Colorado House 2026 Legislative Day 088

Thank you. The House will come to order. The Pledge of Allegiance will be led by Representative Woodrow.

Mr. Schiebel, please call the roll.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Present.

Here.

Present.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Representative Woodrow. Representative Woodrow.

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, I will invite you to take your seats. We are proceeding to business. Thank you, members, for taking your seats. we are starting third reading thank you Madam Majority Leader

seeing no objection Senate Bill 43 will be moved to the end of the third reading calendar Mr. Schiebel

Cash Fund. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1348 on third reading and final

vote? Yes. Representative Leader votes yes. Representative Slaw, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Slaw votes yes. Representative Jackson, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Jackson votes yes. English English is excused

With 55I3-NO, 5 excused and 2 absent, House Bill 1348 is adopted.

House Bill 1349 by Representatives Brown and Sirota, also Senators Maublin-Kirkmaier, concerning modifications to prevention services programs within the Department of Early Childhood and in connection therewith, making and reducing appropriations.

third reading and final passage. The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1349 on third reading final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine

Story. Please close the machine.

Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1350.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1350 on third reading and final passage.

Yes. Representative Leader votes yes. Representative Slaw, how do you vote? Yes, ma'am. Representative Slaw votes yes. Representative Jackson, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Jackson votes yes.

With 49 I, 11 no, 3 excused and 2 absent, House Bill 1350 is adopted.

House Bill 1351 by Representatives Brown and Sarota also Senators Moblin concerning the use of state education fund money to fund the Healthy School Meals for All program Madam Majority Leader Madam Speaker I move House Bill 1351 on third reading and final passage

Yes.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes.

Please close the machine.

Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1352.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1352 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes.

Please close the machine.

Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1353.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1353 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes.

Please close the machine.

Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1354.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1354 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes.

Please close the machine.

Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1355.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1355 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes.

Please close the machine.

Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1356.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1356 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes.

Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1357.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1357 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes.

Please close the machine.

Co-sponsors. please close the machine Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1358

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1358 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes.

Please close the machine.

Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1359.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1359 on third reading and final passage.

Jackson, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Jackson votes yes.

With 44I 16, no, 3 excused, and 2 absent, House Bill 1359 is adopted.

House Bill 1360 by Representatives Brown and Tigard, also Senators Briggs and Kirkmeyer, concerning the Affordable Housing Financing Fund. Madam Majority Leader.

Representative DeGraff.

Representative Luck.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1360 on third reading final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Leader, how do you vote?

Representative Leader votes yes. Representative Slaw, how do you vote?

Representative Slaw votes yes. Representative Jackson, how do you vote?

Representative Jackson votes yes.

Yes, Madam Speaker, I'd like to change my vote.

No, ma'am.

Please close the machine.

Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1361.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1361 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

Yes.

Please close the machine.

Thank you, Representative Jackson. We did record your vote. Please close the machine.

Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1362.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1362 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes.

Weinberg. Please close the machine.

Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1363.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1363 on third reading and final passage.

Madam Speaker, thank you. We talked about this quite a bit on seconds. And as the orbitals progressed, there was nothing that occurred there. If anything, the occurrences just deepened, not dissuaged any of the fears that I have towards the rapid acceleration towards the cliff that I feel that we're heading towards. This signals an oncoming disaster. This should signal in anybody's even family budget that we're heading in the wrong direction. This should signal that immediate changes need to be made. We had the opportunity to make immediate changes. We did not. We are continuing to fund programs that are driving the need for things like this to happen So are we going to continue to fund ideas that we know are becoming rapidly expensive and depleting reserve accounts or raiding other areas in order to continue to just adhere to our original emotional idea that that was the right thing to do? The math is telling us We have a problem. The math is telling us that we cannot afford to continue the prioritization that we favor. We have got to do, and I, again, we've said it throughout seconds, I believe we all feel for the difficulty of the position that the Joint Budget Committee is in. they have had to make some very difficult decisions. So this is not in any way for me to reference or insinuate that they took an easy way out by dipping into the reserves, because I do not feel that way. I know that it was difficult. I know that it came with additional difficult decisions. However, if we think for a second that we're going to walk back up into here, Next session, and we're going to have a discussion that's much different than the one that we're having now. Y'all are far more optimistic than I am. Far more. So what is it that we will continue to do? Are we going to go to 11 next year? Go down to 9? At what point do we realize we have a very serious problem? I understand that the Joint Budget Committee may very well be in a position to where there is no other choice. Fundamentally, I cannot vote for this, despite their feeling that there is no other choice, because we continue to put money in areas that we know are runaway programs, because our priority is truly not on trying to save the state from a fiscal disaster. Our priority is honestly, sometimes I feel like stick our head in the sand until we can get to the point to where we truly know that there's a problem and then we'll deal with it. If we're not looking at this and understanding that we're at that point now, I'm not sure what we're doing.

