had to excuse himself from a vote because it affected directly the occupation

So this is to preclude that conflict of interest, and I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I ask for a no vote. I don't know why we would want to put someone on the commission, which is a federally required advisory commission that didn't have a vote just like any other member of the commission. I don't see the BHA designee as any different than, say, the director of the Department of Human Services.

This bill actually has some policy changes. To me, policy changes is not cleanup. And so this amendment theoretically could lighten those policy changes, although I don't think enough. But this amendment, I think, is pretty important in the bigger picture that this is actually just kind of fixing some things, which I don't think it is. I think this is policy change, so I think this amendment is important in step one.

Representative Graff.

Oh, I already took it.

Again, what I'm trying to avoid is just the, well, the mission creep, is what I would call it from the military standpoint. So with that, I move L002, House Bill 1259, and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So L002, page 3, line 21. After line 21. After education, add the commission's duty related to prenatal health or family economic mobility are limited to identifying existing program coordination opportunities and do not include the development of new regulatory programs or state services So again we in a zero fiscal note kind of year and we have all these bills that are coming through with magically palatable fiscal notes that absolutely defy history of what a fiscal note would be. And usually what it is, you know, with an example of previous, is that it is, the fiscal note is coming. So this is just saying the commission's duties related to prenatal health or family economic mobility are limited to identifying existing. Because we know that there's a lot of gaps in things that should already be done. So we're looking at where this is not occurring. So where these are existing already, existing program coordination and opportunities and do not include the development of new regulatory programs. So if the intent of the bill is not to develop new regulatory programs or state-mandated services, This is just an easy add to make sure that we're not using this as a basis down the road for developing new regulatory programs or state-mandated services. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I ask for a no vote. I think the bill isn't changing so much the purpose and direction of the ECLC, but is rather the part related to the inclusion of family economic mobility is something that the ECLC already does, and we're just further codifying that in statute of the topics, the issue areas that the ECLC would advise on. on. And so I don't, there's no, there's no mission creep going on. And this amendment is unnecessary.

Thank you, Chair. To assume that that is true, and I'm taking, I'm taking the bill sponsor at her word. If this is true, then I think you do need this amendment to make sure that that doesn't happen. To be able to say it from this dais that this is not about creep or that this is not about new policy or new direction, then you have to be able to limit that. You have to be able to stop that. This amendment at least puts the opportunity for that to be stopped or slowed. I would say probably more slowed because this bill does provide for opportunity. In fact, I think it does more than provide for opportunity, it does set the direction and precedence for new policy. That's not a cleanup context. And so this amendment says, okay, if we're not going to develop new policy, we're not going to take new direction, then let's limit it to what this is about right now. In fact, I think if I have my numbers right, I think it used to be up to eight years old and went down to pre-k then up to six. These kind of changes what and how can you not have a fiscal note when those kind of things are going on and that's just one small part of this. How can you not have the fiscal note? I am a little suspect of a zero fiscal note on this. So this amendment allows there to the guardrails that will ensure that what the bill sponsor just said will actually be true and be consistent. Saying it from here right now is one thing. Making sure that it is truth down the road is a total different subject. This amendment does at least provide, in another small arena of this bill, does provide those limitations.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, just to reiterate, the purpose of this is just to put guardrails around what the sponsor said the bill was about. So this is not limiting the bill. This is just saying, hey, whatever you intend to do with the bill, what you said to do with the bill, we just want to make sure that when the bill leaves, the rulemaking agency doesn't decide something that they think the bill actually says. So if you can't put guardrails around it, then obviously I'm going to be suspect on what the motivations of the bill actually are, given a $0 fiscal note. So it feels like, in this case, yet again, with a fiscal note of zero, that all of a sudden this is going to get to the rulemaking, and then all of a sudden when we get to supplementals, that we'll get to supplementals, and then we'll find out how much it costs. Or we'll find out down the road. So I think just taking the amendment is an easy fix because it aligns with the stated intent of the bill. And if it aligns with the stated intent of the bill, let's just make us all a little bit comfortable in the actual intent of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think perhaps there's maybe a misunderstanding about what the ECLC is. It is a commission. It is not a rulemaking body. Within the department, there is a rules advisory council, but this department does not have a type one board. So the executive director is the person who has the authority for rulemaking within the Department of Early Childhood. The rules advisory council makes recommendations to the director. The ECLC is a separate entity, which is, again, all the states have them. It is federally required under the Head Start Act. And while they don't have the ability to create new programs, for example, the ECLC did weigh in on the development of what a universal pre-K program would look like. That is their role, is to examine. And so whatever you would take the definition of development to mean, they would take an active role in analyzing and potentially making any recommendations about particular programs or policies that the department might be considering. And it is a very diverse commission made up of folks from the business community, community made up of also heads of different departments, providers, parents, and it is a diverse group of folks. But their job is to give guidance and advice, but they don't have the authority, A, to create a program, or B, to appropriate any money for it.