Representative DeGraff. So this is a rainy day fund. It's not a self-inflicted pain fund. It's not a... I threw a stick in my front spokes fund. Now, I do appreciate the confidence in the economy turning around with the changes that were initiated in January of 2025. But still we spending future money based on that confidence And I don think that right we spending money and setting a poor example when a rainy day fund should be 25 to 50 of your income of your expenses And we're talking about all expenses. And we just have 15%, and we want to roll that back to 13%. And why next year can't we just roll it back to 11%? Or as one campaign speech suggested, we roll it back to 11% before it was withdrawn. So last night I thought it was really fitting. It was kind of a perfect place to end because it's where we should have begun with this budget. And granted, we all know that this is just a rubber stamp of Palooza where we just are expected to go through the two days of show. You vote one way, we vote the other way. we have the pretense of debate, the illusion of debate. But we could have just cut 2%, 1 billion out of 50 billion, 2%. Easy. Cut 2%. Maybe trim some fat someplace out of the green grift programs. I'm always a favor of cutting grift out of the green energy programs. Those just largely serve to prop up the investors because they get 9% to 10% on their investment of investing the citizens' money year after year after year. And, of course, that creates the perverse incentive of raping their way across the state with the governor's approval of imminent domain. So we're saying we need to tap into this rainy day fund. But then if we go back to the back of the book, we already created an open-ended program on a $14.7 billion program that exceeded $120 million, whatever. that then we capped that $14.7 million program at $95 million. And we patted ourselves, you patted yourselves on the back. And you called it a right, when a right is something like life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. It cost me nothing to honor yours. It cost you nothing to honor mine. But when you start to say things that are rights, that cost money, that is imposed labor. That is slavery. So now we're talking about over here, instead of just cutting this 2% across the board and taking the governor's budget, endorsing it on one side, capitulating it to it on the other, now we're putting the citizens of Colorado at a greater risk because this is not a rainy day fund. This is a self-inflicted pain situation. We could have addressed things like ballot costs. I showed you three years ago how you could save $30 million per election cycle just by not sending trash to the citizens of Colorado. That was voted down. showed you how you could save citizens, we could infuse billions of dollars into the economy this year with medical pricing. That was voted down. So it's not like we're serious about cutting the budget or infusing the economy. We're just talking about rearranging deck chairs on a ship that is going down. And then we project and we say, Okay, we'll take money out of it this year, because next year will be better. But let's look at the trends. Let's look at the trends. The budget has nearly doubled. The $4 billion surplus is gone. And spending, the $4 billion surplus is gone. And we've had to go to creative ways of introducing trans debt into our system because debt isn't allowed, and so we have certificates of participation, which is just debt that identifies as not debt. And then we have to do all of the trickery with fees to create new enterprises, to create new services supposedly for the citizens of Colorado for which we can impose new fees. And then we create cash funds with the excess so that when we have problems like this, we can sweep the excess in. So we create fees to circumvent what is anathema in this building, which is that the taxpayers actually have rights. And I understand that is anathema in this building, especially to one side, that the taxpayers have rights. and we create fees under the pretense of services and then we take that money that we promised would be for something of service to the citizens of the service that was created, manufactured, contrived by this room itself and then we sweep it into our general priorities. Bait and switch. bait and switch over and over again and then we say wow look at this crisis we're in but next year is going to be better and I don't know what makes it better I don't know what the projections are because it seems the things that are making the economy better are being opposed at every turn. So unless there's significant changes in November, all I can see is that we're going to continue taxes, debt, more spending, more bait, more switch. So, a bill that borrows from our ability to respond to emergencies in order to address, to cover our inability to actually balance a budget because we have two days to rubber stamp our way through orbitals. We have two days to make sure that the governor's budget with some tweaking gets through. Not sure why the executive branch is making the budget that we took, but here we are. So I'm opposed to spending our futures money. I'm opposed to spending that emergency fund that is for things like emergencies and not self-inflicted crisis. Because I don see once we created the precedent because it like the temporary borrowing from that are other bills in here the temporary borrowing from the unclaimed property trust fund It's only going to be one time, we're going to pay it back. Until the next time, it's only going to be one time, and then we're going to pay it back. Until the next time, it's only going to be one more time, but this is really it. We seriously promise until the next time when we fail to pay it back. So now this is not only creating, this is not only dipping into the future, this is not only dipping into our ability to respond to an emergency, which is already limited by at least 10% and if not 35% of where it should be.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. we're creating a horrible precedent. And that precedent will be used over and over again because we could cut 2% out of it this time, which is not just 2%, because it's 2%. It's actually quite a bigger chunk. It's 2%, so it's 1 7th. It's actually, what, closer to 15%. We're cutting a big chunk out of our reserve. We're borrowing against our future. to cover our inability to discipline ourselves in fiscal responsibility, I'm a note.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I agree with my colleague from El Paso County. you know there's a funny little note that's actually in the fiscal note of this bill and this is what it says while the bill does not directly affect state expenditures it lowers the reserve let me say that again while the bill does not directly affect state expenditures the expenditures are why we are in the position we are in right now So if it's not going to affect the state expenditures, we're going to keep having the same problem over and over. It's almost like, what's the definition of insanity again? Doing the same thing over and over and over again, expecting a different result? Our financial crisis here in Colorado is the perfect definition of insanity. You know, I try to teach my kids fiscal responsibility. And having a reserve is just one of many things. But it's one of the most important things. It's mandatory that we have a 15%. Unless, you know, we get ourselves in a financial bind. Unless we can't stop spending our money. Actually, it's not even our money. It's the people's money. This change in the reserve, lowering it, putting more money, because we can't seem to manage it correctly, promotes poor money management. I don't know how much more clear this can be. This is only supposed to be for extreme, extreme emergencies, not because you have extreme, extreme spending. Hard times call for hard decisions. Lowering this makes the decisions less hard And that shouldn be The cuts for this will never end. You'll see it. Just like my colleague said, it's going to happen again and again and again. And you're going to constantly try to justify taking the people's money and doing what you want with it. But, you know, it's just this time. shameful in my opinion it's absolutely shameful what's happening with the people's money their money I don't believe is safe at all in our hands well maybe mine but not some others I see this as we're stealing from Peter to pay Paul over and over and over again I said this last year same exact thing last year and here we are again in the hole I don't think the people should trust anything that happens anymore. We can't stop spending. That's the problem. The money's there for things that are necessary. People don't seem to understand how to prioritize. Robbing the safety reserve. Robbing it. We need to make tough, smarter decisions. Financial decisions that are going to help the state not constantly put it into jeopardy. This right here, having to lower the reserve, should be a big fat warning sign. Colorado is financially imploding. Until the people actually understand and feel it, I don't know what else to say to them other than they need to pay attention. Maybe they should come up here and show us how to do it. because I don't think that it's being done properly as it stands. Our JBC is trying, but this isn't the way to do it. This is a desperate measure, because you can't say no to those who want to waste your money. I can. I'll say no every single day. As usual, Colorado has a spending problem, not a money problem. until we get a grasp on that, we're going to see this year after year after year. So welcome to the Colorado financial implosion merry-go-round.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, I just want to explain why I'm going to be a no on this today. Again, as always, when we're having these debates around the budget and orbitals, You know, I appreciate the work from the JBC and I understand that there's a lot of things that get funded, whether you agree with it or not, but you're statutorily required to. And I understand the, you know, the work on this that we're doing right here and the votes that we're taking right now. This, I mean, this started six months ago before session for us started. So I always want to give a shout out to the JBC members and say thank you for that. But the reason I'm up here, and I'm going to explain why I'm a no on this, is we had an executive committee meeting probably three weeks ago. At this point, we were talking about lowering the reserve from 15% to 13%. And I believe it was in that meeting. It could have been out of that meeting. I'm pretty certain it was in that meeting. I think I posed the question, well, why not go down to 12%? why stop at 13% because we were discussing the senior homestead tax exemption and I think for every point it like million and that about right around what we needed and I said well why don we just go down to 12 Not that I support that but I was just posing the question And one of the answers that I got was essentially well right now our chief economists the team of them are predicting that there's a 40% chance of a recession within the next year, I believe is what it was. and we don't want to deplete our reserve too much because this emergency reserve that we have here that we're debating is meant for something like that. It's meant for a crisis and we're going to need everything we have potentially if that recession does play out. I mean 40 percent you're you're almost at the flipping a coin whether we're going to be in a recession or not in the next year And so that's why they would not recommend going from 13% to 12%. And so as my colleagues before me made the argument, we are not in that recession right now. Yet here we are dipping into the same reserve that we would go and dip into if we were in a recession or some kind of serious economic crisis. And as my members before me said, I think it's more of the misprioritization of how we've been spending our money and the structural deficit that we've created for years and years and years in this building and the thousands and thousands of employees we've added in the multiple departments and programs and using one-time money to fund things that now we have to fund out of the state budget. It's just that's not what the reserve was meant for. And I understand historically the reserve's been lower in the past, but it is what it is now. And we've put that money in there. We've set it aside. And in this orbital, it says that we have to go back to the 15% level after this. And so we are assuming that next time we sit here and do this budget that we're going to have that money, that extra, I believe it's $350 million. to set aside to put our reserve back up to the 15%. Unless we make some serious structural deficit changes, where are we going to get that money to refill that reserve at next year when we have the same debate? I don't think it's going to happen. I think I just kind of want to call it now. I think when we come back and have this debate, we're going to either say we're going to leave it at 13% now permanently or we're going to lower it a little bit more and drop it down from 13% to 11%. I think we'll be back here having that same exact discussion. I think it's very ambitious to think that we're going to have that extra $350 million and put it back in there to get it back up to 15% next year. So this fund was created for absolute economic crisis, according to our own economists that we talked to, and we are not in that right now. and there's some serious changes that we could make where we wouldn't have to touch this and it would be hard it would be very hard anytime you have to cut programs that people have got dependent on anytime you have to get rid of jobs that were newly created in the last few years and that puts people out of work I get it it's hard but it's the responsible thing to do and for those reasons I'll be a no today. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I got up yesterday and spoke about my experience as a school principal and how frustrating it was last year when I realized that all the years during the budget stabilization or BS factor happened budget years that we were told to cut in K-12 education, and it was anywhere from 10 to 12 to 15 percent across the board. And so as a principal, I had to figure out how was I going to cut my school budget by 10 to 12 or 15 percent. And that was hard, but we did it because K-12, we're teachers and we're principals and we do what we're told. And so last year, during Smart Act hearings, I heard all of these departments coming and asking for more money after they were told to cut, and I realized nobody else in the state besides our K-12 were really making cuts, like maybe 2% or 3% here or there, but not the 10% and 15% that I had to make. So I'm really struggling with this particular bill because I have managed state money, money that's not mine, and it's a really important responsibility to take on. and there are years when we as a school or as a district we had to go down in our reserves knowing that that is our rainy day fund the thing that i'm really struggling with this is after after talking with our representative jbc member is that this will affect our senior property homestead tax exemptions. And I've worked really hard with some seniors this session, trying to find ways to help them manage funds. In fact, I've got a lot of friends who have moved out of state who are seniors. They're moving to states where they have no property tax, home property tax, or less property tax. and we are losing some of our lifelong members, even our family farmers and ranchers who have been here forever. And the more property tax pressure we put on them, the harder it is for them to stay. I'm really struggling with this because on one hand, I agree with my colleagues that just spoke about the need to keep a reserve and the rainy day fund and how important that is and that that is a trust that we have with our public. On the other hand, having managed public dollars, I know that it happens. And you have recessions and boom years. Unfortunately, I think Colorado's barreling down the train tracks. I don't know if that was a pun intended. but toward a greater economic downturn. And I think that rainy day fund is really important to have, but I am very, very, very worried about this wiping out our senior property homestead tax exemptions. So I'm not sure where I'm going to go yet with this vote, but I think people should consider that also.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Let's be quick. We're decreasing our rainy day fund by 13% on the promise of recovery if we avoid a 40% chance of recovery. We have 100 business leaders that just sent you all a letter that says change your way out, and we have no hope for change in sight with this room. So I don't know how we're going to do that. So I'll be a no.

Representative Slaw, how do you vote? No, ma'am.

Representative Jackson, how do you vote? Yes.

Mr. Schiebel, Carter and Garcia excused. Garcia Sander Weinberg Winter Please close the machine

Please close the machine.

House Bill 1364 by Representatives Sirota and Tigard also Senators Bridges and Kirkmeyer concerning the calculation of the Consumer Price Index for the 2025 calendar year and in connection with making appropriation

and final passage. The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1364 on third reading, final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Leader, how do you vote?

vote?

how do you vote? Yes. Representative Jackson votes yes.

Please close the machine. With 41 ayes, 17 no, five excused and two absent, House Bill 1364 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1366 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

Representative Slaw how do you vote Yes ma Representative Slaw votes yes Representative Jackson how do you vote Yes Representative Jackson votes yes

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1367. House Bill 1367 by Representatives Brown and Taggart, also Senators Bridges and Kirkmeyer, concerning federal money payable as reimbursement of a public expenditure when the federal money exceeds 50% of the expenditure amount.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1367 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Leader, how do you vote?

Representative Leader votes yes. Representative Slaw, how do you vote?

Representative Slaw votes yes. Representative Jackson, how do you vote?

Representative Jackson votes yes. please close the machine with 47 I 12 no 4 excused and 2 absent House Bill 1367 is adopted co-sponsors please close the machine

Madam Majority Leader Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1368 on third reading and final passage

Yes.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1369. House Bill 1369 by Representatives Brown and Taggart, also Senators and Abilene Kirkmeyer, concerning the repeal of a requirement to contract for use of an online platform for higher education institutions for public benefits.

Representative Leader, how do you vote?

Representative Leader votes yes. Representative Slaw, how do you vote?

Representative Slaw votes yes. Representative Jackson, how do you vote?

Representative Jackson votes yes. Brown and Gonzalez please close the machine with 59 ayes, 0 no 4 excused and 2 absent House Bill 1369 is adopted co-sponsors Please close the machine Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1370

Madam Majority Leader

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1370 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Leader, how do you vote?

Representative Leader votes yes. Representative Slaw, how do you vote?

Representative Slaw votes yes. Representative Jackson, how do you vote?

Representative Jackson votes yes. Please close the machine. With 59I1, no, 3 excused, and 2 absent, House Bill 1370 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1372.

Madam Majority Leader.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1372 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Leader, how do you vote?

Representative Leader votes yes. Representative Slaw, how do you vote?

Representative Slaw votes yes. Representative Jackson, how do you vote?

Representative Jackson votes yes. Please close the machine. With 60 eyes, 0 no, 3 excused, and 2 absent, House Bill 1372 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Thank you. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1371.

Madam Majority Leader.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1371 on third reading final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Leader, how do you vote?

Representative Leader votes yes. Representative Jackson, how do you vote?

Representative Jackson votes yes. Clifford and Zocay. Please close the machine. With 51 I, 9 no, 3 excused and 2 absent, House Bill 1371 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Mr. Shishibel, please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1373.

Madam Majority Leader.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1373 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Leader, how do you vote?

Representative Leader votes yes. Representative Jackson, how do you vote?

Representative Jackson votes yes. Please close the machine. With 46-Sci, 14-No, 3-Excused, and 2-Absent, House Bill 1373 is adopted. Co-sponsors. please close the machine Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1374

Madam Majority Leader

Representative Sirota.

Representative Sirota, briefly explain.

Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is permission to run a third reading amendment on House Bill 1374. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Leader, how do you vote?

Representative Leader votes yes. Representative Jackson, how do you vote?

Representative Jackson votes yes. Please close the machine. With 57 I, 3 no, 3 excused and 2 absent, permission is granted. Representative Sirota.

Thank you. One moment while we display. It is properly displayed. Please proceed.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion to force is the adoption of Amendment L-004 to House Bill 1374. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Leader, how do you vote?

Representative Leader votes yes. Representative Jackson, how do you vote?

Representative Jackson votes yes. Brown and Phillips. Please close the machine. With 57 I, 3 no, 3 excused, and 2 absent, Amendment L-004 is adopted. Madam Majority Leader.

The motion is the passage of, not the repassage.

Thank you. Representative DeGraff.

Representative DeGraph, you have one minute remaining.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the passage of House Bill 1374 as amended on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Leader, how do you vote?

Representative Leader votes yes. Representative Jackson, how do you vote?

Representative Jackson votes yes. Representative Phillips, how do you vote?

Representative Phillips votes yes. Representative Paschal. Representative Paschal is excused Please Representative Paschal that's a $3 fine Representative Paschal, please vote Please close the machine With 43 I, 18 no 2 excused and 2 absent House Bill 1374 is adopted as amended Co-sponsors please close the machine Mr. Schiebel please read the title to House Bill 1375

Speaker, I move House Bill 1375 on third reading and final passage. The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1375 on third reading, final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Leader, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Leader votes yes. Representative Jackson, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Jackson votes yes. Representative Phillips, how do you vote?

Representative Phillips votes yes. Please close the machine With 61 ayes 0 no 2 excused and 2 absent House Bill 1375 is adopted Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1376

Madam Majority Leader

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1376 on third reading and final passage Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Leader, how do you vote?

Representative Leader votes yes. Representative Jackson, how do you vote?

Representative Jackson votes yes. Representative Phillips, how do you vote?

Representative Phillips votes yes. Please close the machine. With 60-I, 2-no, 1 excused and 2 absent, House Bill 1376 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1377.

Madam Majority Leader.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1377 on third reading final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Leader, how do you vote?

Representative Leader votes yes. Representative Phillips, how do you vote?

Representative Phillips votes yes. Please close the machine. With 44 ayes 17 no, 2 excused and 2 absent, House Bill 1377 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1378.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker I move House Bill 1378 on third reading and final passage The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1378 on third reading final passage Mr Schiebel please open the machine and members proceed to vote Representative Leader, how do you vote?

Representative Leader votes yes. Representative Phillips, how do you vote?

Representative Phillips votes yes. Please close the machine. With 50 I, 11 no, 2 excused, and 2 absent, House Bill 1378 is adopted. Co-sponsors. please close the machine Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1379

Madam Majority Leader.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1379 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Leader, how do you vote?

Representative Leader votes yes. Representative Phillips, how do you vote?

Representative Phillips votes yes. Please close the machine. With 61 ayes, 0 no, 2 excused, and 2 absent, House Bill 1379 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1380.

Madam Majority Leader.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1380 on third reading final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Leader, how do you vote?

Representative Leader votes yes. Representative Phillips, how do you vote?

Representative Phillips votes yes. Joseph. Please close the machine. With 58I3 no, 2 excused, and 2 absent, House Bill 1380 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr Schiebel please read the title to House Bill 1381 House Bill 1381 by Representatives Brown and Sroda also Senators Amabile and Bridges concerning eliminating the requirement that the Commission on Judicial Discipline Special Cash Fund

Madam Majority Leader.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1381 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Leader, how do you vote?

Representative Leader votes yes. Representative Phillips, how do you vote?

Representative Phillips votes yes. Hamrick. Please close the machine. With 61 ayes, zero no, two excused, and two absent, House Bill 1381 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1382.

Madam Majority Leader.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1382 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Leader, how do you vote?

Representative Leader votes yes. Representative Phillips, how do you vote?