Representative Graff. Somebody keeps lowering this thing.

I move L-003 to House Bill 1259 and ask that it be displayed.

Thank you, Chair. This is just to go to page 10 after line 9. and insert an appropriation from the state education fund made pursuant to this section must be expressly authorized through a separate line item in the General Appropriations Act and must not be automatically expanded through program enrollment growth. So that's what we're trying to prevent. and the reasoning here is that the amendment ensures that any use of state education fund for the program remains subject to the annual appropriations process and legislative oversight rather than expanding it automatically through program growth. So again, we're just trying to prevent programs from growing because that's what government programs are designed to do. So I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I ask for a no vote. This amendment is amending a section that is required in statute whenever you have an appropriation from the state ed fund. there has to be accompanying language about why it is an appropriate appropriation from that fund. But these funds are already subject to appropriation. It is a decision that we make each year. The department puts forward a request based on caseload adjustments, and then there is an analysis of the projections about what dollars are coming in from Prop EE, and then we make a decision about what will be appropriated to the preschool cash fund based on those enrollment projections and the amount of funds coming in. So this amendment is unnecessary. I ask for a no vote.

Representative Graff.

I move L004 to 1259 and ask that to be displayed.

So on page 5 after line 11, insert a school district, charter school, early childhood education provider, or other entity participating. So just to give context, page 5, line 11. what we are talking about here is other state and local agencies involved in delivery of early childhood or human services programs or services that was added and now we're talking about adding so added a school district charter school early child education provider or other entity participating in the early childhood mental health consultation program shall not provide direct mental health consultation or services to a child without first obtaining written consent from the child's parent or legal guardian. And this just addresses an issue that we have with some of the schools that are delving into the minds and hearts of our children, taking themselves from a position of trusted adult and then starting to deal with, again, getting into the mental health consultation or services. And this is the realm that the parents need to be involved because children are easily manipulable in these situations, and we're finding that children are being manipulated in these situations. So this is just putting a barrier around that, which I think everybody here should agree, that the parents should not be bypassed in their responsibilities for the raising of their children, especially when we're talking about the mental health of the children. So this, I think, should be something that should go without saying. Unfortunately, it needs to be said, and I think it should be codified in the bill. to put forward that parents are actually responsible for the well-being of their children and that our education system should not be meddling in their emotional well-being because we know that lots of children in these situations have been subject to predatory tendencies. And so this is just putting the groundwork, the guide rails where we can and making sure and trying to ensure that that doesn't happen So for the children, I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Maybe I could help shed some light on what the early childhood mental health consultation program actually is. I mean, these are not folks who are providing direct therapeutic services to young kids. these are consultants, first of all, when they are working with kids, they do receive consent from families, but largely what is happening is these are professionals who are going in and working with providers and with parents to navigate the challenges that they are experiencing as they work with children but it is not really what maybe one is imagining in terms of you know sitting down in a therapist office with a three doing talk therapy That not what this is So this amendment is unnecessary, but also you can feel confident that they already are working through parental consent when engaging in these services.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And this is grown out of concerns of parents who are in this realm where their children have been taken by these services. Maybe not these specific services, but services like these and the expansion and going in that way. So if there is already parental involvement, which there should be, then this is not a problem. If they're not doing these things, then this is not a problem. This is just for the parents to have some sort of record knowing that, hey, if these things aren't done, we should be able to go back and point to some place in the law and say that, yes, in fact, parental consent needs to be achieved, needs to be obtained, and not just left up to, and that's putting it in statute instead of just leaving it as to whether or not it gets done. And we know from talking to parents is too often this parental consent is not obtained. So again, if parental consent is already part and parcel of this, this is nothing more than a piece of something for the parents to hang their hat on to make sure that they know that their child are not going to be in some sort of situation because the sponsor has an idea, has laid out what these are, but there's nothing really in this bill that lays out what establishes this. So this is just putting it in guidelines that all of these services must have parental consent, must involve the actual parents, and form consent as to what is going on with their kids. I don't know why we don't build these things in more often. We leave it up to the procedural instead of statute in this case, and there's time after time after time. I mean, if you read about it one time where children are manipulated and groomed in these situations, in these schools, that's one too many. So any place that we can put a guardrail in place to prevent the manipulation or grooming of children, I think that's a valid ad. There's a valid ad here. It just carries that mindset throughout our statutes that parents, in fact, are tasked by the laws of nature and nature's God with the rearing and responsibility for their children. I ask for an aye vote.

Representative DeGraff. My confidence in this bill is just going down, down, down, down.

I move L-005.

Thank you, Chair. Main thing here, page 10 after line 5. Where we're adding in this section, a lot of words here, adding in, changing a lot. The General Assembly may appropriate money for the purposes of subsection 6 of this section from the State Education Fund created in Section 17. So, I mean, that's quite an add. Article 9 of the State Constitution, the General Assembly declares that for the purposes of Section 17, Article 9 of the State Constitution. The appropriations required in subsection 6 of this section are an important element of expanding the availability of preschool programs and may therefore receive funding from the state education funding created in our Section 17. So, I don't know, it seems like a bit of a policy shift to me, and I don't know what all the ramifications are. something to unpack on a one-by-one basis, that we're directing funds here. It might be the appropriate thing to do. So what this amendment does, L-005 to 1259, on or before January 15 of each year, the department shall submit a report to the education committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate or any successor committees regarding the universal preschool program. the report must include the number of children served, the age distribution of participating children, the program expenditures, measurable outcomes related to child well-being and school readiness, any recommendations for program modification. Now, of course, I'd prefer that be done as an advisory situation only, but what this is doing is just making sure, providing the metrics, making sure we have the metrics, level setting and saying the metrics for what we're doing for these funds actually need to be, if it's important, you give it a metric, and then you make sure that you go from there and you're actually achieving your goals. What this General Assembly has a tendency of doing with its good intentions is putting them in motion, handing them over to the rulemaking agencies, and then saying, here's a bunch of money, make this happen. And what we find is, and what I see is I see a 25% achievement rate when we get to the end of high school. We get a 25% achievement rate as far as meets or exceeds standards. Now, if we only have a 25% achievement rate meets or exceeds standards, I'm not sure how 80% of the students graduate. because what we're then doing is we're turning them into a direction that's neither qualified to go on to college nor onto a trade, both of which are equally viable, which are great options. And so what we have, it seems we have an education system, and our solution for poor outcomes is just to throw money at it. And right now what we need to do is we need to actually, for the sake of the children, we need to actually improve the performance So again this is just like how many children are being served the total distribution age distribution the total program expenditures and most importantly measurable outcome related to child well-being. If we're going to spend money on it, we should have metrics on it, we should know how to track it, we should know how to ensure that what our money is being spent on is value added and not just throwing it into another fiscal hole like so much of our budget is. We have $50 billion, and we have billions of dollars going to these agencies, and if we're not going to start tracking them and we're not going to ensure that our money is being spent wisely, we're just throwing it into a hole.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I ask for a no vote on this amendment. I think the sponsor of the amendment will be pleased to know that the department does report out on all of these metrics ahead of the SMART Act each year. They also just did an evaluation of UPK that included modifications to the program and are also in the process of doing another evaluation on this as well. Also, CDE reports out on the Kindergarten Readiness Act, and then the Department of Early Childhood includes that in their annual UPK report as well. And I know the sponsor doesn't want to engage in duplicative and costly extra busy work in state government. So this amendment is unnecessary. It is already being done. I ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Chair. I move L-006 to 1259.