Representative Phillips votes yes. Please close the machine. With 56 I, 5 no, 2 excused, and 2 absent, House Bill 1382 is adopted. Co-sponsors. please close the machine Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1383

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1383 on third reading and final passage. The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill

Leader, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Leader votes yes.

House Bill 1384 by Representatives Brown and Tigard also Senators Bridges and Kirkmeyer concerning the classification of School to Work Alliance Program cost payments to the Department of Labor Employment from the Department of Education

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1384 on third reading and final passage

Yes.

Yes.

House Bill 1385 by Representatives Brown and Sirota also Senators and Mobline Bridges concerning directing 100% of the funding for the public defender and prosecutor behavioral health support program for state fiscal year 2026-27 to the

third reading and final passage. The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1385 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Leader, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Leader votes yes. Representative

Yes. Representative Phillips votes yes. Please close the machine. With 43-I-18-no, two excused, and two absent, House Bill 1385 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1386.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is one fiscal note that angered me a lot. 1386 is uncalled for last year we made a promise we had all of them come in they spoke for this we made a promise to our National Guard that they would have tuition waiver funding 100% why? because these are our bravest These are heroes, local, to us, that we see every single day. And we promise them this. I don't get it. People plan their lives. They plan their education. They know where they're going. We say, yes, as a state of Colorado, we will honor you. We will give you this. We will do what we need to do. We should have planned for this. This should have been planned. But now the bill reduces reimbursement to institution of higher education from the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs for the National Guard tuition waiver program from the full amount of the tuition waived to 50% of this amount. We spoke to these guys last year, and we said, yes, we'll do this for you. We voted on this as a body. And I understand that we need to make cuts. There's so many other areas that we could have made cuts to. And I'm all about making cuts. But this is a promise that was made. They planned their education. They planned their families. They planned their lives. They planned everything around it. And now we're just saying one year later? Hmm, sorry. Sorry. this money is supposed to be available for them to utilize we're affecting university of colorado boulder colorado state university metropolitan state university university of colorado denver university of colorado colorado springs colorado state university colorado school mines front range community college western colorado University, University of Colorado, Northern Colorado, Pikes Peak State College, Colorado Mesa University, Community College of Aurora, Adams State University, Arapahoe Community College, Trinidad State College, Red Rocks Community College, Community College of Denver, and Pueblo Community College. Some of these maybe weren't using that much of this funding, but it doesn't matter. we're taking away a promise that we made to our veterans and I have a huge problem with that these are our local heroes our military are our national heroes these are our local guys we made a promise cut, cut away cut where it makes sense but this does not make sense this makes Colorado look bad this makes Colorado feel bad in my opinion makes Colorado bad you make a promise to our veterans we make a promise to our our our National Guard I damn well expect it to be honored

Thank you, Madam Chair. It is truly an honor to work with you. It is truly an honor to work with you. Sorry, I got things wrong, Madam Speaker.

Let me clarify very, very quickly. This is not a reduction under any circumstances. This is not a reduction. This is an expansion of a program that was very successful this last year. And the reason we can expand this is very simple. our universities and our community colleges have agreed to work with the Department of Military Affairs to split the cost 50-50. That is a great step forward. And guess what? It adds another $800,000 to the program from last year. So it is not a cut. But it is a shared expense that I truly appreciate that allowed us to put $800,000 more into this program. So please, as you read this, all we are trying to do is thank our military for their service. Thank you.

Representative Kelty. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Okay, I had to come up here and apologize. I will admit when I am incorrect, I'm not that person. Apparently I misread some of the information. There was more background to this than what this actually showed. So my veterans, I will calm down now. My veterans are going to be covered 100%. covered 100%. My National Guard are going to be covered 100%. Apparently, the part that I misread and I misunderstood, and I do apologize, is that the schools have agreed to go ahead and do the other 50%. So I do apologize. I'm a big gal, and I can admit when I am incorrect. Thank you very much.

Yes.

Yes.

House Bill 1387 by Representatives Brown and Taggart, also Senators Bridges and Kirkmeyer, concerning the expenditure of money from the severance tax trust fund and in connection there with allowing the state treasurer to transfer money from the severance tax perpetual base fund to the Species Conservation Trust Fund, establishing an annual transfer from the severance tax operational fund to the general fund and reducing an appropriation.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1387 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

Yes.

House Bill 1388 by Representatives Sorota and Tigard, also Senators Moblin-Bridges concerning the repeal of the bond assistance program administered by the Department of Personnel in connection therewith, transferring the balance of the bond assistance program cash fund to the general fund.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1388 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

Yes.

House Bill 1389 by Representatives Brown and Sirota, also Senators Amabalai and Kirkmire, concerning eliminating the annual appropriation requirement for the comprehensive human sexuality education grant program and in connection therewith reducing an appropriation.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1389 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

Yes.

House Bill 1390 by Representatives Brown and Sirota, also Senators Maubelang Kirkmeyer, concerning the evaluation agent for the Health Disparities and Community Grant Program.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1390 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

Yes.

House Bill 1391 by Representatives Brown and Sirota also Senators Mabaline Kirkmeyer concerning clean drinking water in places where children are present and in connection therewith extending the school and child care clean drinking water fund through the 2028-29 state fiscal year, adding high schools to the scope of potential recipients of grants from the school and child care clean drinking water fund, prohibiting the Department of Public Health and Environment from issuing a license to a child care center unless the child care center is in compliance with laws concerning the testing of drinking water and making an appropriation.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1391 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

Yes.

House Bill 1392 by Representatives Sirota and Taggart, also Senators Bridges and Kirkmeyer concerning the transfer of money from the Public Safety Communications Revolving Fund to the Public Safety Communications Trust Fund to support the digital trunk radio system

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1392 on third reading and final passage

Yes.

Yes.

House Bill 1393 by Representatives Brown and Taggart, also Senators Amabile and Kirkmeyer, concerning subjecting specified cash funds to a three-year maximum reserve limitation instead of the annual maximum reserve limitation and in connection therewith, subjecting the public school construction and inspection cash fund and the Health Facility Construction and Inspection Cash Fund to the three-year limitation.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1393 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

Yes.

Please close the machine Mr Schiebel please read the title to House Bill 1394 House Bill 1394 by Representatives Brown and Tigard also Senators Bridges and Kirkmeyer concerning the conversion of the Motorcycle Operator Safety Training Fund to a cash fund subject to annual appropriation by the General Assembly and a connection therewith making appropriation.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1394 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

Yes.

House Bill 1395 by Representatives Sirot and Taggart, also Senators and Abilene Bridges, concerning the repeal of the Wildfire Resilient Homes Grant Program administered by the Department of Public Safety and a connection therewith, transferring the balance of the Wildfire Resilient Homes Grant Program cash fund to the general fund.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1395 on third reading and final passage.

No.

Yes.

House Bill 1396 by Representatives Brown and Tigard, also Senators Maubel and Kirkmeyer, concerning modifications to the Disaster Emergency Fund.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1396 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

House Bill 1397 by Representatives Sirota and Taggart, also Senators of Mobile and Bridges, concerning the use of general fund money to support benefits provided to certain public safety personnel through a multiple employer health trust and in connection therewith reducing an appropriation.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1397 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Leader, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Leader votes yes. Representative Phillips, how do you vote?

Representative Phillips votes yes. Smith DeGraf. Please close the machine. With 51 I, 10 no, 2 excused and 2 absent, House Bill 1397 is adopted. Co-sponsors. please close the machine Mr. Schiebel please read the title to House Bill 1398

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1398 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

Yes.

House Bill 1399 by Representatives Brown and Tigard, also Senators Moblin-Kirkmaier, concerning the elimination of the annual transfer from the General Fund to the Multimodal Transportation and Mitigation Options Fund and in connection therewith, reducing and appropriation.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1399 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Leader, how do you vote?

Representative Leader votes yes. Representative Phillips, how do you vote?

Representative Phillips votes yes. Please close the machine. With 48 aye, 13 no, 2 excused and 2 absent, House Bill 1399 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1400.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1400 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

Yes.