Representative Graff. Thank you, Chair. dealing with House Bill 26-1037, very sensitive now to how much data is being collected on us and how that data is being used. Very concerned about any data that's being collected on children. And then when we look at the data centers that we're building for AI data overlords, that this data is going to be retained forever, I think we need to be very careful about what's going on. So amend page 7, line 15, strike portion and substitute portion. And then insert any records, data, notes, assessment, or other pieces of information generated through participation in the early childhood mental health consultation program that relate to specific child care are confidential. except as required by federal law, confidential child-specific information must not be shared with any state agency, school district, contractor, or third party without the written consent of the parent or the parent's legal guardian. So we need to have the parents. This is just ensuring for whatever I sure the sponsor will come up and tell us that the data is being cared for it being properly handled and this is just putting boundaries on that and ensuring that properly handled does not include sending it to child, sending child confidential, child-specific information being shared with some other state agency and be considered that is appropriate, or school district, or contractor, or third party, without specific permission from the parent. Very important on this data. The data is used for all kinds of things. I think the sponsor will want to protect the data of children. So assuming that the data of children is already protected, this is just something that puts guardrails around. So it's either being done, and this just puts guardrails around it to ensure it doesn't get violated or help to ensure that it doesn't get violated in the future, or it's just putting a description around best practices for the safety and well-being of children. So for the children, vote yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I absolutely agree that data privacy is crucial, and hopefully the amendment sponsor will recognize that there are already other sections of the bill that are strengthening our requirements around data privacy within the department, and in particular related to licensing and other programs that may have any interaction with children's individual data. And we were sure to include those provisions as well in the original enacting legislation of House Bill 22-1295. So this is unnecessary, and I ask for a no vote.

Representative DeGraph Thank you, Chair I move L007 to House Bill 1259 I ask that it be displayed

Page six after a line 11, after old, services provided through the program must be limited to behavioral and development support of the children. The program must not conduct screening, assessment, data collection related to a child's political beliefs, religious beliefs, social or ideological identity.

so I've embraced the whole concept from Adams County, and it comes to find out that it's not just an Adams County thing. It's a 64-county thing. And thank you to Representative Richardson for agreeing to become my co-prime on this. And he's already reiterated all the things that it does, but it doesn't do anything that is different than the municipalities. So with that, I would like to move Amendment L012.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. As you can see, we've had quite a few amendments to this bill. L-012 was one that we just couldn't get in in time before committee, but it came from the Division of Natural Resources. And basically what it does is it excludes a state agency from being an owner. and that was in collaboration with the Division of Natural Resources. So I approve this amendment and I want