House Bill 1401 by Representatives Sirota and Tigard, also Senators Bridges and Kirkmeyer, concerning transfers of money from the Unclaimed Property Trust Fund and in connection therewith, transferring money from the Unclaimed Property Trust Fund to the Housing Development Grant Fund and the General Fund in State Fiscal Year 2025-2026, terminating future transfers from the Unclaimed Property Trust Fund to the Housing Development Grant Fund and the Adult Dental Fund and making and reducing appropriations.

Representative Marshall.

Representative Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Happy Saturday. Happy Saturday. It is. Okay, so House Bill 1401. First, I want to acknowledge that I do understand that the JVC had to make very tough decisions with this specific bill. I also would like to acknowledge that we are, of course, facing a budget deficit where we have to find money and make these tough cuts. Again, this body continues to go after the unclaimed property trust fund. There are people in this room who say it's abandoned property, and it is not. There are people, many people, who do not know they have unclaimed property trust fund. And I also would like to add that this is not the state's money. It is not. While I understand that we obviously have taper provisions, which put the government spending in check, this is placed in the trust of the government. It is in the title. And I also want to remind this body that we do have a lawsuit that's pending. They are suing the treasurer's office, and we're going to see more potential lawsuits, which again, holds the state liable, and again, it will cost money. I have been doing very due diligence to make sure that my people in my district are aware, just to go look for the unclean property, whether it's $5, $100, dollars, an escrow check, whatever it is. The moral principle is that this is not our money. It is in the name, trust fund. Now, many people say it's just a, it's a abandoned account, but you're omitting a very important word, which is the word trust. Working in a bank, we were very, very stringent and following guidelines on trust funds, trust accounts. That is law. This account specifically, this cash account is no different. It's not. I want no part in this. When we can talk about maybe interest versus principle, I think that's a separate conversation that we can have. We can. I think that if the state's going to run this trust fund that we should probably at least use the interest, only the interest, if it's paid back. As of now, the entire trust fund that we have used, all of that money mostly for the adult dental fund, how much of that money has been paid back that we have raided, that this body has raided the trust fund. How much? Today? Zero. We have not paid back any of that money. So not only do we have a budget deficit, we also have this liability, this unfunded liability of paying back the Unclaimed Property Trust Fund, which we do not account for today. So I encourage a no vote on this one. I, with all due respect to my colleagues at JBC, but we are literally opening the door to get sued as a state. And if you guys haven't seen, you know, the Supreme Court cases, we are losing. So not only are we going to lose these cases and we're going to have to pay it back maybe in the time crunch deficit if the courts demand us to pay it back by certain time. This is just going to open the door for more lawsuits to where the state will lose money. And again, we'll be back in the same spot. So in good conscience, I cannot support this bill. Representative Kelty.

Representative DeGraff. I don't know why anybody would consider a trust fund set up by the state of Colorado to be trustworthy. I think maybe that should be a, I think maybe we should put just caveat emptor on anything that this General Assembly does. So this is the, these are the values of the General Assembly. So let's see, what is that called if you borrow money and you incur an obligation? Oh, that's debt. Is that a balanced budget? No, it's not a balanced budget. It's actually an inflationary budget. Borrowing money creates inflation. So how is an obligation, other than, you know, that it's a trust fund and we're not supposed to borrow from it, we're also not supposed to borrow, we're not supposed to be in debt. We're supposed to balance the budget. This unbalances the budget. And it sets a bad precedent. So what is that called when you permanently borrow money and you don't pay it back? That's called theft. What is it called when the government permanently borrows money and doesn't borrow it back? That is also called theft. To make theft legal doesn't change the fact that it's theft. so they have this program they have a trust fund because it's kind of weird that these these programs have names attached to them you can look up your name so why it wasn't just sent to you but we have this basically clearing house where these organizations can clear it all out clear out their books say look this is this account has been poking around for so long now they do a lot of stuff like you know give you monthly fees until you know that last five dollars just finally goes away, but in this case, they just send it to the government and say, hey, look, this belongs to this person. We haven't heard from him for a while. We can't keep it on our books. We're not allowed to keep it on our books. You put it in your coffers, and that gives everybody a single place. And the government said, trust us. Trust us. We'll keep that money right here safe. on your behalf, to make sure that those individuals can find it. So when the government says trust us, the only thing that I see between trust fund and slush fund is us in the middle, and that's our money. That's the only commonality here. You cannot treat a trust fund like a slush fund. You should not treat a trust fund as a slush fund. Obviously, it has been done for hundreds of millions of dollars, not repaid. Creating a debt, unbalancing the budget, perpetuating a horrible precedent. I remember the first time when the trust this was talked about, and you see the odds. The eyes of the legislators light up when they all of a sudden realize that we could borrow from the trust fund. And that would solve our problem right now. We could borrow from that trust fund. It was like Christmas morning, watching the eyes light up. And then as you learn more, you learn that it's been taken over and over and over again, raided, unbalancing the budget because you can't set your priorities. You can't touch the governor's sacrosanct funds, programs. You can't touch those sacred cows. This room is the power of the purse. This room is the budget. The governor, fine. I mean, that didn't happen until, like, what, 1921 or something, where the executive branch started sending budgets, proposals up to the legislative branch, and the legislative branch just capitulated in that and said, oh, yeah, we're lazy. Why don't you do it for us? Is that cold? We have an obligation on ourself not to borrow money. We're violating that. We have an obligation not to violate a trust fund. Violating that. it's it takes like six pages to try to justify what it's going to do all of these good things that it's going to do and then for November everybody's going to go out and say oh it's Tabor that keeps us from having nice things no it's your inability to balance a budget that keeps you from having nice things It's an inability to stop spending like it. I don't want to insult sailors by comparing them to the General Assembly. Because there's at least some level of fiscal responsibility there because eventually the sailor has to spend and pay the money back, unlike the General Assembly. That does not honor its debts. Just keeps taking more. And then the solution will be, well, we need to get rid of TABOR, which means what? That we can unbalance the budget, we can take on debt, and we can go to the citizens' pockets without having to ask and demand more. Not ask for more, but demand more. And this, for the citizens of Colorado, should be an example as to how you will be treated without the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. The General Assembly will reach into your pocket every time. over and over and over again, because there is an insatiable demand in this room for your money. The General Assembly right now does not think that it has a spending problem. It thinks it has a not-enough-of-your-money problem. And this is proof. This is proof. TABOR has nothing to do with tax refunds. TABOR has everything to do with requiring a balanced budget. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights has nothing to do with refunds. It has to do with requiring a balanced budget. It has to do with requiring that the General Assembly asks you before it takes more of your money and that really pisses off the General Assembly Reptograph I ask you to watch your language please Noted, but true. And let's get back to UPTF. Certainly. The UPTF is your money. Just like the money in your pockets is your money. This is just proof that those who are going around saying how much they hate Tabor will reach into your pockets directly when given the opportunity just like they have to here. This is a little bit more covert because Tabor protects you. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights protects you and they hate that. All the weeping and the gnashing of teeth. over you keeping any of your money. So citizens of Colorado, if you want to know how the General Assembly will treat you if they ever get rid of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, here you go. Right here. They are going to grab you by the ankles and shake you upside down. that's what the General Assembly wants to do with you and why they want to get rid of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights this is proof further discussion, Representative Luck thank you Mr. Speaker Pro Tem a young man who swept the floors in a bank after working hours found a small pack of bills which had somehow fallen under a counter He took the money home and thought long and hard about whether he should keep it, for his family was in dire need and that extra cash would come in handy. The next morning, however, he returned the currency. Tell me, said the banker, what kept you honest? We never could have traced the loss or pinned the blame on you. the young man said, I decided I just didn't want to live with a thief. Representative Brooks. Mr. Speaker Pro Tem, thank you. I would like to remind you and our good colleagues here in the house that it is baseball season. Thank you, Rep Brooks. Go Rockies. Okay, thanks. Oh, wait, no, I have more. You know, this in my mind is clearly strike two. We had strike one earlier, rating the lowering the reserve of the general fund. This is strike two. I don't know that necessarily it's like the pipe down the middle, you know, that you're just taking all the way. I kind of see this more as that high and tight chin music that you really ought to bail out of the batter's box for, but yet it still looked too good, and we still whiffed at it. And so it's strike two. I'm sure you probably can look ahead, not to get too much of a spoiler alert, but we get punched out at the plate here on strike three called looking. That will be a little bit later. But let me talk a little bit more about strike two. This is the piggy bank that we weren't supposed to get into. We broke, and now we're just looking at the money on the floor, thinking, well, we'll just take a little bit more out of it. We broke it a long time ago. Actually the research that I show is back in 2019 and we keep coming back to this Senate Bill 19261 088 We satiated our appetite there for a little bit but we came back real hungry real hungry again in 2025 because we ran 251078, 25081, 251224, and then also Senate Bill 25290. We came back in special session again and did the same thing. So my colleague from deep in the West Colorado town of El Paso I had mentioned it earlier that we keep coming back and back and back. This is, again, the strike two reference of setting up a notice that we're operating in great peril. We are continuing to do things. we are continuing to go into an area to where we ought to be signaling that there is a deep problem. And we're not fixing that deep problem. We're continuing to just dig further down. Taking against the interest, I guess, could be argued one way. take it against the actual corpus of the fund, I believe is entirely different, still unsettling, deeply unsettling discussion. Colorado, we have got to figure this out. This is not the way. To be perfectly honest, has the ship sailed for this budget season in this chamber to be able to do what we need to do in order to reverse the course? Yeah. Yeah. This is third reading. We're going to get through the rest of this. We're going to come back in a heap of a mess next fiscal season. Hopefully we're not going to go back to measures like this. Hopefully we're not going to go back to measures like dropping the reserve. Hopefully at some point we are going to make meaningful reprioritizations that are going to help Colorado and stop the runaway freight train before it does plunge us off the edge. Sounds hyperbolic. I truly don't believe that it is. We have got to wake up, pay attention, stop doing things like this. Representative Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to be a no on this bill, and I just want to explain my reasoning. Article 3, Distribution of Powers in our state constitution reads, the powers of the government of this state are divided into three distinct departments, the legislative, executive, and judicial, and no person or collection of persons charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any power properly belonging to either of the others. We've discussed over the last few days not telling the judiciary branch what to do. What's not really been discussed up here is we don't hold this trust. This trust is held by the executive branch under the office of the treasurer. This bill looks over that fence at his pile of money covets it and then dines to take it I don think we truly have the authority to direct the executive branch the office of the treasurer to do anything with that trust It is his trust. It is not our trust. And I don't believe this is right. I know there probably are other opinions. This is mine, and I will be a no vote. Thank you. Representative Flannell. Thank you, Speaker Pro Tem. You know, during interim, right before I was sworn in, or maybe it was after I was sworn in, somebody contacted me and asked if I could put out a post on social media because I have a really large following and just, you know, bring this to people's attention that there is this website and that they can claim unfunded funds. and I did so. A lot of people actually did thank me for it because they happened to have unclaimed funds, including my dad who had quite a few thousand dollars and then my sister. I think I had maybe 30 cents and it really wasn't worth it for my time. But that said, I can't help but think, you know, this is very similar to when you're walking down the street and you suddenly see a $20 bill on the ground and you pick it up and you hurry up and put it in your pocket, without looking around to see, hey, maybe somebody who actually really needs this $20 dropped it. And I think that that's what we're doing. And we're not really, you know, I mean, there isn't really an effective way to notify owners or to notify people of this website. And I know that that could possibly, you know, cost money, but I don't think that just because people aren't aware that there's money out there for them, especially in a time when they could really use it, when the economy isn't great, that that doesn't mean that we can just claim it. I think that this blurs the lines between safeguards and taking, and I ask my members to be, well, my members, I ask my colleagues to be a no. Thank you. Representative Taggart.