Representative Sucla Thank you Mr. Chair Thanks to the sponsors I know what you're trying to do is you think it's a good thing but where I live it's a little bit different you want to know why people move to the county where I live they move there because it's cheaper to live there and there's less regulations than there is in the city. They value freedom over regulations. My concerns about this bill, I feel like David and Goliath, 64 counties are saying that they're in favor of it. And I'll just say this up front, if you're running for re-election, if you're going against all the county commissioners, maybe you should vote yes. but I came I told my people that elected me that I was going to fight for their freedoms and that's why I'm standing here today I'm the one that bought that private property they're the ones that bought that it was my blood sweat and tears and the risk that I took to buy that farmer that ranch or that that investment property it wasn't the counties something that i've been doing the last few years is i am looking for these properties that have a bunch of used cars on them old cars it's not running things that the county could say that they need to find you twenty six hundred fifty dollars for and i buy them i clean them up and then i resell them and i'm not the only guy like that in the committee there was a county commissioner from Morgan County that said, well, we have this one property, and it took the county $80,000 or $90,000 to clean up. I bet you somebody in private enterprise could have did that a lot better. This is what happens where I live. You have land that people have bought, and they say that it's 50 acres, 20 acres, and it'll be pristine except for maybe a corner where they've got that used truck that they want to fix, where they've got that used tractor that they want to fix. And my problem with this is talking about a county enforcement code is we're going to hire somebody that just came out of college from New York City, is going to go to Montezuma County, and he's going to go to somebody that has had that stuff on their property forever, and he's going to tell them, if you don't move this or you move that, we are going to fine you up to He has no idea what he talking about That why it actually is better for the sheriff deputies They lived there for a long time They know what going on They know why that property looked like there. And that's the reason that they're better for it than some college kid that they're going to hire to go out there and make his quota kind of like they do, well, you've got to get so many speeding tickets a month. I do these farm auctions with this stuff all the time. They bring me everything under the book. One man's junk is another man's treasure. And now we're going to get this college kid that's going to go there and tell you what is junk and what's treasure. This is an infringement on freedoms. CCI why they would have as their priority bill a bill that actually goes after private property rights instead of defends them. And another thing, in our county, we don't have building codes. We don't have building codes for a reason. We have fought and fought to have those building codes because we don't want anybody to tell us how to build our house. We have to do three things in our county. You've got to get an electrical inspection, and you've got to get a plumbing inspection, two things, that's it, and have a permitted septic system. And then you are free to build. You've all been down in the city where they've got every house looks alike. We like to build our houses unique in the way that we want to do them as the private property owners. One of the things in this bill on page 9, I believe it is, is a certain type of brush. Nobody could tell me what that brush was. But now this county code enforcer can come and tell me that if I don't get rid of that brush, but they can't even tell me what the brush is, they could go ahead and fine me up to the $2,650. I'm looking at this bill as two types of people. You have people that are process people, in my opinion. Process people worry about the process. And then you have results people, and those people worry about the results. I feel we're getting in government more and more into the process people. Well, this is the process. This is the way that it works. And they don't care about the results. When I hear the word teeth, we've got teeth. As county commissioners, now we've got teeth to go after somebody we don't like. What if this code enforcer has a problem with somebody that they've got a neighbor that they don't like? What about that? Where is the checks and balances in this bill to give the county more authority to go after private property owners? And why is CCI so worried about the teeth and going after property owners instead of the 20 to 30 to 40 to 50 unfunded mandates that I've watched go through? transportation and local housing and business. Where were those county commissioners speaking when that was going on? Which is going to cost the county hundreds of thousands of dollars. Somebody has got to stand up for the freedom of the citizens, the freedom for them to have a right. If you're a county commissioner, there are three things. If the decimal is over 70 that a noise violation If you have a light that is shining into your neighbors that is a light violation And if you have some unruly dust that is going in over onto your neighbor property then those are the three things because you're affecting your neighbor. It's very interesting that the bill that we brought back here before yesterday talked about how we need to make land more affordable. and now what they're saying that said in the committee was well if you have a piece of property that looks like this then uh it's going to lower the property values so what they're trying to say is they're talking out both sides of their mouth we want to get rid of all of this we want to make the county look like a giant h or the state and j a giant hoa and then we're going to raise the property of houses and now you have less affordable housing i keep hearing about state control and i keep hearing about local control and this bill is the word you should think about it is the last word control local control the control is the one this bill is about controlling their constituents not letting them live the free life that they want to live they want to move from from the city out to the county and then they want to tell us what we need to do what you need to do is you need to have some commissioners that got a set and then they go to those property owners and they take care of that problem that that problem themselves instead of trying to put their law on all over the state of colorado i've said this over and over again here we need just leave us alone over there where we're at we've had enough if you guys want to regulate where you can walk across the street then you guys do it here. We're doing just fine on the western slope, and we don't need all of your crap coming down on us and forcing it down our throat. Let us be free and let us protect our private property rights. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I do have a question for the bill sponsors. In the bill, it states that agricultural land is exempt as long as it's being currently in agricultural use, as the term agricultural land is defined. So I know, like, certain uses, they take a year off or two years off to be able to manage their, or to let the soil get back to how it's supposed to be, to more nutrients and that kind of stuff. So what is the definition that you're meaning for the agricultural use, and does it allow for someone with their own land to be able to take a year or two or even five years off? They could even be sick. They could be anything like that. Representative Richardson. Thank you, Rep. Kelty. I know for those that were engaged with us a couple of days ago when we were talking about assessors, we can zone land agricultural, but the use of agricultural is defined by the assessor. So as you said, generally you have to have a three-year history of using it. The agricultural use still is in effect if you're giving the land a rest. so it's the use of the property as determined by the assessor that it still actively in use That use can include times when land or pastures are fallow So with you saying that what does it mean Let's say an assessor and the landowner, they just don't like each other. If I'm talking to our friend from Cortez, a lot of times there's a lot of disputes, personal disputes. So what keeps an assessor from saying that or going after someone, you know, in sort of like retribution or, you know, something like that? What kind of protections does a landowner have? And then if, and my other question is, if a landowner, let's say they're brand new, they just got a farm, they've just been an agricultured farm, but they want to, you know, they're trying to figure it out. They're new, whatever. It takes years for them to figure it out. But they have, you know, they just took over this land. They've got equipment on there. A lot of places, they want to keep the equipment on there because they can use whatever broken down parts from this equipment to fix parts on another equipment. So what protects them from the assessor, and then also what protects the new person who hasn't had that three years to be able to protect themselves from being in trouble? Brett Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, there are due process protections throughout the list, throughout the bill. If this were to progress to the point of unreasonableness on behalf of the compliance side into court, obviously those processes could be, what was going on can be fairly assessed in the courts. Really, I don't foresee that happening. I understand everything can be a concern, but at the end of the day, the local government that people have is chosen by the people of that local government area. We don't appoint assessors from the state. We don't appoint compliance officers from the state. This is simply the tools of enforcement to be used by the counties to enforce the regulations that they already put in place. from the previous representative. If there are no building codes, there's nothing to enforce under this bill for building codes. There's not something that's going to be enforced that wasn't put in place locally. And the new guy? The new farmer? Again, if somebody is coming in and not actually using it for agricultural use and they've created a hazard, there could be a complaint and compliance personnel can visit them, but whether you've got a tenth of an acre or 10,000, there's life health safety issues that can be addressed under this. It doesn't say they will be.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And then one more question, though. So under this, does this create an HOA state out of Colorado? Like, can they take my land? Let's say I have a broken down tractor or whatever it is, and I want to, you know, I'm not doing things fast enough or I'm not agriculturing my land. I'm not an agriculturer. I'm not a farmer. So I just want to understand. So if I'm not doing everything the way they think I should do it, when they want it done and in the time frame or whatever it is, can they take my land? Like I have 100 acres. Can they take all of my 100 acres because of one of my acres, I have, you know, a tractor on there. that they don't like? Representative Richardson? Practically and reasonably, I would say no. But again, when we're throwing out terms like they, it's a little broad. Again, this bill only provides the mechanism for the local regulations that are in place to be enforced if they choose to use that tool. This is not the state saying you must use these tools. And it's certainly not the state saying these are the rules that must be in place in your local jurisdiction. It's just this impacts the courts. So that's a statewide issue. We can't have different processes that may access that legal system being developed in every jurisdiction because at the end of the day, the final enforcement could be through the courts.