Representative Kelty, this is your second time speaking. You have five minutes and 53 seconds remaining.

Further discussion? Representative DeGraff, this is your second time speaking. You have one minute and 22 seconds remaining.

Representative Sirota.

Representative Gonzalez, this is your second time speaking on the bill. You have seven minutes and eight seconds remaining.

Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the adoption of House Bill 1401. On third reading, final passage, Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine. Members, please proceed to vote. Representative Leader, how do you vote?

Representative Leader votes yes. Representative Phillips, how do you vote?

Representative Phillips votes yes. Representative Ryden, excused. Please close the machine. With 40-I, 19-No, 4 excused and 2 absent, House Bill 14-01 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1402 on third reading and final passage. Representative Sirota.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This amendment will make a technical correction to how the money is moved from one fund to another.

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

Representative Leader votes yes. Please close the machine. With 50 I, 8 no, 5 excused, 2 absent. Permission is granted.

Please proceed.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of L-004 to House Bill 1402. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Leader, how do you vote?

Representative Leader votes yes. Please close the machine. With 49I 9 no, 5 excused, 2 absent, Amendment L004 is adopted. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move for the passage of House Bill 1402 as amended. The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1402 as amended. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Leader, how do you vote?

Representative Leader votes yes. Representative Phillips, how do you vote?

Representative Phillips votes yes. For Rayan's story. Please close the machine. With 58 aye, 1 no, 4 excused, and 2 absent, House Bill 1402, as amended, is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1403 on third reading and final passage. The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1403 on third reading final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Leder, how do you vote?

Representative Leder votes yes. Representative Phillips, how do you vote?

Representative Phillips votes yes. Yes. Please close the machine. With 56 I, 3 no, 4 excused and 2 absent, House Bill 1403 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1404 on third reading and final passage. The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1404 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Leader, how do you vote?

Representative Leader votes yes. Representative Phillips, how do you vote?

Representative Phillips votes yes. Please close the machine. With 53 ayes, 6 no, 4 excused, 2 absent, House Bill 1404 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1405 on third reading and final passage. The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1405 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Leader, how do you vote?

Representative Leader votes yes. Representative Phillips, how do you vote?

Representative Phillips votes yes. Goldstein Valdez. Please close the machine. With 44 I, 15 no, 4 excused and 2 absent, House Bill 1405 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. For the last time today, I request permission to run a third reading amendment. Please briefly explain.

This is an amendment to address a revisor's comment letter due to a conflict with another bill.

Yes.

Representative Phillips votes yes.