House Bill 1079 by Representatives Bradley and Basinecker, also Senator Bright, concerning a requirement that a minor have written permission to obtain an instruction permit to drive a motorcycle.

To the committee report, Representative Batesnicker.

Is there any further discussion on the committee report? Seeing none, the question is the adoption of the THLG report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the committee report is adopted to the bill. Representative Bradley.

All right. L-3 has been moved. And just to wait. All right, it's property.

All right. Withdrawn. Representative Gonzalez, bring us home.

The question before us is the passage of House Bill 1079. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. 1079 is passed. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1244.

Representative Joseph, to the committee report. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1244 in the Health and Human Services Committee report.

In the committee, we had one amendment, and that amendment actually just renumbers some language in the bill, and we asked for a yes vote to the committee report because the amendments were technical.

We're just speaking to the bill, right?

Aye.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, we want to let you all know that the wise people of the Health and Human Services Committee passed this bill unanimously earlier this week. It's a very bipartisanly supported bill. And because it's almost certain that each of us knows somebody in a nursing home, an assisted living facility, a skilled nursing facility, a rest home, or another related facility, It's incumbent upon all of us to not overregulate the ways money's collected from these facilities from penalties is spent. This bill promotes more flexibility for the spending of money that already exists and is not money collected from taxes for the direct benefit of persons in a care facility. I have friends on both sides of the political aisle who work in this field, and they all wholeheartedly support this bill's intent. I ask for a yes vote.