Representative Sirota. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move L-001 to House Bill 1406 and ask that it be displayed.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. We received a notice of a reviser's comment letter from the good attorneys at OLS who had discovered a conflict with another bill that is moving through the system. House Bill 26-1332 also touches on some statute in this bill, but that bill is moving ahead of this bill's process, so we are able to resolve the conflicts by simply striking these sections. So I ask for an aye vote.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1407. House Bill 1407 by Representatives Brown and Tigard, also Senators Amabaline Kirkmeyer, concerning state money that was used to refinance money received from the federal coronavirus state fiscal recovery fund and in connection therewith, transferring unspent state money to the general fund, extending a deadline for the use of state money and reducing appropriations.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1408. House Bill 1408 by Representatives Brown and Tigard, also Senators of Moblin and Bridges, concerning the establishment of processes for the determination of budget requests for the upcoming state fiscal year.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just very quickly wanted to take this opportunity to once again open the conversation about zero-based budgeting. Yes, I know that's not specifically what this policy is doing, However, the title is broad enough for the conversation to be made on this mic. And remind me, Bodhi, that when Texas went through a zero-based budgeting process a number of years ago when they were fighting fiscal deficits, they not only found enough money to satisfy the deficit, they actually found, I think, billions of dollars in excess in order to do other things with. And so going to a system wherein we look at departments on maybe an eight or ten year cycle where every department every eight years or so goes through a zero-based budgeting process that we're not doing all of them all at once, but we are requiring our departments to go down to zero and justify every dollar moving up, we may find that there are programs or other sorts of dollars that we could appropriate for other things. And so I just take this opportunity to both support this bill, but also to encourage the conversation moving forward to adopt a zero-based budgeting model in some form. Thank you.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1409. House Bill 1409 by Representatives Brown and Sirota, also Senators Bridges and Kirkmeyer, concerning the distribution of money collected from the retail marijuana sales tax.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, I know we had a bill similar to this last year that we debated as well. And I also understand what this bill aims to do, which is to reduce local revenue for the cannabis industry. I just want to come here and explain why I will be a strong no vote on this specific bill. We have seen time and time again that while this, again, I know that this is taking local revenue away from local governments for cannabis. I think that we should also stress that this industry specifically is an important sector, whether we like it or not. to the state of Colorado. One side overregulates them to the ground and the other side sees them as a taboo.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So this is, once again, these priorities that we have. The increase of the distribution of the MCTF beginning in 2026, the bill annually transfers the remaining revenue above 15% reserve requirement from the MTCF to the state public schools. So how is this distributed? 3.5% is distributed to local governments. 3.5% to share the load in the, I would, you know, share the wealth, whatever, in the MCTF. And so the state, despite its proclivity to send all kinds of unfunded mandates down, You know, hence the zero fiscal note, dollar fiscal notes that we'll continue to see as we go forward, meaning that it's just being put more on the local, on the municipalities, unfunded mandates, right? Because that's how the General Assembly saves money on its good intentions, right? And if a good intention was a good idea, it wouldn't need a gun. Unfortunately, they generally need a gun. but you You have money that you have set up in this program, 3.5% going to the municipalities. And now you're just going to take that from them, and then you're going to send more unfunded mandates to them. So I don't really understand the – and that is to balance the budget here. So all of the municipalities, they probably have some sort of projection there about that 3.5%. And instead of saying, hey, you know, we're going to take that excess revenue and we're going to spend it and we're going to share it with the municipalities upon whom this body continually imposes unfunded mandates, then we're going to transfer it to the public school fund. And that sounds great. But, you know, maybe we should look at some of those funds. Like the public school fund, I think Colorado's population has increased by 4.4% since 2019. The size of our state budget has increased 44%. Medicaid is up 76%. K-12 funding has risen 24.3%, while student enrollment has decreased 5.6%. Some other stats, just for those wondering. property crime is actually down a little bit while violent crime is up 16%, probably because you're disarming all of the law-abiding citizens. Our rate of economic growth has been cut in half. So what are we going to do with the funds? What we're going to do with the funds is we're going to give them to the public school system because that sounds great. This is just another fees for feels program. And instead of helping the municipalities, we're going to send it to another program that has, and what are the results? Well, there's like an 80% graduation rate. That's awesome. But if you wind it back a little bit, there's a 25% meets or exceeds graduation requirements. So I'm not really sure how we graduate 80% of the people when only 25% meet or exceed standards. But what are we going to do with that 3.5%? We're going to keep it at the state level, and we're going to accumulate it. And if it gets above a certain level, all appropriations and the 15% reserve requirement, I've heard of this 15% reserve requirement somewhere before. Maybe that MCTF reserve requirement could be lowered a little bit, but by golly, we've got to protect that marijuana cash reserve. Man, we've got our priorities straight. So we're going to send it to a program that has, we're going to send it to a program that has K-12 funding has risen 24.3% while student enrollment has decreased 5.6%. That's why they need more money. Enrollment is going down. Costs are going up. Spending is going up. So what we need to do is we need this General Assembly has decided the way it's going to fix the problem is going to be to take more money from the municipalities of the Colorado and by taking more of their money, we are going to help them cope better with all of the unfunded mandates that are imposed upon them Doesn make sense to me but I only taught calculus so somebody else can figure that out

Representative Leader, how do you vote?

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1411. House Bill 1411 by Representatives Brown and Sroda, also Senators Moblin and Kirkmeyer, concerning changes to health insurance benefits for certain low-income individuals who are not eligible for medical assistance due to their immigration status and connection they're with making and reducing appropriation.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1411 on third reading and final passage.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I request permission to run a third reading amendment. Please explain briefly.

Our drafter for this bill caught some inconsistencies in the bill after the passage of the amendment on second reading. This amendment would fix the effective dates, and so I would ask for permission to run it.

Yes.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move L-008 to House Bill 1411 and ask it to be properly displayed.

Thank you Madam Speaker This as I said is an amendment that our drafter identified is necessary in order to true up the effective dates of various sections within the bill It really does nothing more than that and I ask for an aye vote Seeing no further discussion the motion before us is the adoption of L to House Bill 1411

Yes.

Madam Speaker, I move for the passage of House Bill 1411 as amended.

Madam Speaker, thank you. I suppose that had there not been an amendment to remove a cap on this program, might have put me in a little bit more of a quandary than I am right now. Might have put me in a place to where I would have thought, okay, well, at least the cap is honoring the work that the Joint Budget Committee did in trying to find a way to contain somewhat the runaway spending that this program has created. it would have been difficult because it would have almost been a tacit support of the program which I again kind of have difficulty with. I said on second reading that I wasn't going to take a route of being overly political even though obviously pretty easy to do so from a fundamental standpoint on my part and I'll avoid that now as well because truly I think what we have in front of us is yet again another very concerning math problem. By removing the cap, we are setting ourselves up for a world of hurt in subsequent years. fine I understand that an argument can be made that it does not have a fiscal impact on this current budget here if we think for a second that this doesn't have a profound impact moving down the road I don't know if you've been looking at the numbers of what this program has done and the exponential growth that this program has gone through in just a very, very short period of time. This is not the program that y'all thought it was going to be in terms of what you thought it was going to cost. Whatever the best intentions were to be able to come up with something that fit a need that some thought was there to be able to meet that, and then the best intentions of what that program would look like from an impact to the state budget are as divergent as could possibly be This is growing out of control in a manner that should be deeply concerning not from a political standpoint, but from our ability to afford this in this state. We cannot. and through the process of the orbitals, what we ended up doing is, or through the process of this entire budget week, we did not actually find areas where we could say, you know what, we find this program to be so darned important that let's at least find ways to try to fund it responsibly through cutting and trimming here and there. Instead, there really wasn't any effort that I identified to try to do that. Instead, it's like, let's wait until this subject comes up and then just vote to remove the cap. Let's just vote to tear the lid off this thing and let it grow in an uncontrolled manner for years to come. We've reduced the reserve in order to pay for programs that we cannot afford. we have once again dipped into, with all due respect, unclaimed property trust fund, which is concerning enough. But yet then, on the other hand, we're going to remove a cap on a program that is proven, proven to have an unquenchable appetite for our tax dollars. honestly, what are we doing? We could go through this process, and I think it's safe to say that whatever decisions that are made, simply by math, from this side to that side, in this chamber, probably I'm not going to get my way, probably we are not going to get our way. but then there's an entirely different level that I'm a little surprised we're even comfortable having a discussion at irrespective of side we cannot continue to just think that if we just wish it that it will happen that we've got some way to fund it because it's a good idea and we think it's important it doesn't work like that we've got to show a modicum of fiscal responsibility and with this removing the cap we are not now you already know that I don't agree with the program to begin with but let's just pretend that I do just for a second still I'd be saying the same thing I'd be saying that we can't afford it we can't afford to tear the lid off of a program that has shown this kind of disregard for cost. As much as it hurts, because it hurt the JBC to even make the recommendation in the first place. If you didn't see the deep sense of regret almost to the point of emotional despair that was displayed here at the introduction of this conversation, That then was undone through an amendment. I don't know what you were watching, but this was incredibly difficult for our bipartisan members of our Joint Budget Committee to do in the first place, and then we destroyed it. We destroyed it because we feel like our needs are more important than their fiscal responsibility to the state. I'm going to ask that we reconsider that and vote no on a program that we quite clearly cannot afford.