Thank you. Colleagues, House Bill 261144 is assembled A bill that ensures Colorado is using the Nursing Home Penalty Cash Fund in the most effective and compliant way possible. Under current law, the Department of Public Health and Environment distribute grants from this fund using criteria written in statute. This bill update our laws so that those distributions align with the priorities and allowable use established by Federal Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, ensuring we are consistent with federal guidance and focus on improving care for nursing home residents. The bill also clarifies that projects funded through these grants can support both education and training for nursing home facility staff, recognizing that well-trained staff directly improve quality of care and quality of life for residents. Additionally, it removes an outdated restrictions that prevent most governmental entities from applying for grants and adjusts the annual reporting timeline to provide the legislature with more complete information about how these funds are used. Ultimately, this bill helps ensure that penalty funds are reinvested into innovation, better care, and improved outcome for residents in nursing facilities across Colorado. I respectfully ask for your yes vote on House Bill 26-1244. Thank you.

So I do have a question for the bill sponsors. I know this is penalty funds, so I assume those are only state funds. There's no federal funds connected to this. And then also I think you guys did take out the administrative costs, right, and these are just rolled back in to the help of the nursing home facilities without administrative costs. Are those two correct? The state and federal, it's only state funds because it's only penalty funds? So no federal.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the question. These are penalty funds that have come from the facilities, and it's managed by CMS. They're CMS funds.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. of the committee rise and report.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, your Committee of the Whole begs leave to report as under consideration the following attached bills, being the second reading they're open, making the following recommendations thereon. House bills 1079 as amended, 1229 as amended, 1232, 1239 as amended, 1244 as amended, and 1259 passed on second reading. Order in gross in place on the calendar for third reading and final passage.

Members, you have heard the motion that the House adopt the report of the Committee of the Whole.

Brown and Froelich.

Please close the machine.

So move on along Mr Schiebel reports of committees of reference Committee on Business Affairs and Labor After consideration of clumsy Debbie recommends the following House Bill 1091 be postponed indefinitely Committee on Education after consideration of derehabitude, Advancement 4. House Bill 1299 be amended as followed. Next. allegations. committee on Energy and Environment after consideration the bureaucracy on Appropriations will Cauce Bill 1268 is amended. Senate bill 16 be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favor of recommendation. Committee on health and human services after consideration on the Americans, the community recommends the following House bills 1019 as amended, 1116 as amended, and 1235 as amended will be referred to the committee of the whole. House bills 1214 and 1260 as amended be referred to the committee on appropriations with favor of recommendation. Committee on judiciary after consideration on the American committee recommends the following. House bill 1123 be amended is followed and métical observations. Senate bill 37 be referral to the committee of the whole with favor of recommendation. Committee on transportation, housing, local government after consideration on the American committee recommends the following. House bill 1224 be amended is soft and now I'm so MANO setting for the committee on finance. House Bill 1242 be amended as followed, not so amended before the committee on appropriations with favorable recommendation, and House Bill 1211 be postponed indefinitely. Printing report. The Chief Clerk reports the following. Printing report will be printed in the journal. Message from the Senate.

Message from the Senate will be printed in the journal. Message from the reviser. We hear with transmit. Message from the reviser will be printed in the journal. Introduction of bills. House Bill 1331 by Representatives McCluskey and Caldwell, also Senators Coleman and Simpson, concerning modifications to legislative interim activities. House Bill 1331 will be assigned to the Committee on Appropriations. House Bill 1332 by Representatives McCluskey and Duran, also Senators Rodriguez and Simpson, concerning the Legislative Department Cash Fund. House Bill 1332 will be assigned to the Committee on Appropriations.

Speaker Pro Tem Besenekar.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Business Affairs and Labor Committee will meet at 1.30 p.m. in Room 112, or 10 minutes upon adjournment of the 10 upon adjournment committees. We will hear one bill, House Bill 26-12-10. See you there.

Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move to lay over the balance of the calendar until Friday, March 13, 2026.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move that the House stand in recess until later today.

Thank you. Thank you.