All right. Thank you, Madam Speaker. So fees for feels. Charging Colorado for your feels. Compulsion does not equal compassion. It's just compulsion. Charity at the barrel of a gun. Don't pay your taxes. Somebody will show up with a gun. We have 150 million people. If we divided the country roughly half and half, That would be 15 of the no person is illegal for every person who actually is illegal. All you had to do is sign up to sponsor those individuals and put your money where your mouth is and say, look, we'll sponsor them. When my grandparents came here, they had to have a sponsor. They had to have a job. Second-generation American. I get it. They had to have a job, and they had to have a sponsor. They couldn't be a burden on society. What is this? burden on society. Rights are things like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It does not cost you to not violate my life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, nor does it cost me to violate yours. But if you start charging people and saying it's a right, that's compelled labor for your fields at the barrel of a gun. That is slavery. your compelling labor to pay for your feels is slavery cost effective if you want cost effective to help these individuals go topple their socialist countries from which they're fleeing don't make more socialist countries here so let's talk about this 8 to 10 people were brought in here under the Biden administration illegally that's where we get the 10 Denver poured about $80 million for the housing, feeding, and doctoring of cartel newcomers at the expense to city jobs and city services. Another $98 million to spend to enrolled citizens or the cartel children in public schools at the cost of the citizens of Colorado. But even this level of spending was unacceptably small for the majority party. SB 20-215, health affordability. Those earning less than $79,000 a year qualified for health care regardless of immigration status. Nothing says sanctuary state like including in your bills regardless of immigration status. The program is now called Omni Salud or salad, whatever. Omni salute is not the bill before us.

How is this program funded? A new fee was attached to every health care premium. We are talking about it. We are talking about this program. I guarantee it.

Excuse me, Representative DeGraff. Representative Brown, please. Representative DeGraff, the program before us is Cover All Coloradans.

I wrote the bill for Cover All Coloradans.

and so it doesn't show up on your policy except in an additional expense because it's paid for by the insurance company itself, correct?

We are speaking about Cover All Coloradans.

This is a different program before us. Please speak to this bill.

Representative Gonzalez.

Representative Marshall.

Rep. Marshall, please speak to the bill.

And, Rep. Marshall, we speak to the policy, not the personalities.

because of what they've carved out together. The news has constantly reported on this issue, saying it was a 600% increase in just two years over what was projected. They're wrong. They weren't looking at the numbers for the children's portion. They were including the entire program. The first year it was out, it was projected to cost $2.1 million. The cost for the children's portion was $17,780,000, a 19-multiple-factor increase. The next year, it was supposed to cost $4.3 million. Instead, it was $79,500,000, an 18-times increase. This year they put a cap. We have 21,000 children in the program and they were going to cap it at 25,000 to try and cap it at 96 million, which would have been a 23 times factor from what it was originally projected just three years ago when they instituted this program. All that money is crowding out other money that could be spent for citizens of this state and residents of this state. Now the projections may be okay because our year-over-year increase from the nine times in the first year to 18 times the second year, well, that's two times. And the 18 times to the 23 times, that's a 33% increase. So maybe the projections might be okay that we're looking at a 25% increase from going $21,000 to $25,000 in the next fiscal year. And there may be some sane thought behind putting that cap, but we're still growing at 25%. At the same time, we are cutting the Disabled Kids Program 25% for the caregivers on July 1, 2026. I think a lot of the JBC arguments around that were a little misleading because they said, well, we don't cut until July 1, 27, from 112 to 56. Leaving out, we cut from 112 to 84 July 1, 26. So in two months after the governor signs this, that group gets a 25% hit. while we're growing this program 25%. When the amendment was brought to take $7 million from the private prisons so that they wouldn't have to have a cap of $750 for dental care for the undocumented children and drop it from $1,000 to $750, that was so catastrophic they had to get that money. and I was fine on taking the $7 million, I told the sponsors of the amendment, from that area, but I did not think that was totally appropriate to put the whole $7 million into the undocumented children's thing when it's only $1,000 to $750. They insisted that was catastrophic. But you know what? You could have taken 4% of that $7 million, just 4%, less than 4%, to have the $268,000 to give to the IDD kids so you could delay, with the federal matching funds, a full year so they could prepare, rather than in two months getting cut 25%, they'd have a year and two months to prepare to go from 112 to 56, giving them some breathing space after we have put them dependent. And what that would have meant was the undocumented dental program, instead of a thousand cap, it would have a $960 cap. They would still go from $750 to $960. You would think that would be very reasonable. A $40 hit to a few people compared to the catastrophic hit to people who really can't take it. But the IDD kids, they don't have 30-plus political organizations fighting for them. I didn't see any for the caregivers. And the ones that supposedly fight for them talk to the actual families. What they say happened. I was surprised. I didn't think anyone ever watched the Colorado Channel. I had people contact me immediately about that IDD amendment and the caregiver amendment on this children program They watched They said they watched the board We can't just keep having programs with no limits, especially when it's taking away from others and you have to make choices. So that's why I have to be a no on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I generally don't speak on these topics because as an individual I don't like coming to the well and speaking on things that are not organic to me but as we were sitting here and we were having a conversation and Rep DeGraff said something that really made me think we are a nation of immigrants that for some reason has decided that we don't love immigrants. My wife was born in Austria. Her father was a Jewish man that immigrated in the 1940s. Her mother was a Polish woman named Drzinski from... in Ukraine and immigrated in the 50s. My family immigrated from a place called Texas. I don't understand how we believe that this nation was built on, give me, you're tired, you're hungry, and you're poor. And I don't see any except in those words. it's comedy that today I did not do this on purpose I'm wearing my Aurora public school t-shirt I'm wearing my Aurora public school shirt if you are a child and you show up in Aurora public schools you know what you get? you get a hot meal you get a seat in the class and you get a teacher you know what you don't get? a question about where you came from we don't care we don't because that's what the whole concept of this country is about. And Representative Carter, I want to give you leeway here,

It's about accepting the individuals who come to this country and taking care of them. I don't understand why that's hard, and I'm going to be an idol. Assistant Minority Leader Winter.

So I love immigrants. Compulsion is not charity. Those both are true. So to directly come up here and state that I don't is offensive. But in my two minutes, I want to clarify that those children and pregnant females are, in fact, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, and that among those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That also is true. That to secure their rights, their governments were instituted among men and have been found lacking. that failure does not incur a moral obligation on our citizens now when my grandparents as a second generation American came here they were required to have a sponsor and have a job one million of the majority party roughly let's just say $150 million for this program the fee for fields you can go with sponsorship $150 per year gifts grants and donations put your money where your mouth is but don't compel my labor for your fields Programs like this encourage cartelling the children into this country. Nearly 400,000 were trafficked to addresses sharpied on their arm, 10% of which 40,000 children were sent to sexually exploitive homes. That's a problem with this program. Programs like this also create a shadow economy where wages are devalued and then that money is sent back to support and prop up the abuse of governments.

So I just feel like I need to clarify one. I didn't think I'd have to clarify that I actually like immigrants. I like them a lot. They're great Americans. But we have an immigration process. Children should not be trafficked. Bills like this encourage children to be trafficked. That's my problem. Don't compel my labor for your feels. Don't create unintended victims because of bad policy.

We have a lot of things in our state that are problematic I would say I think incentivizing the wrong things is one of our biggest problems And I do want to correct the representative from El Paso. Somebody said earlier that we have cartels in this state. It's actually not true anymore. Now they're foreign terrorist organizations. It's what we've officially designated them. And it's true. And unfortunately, some of those foreign terrorist actors that are part of those organizations bring their children with them. And that is unfortunate. Because we all care about children. We all care about people. And I would argue and I would contend with the words of our other representative from Denver who said that some of us don't care about immigrants. That is entirely untrue. I would believe that there's not a single person in this chamber that doesn't deeply care about people, all people. My family comes from families of immigrants. I would argue that every single one of us that sit in here come from families of immigrants. I don't know how anybody with a pulse in the state of Colorado or in the United States of America could argue that their ancestors did not come here as immigrants at some point in time. My family did it legally. And we didn't come here for incentives that were promised, but for the work that was available and did it through proper ways and proper means. An interesting point that I'll make, too. I've spent years of my life overseas and other countries legally, except this one time I was in Germany, and I was there legally. My family was there with me. And we have what are called status of force cards, where the German government allowed my family to live there under other agreements that the countries had made together. Those SOFAs, as they're called, they had an expiration date on them. I was there for the duration of my orders, and then my orders got extended by two months. Representative Slott, again, I do want to give leeway.

Thank you. So while we were there in Germany, and when I got extended, I didn't notice, didn't pay attention to the fact that my family's sofa cards had an expiration date on them that we had passed. Only by a few days, when we went to the airport to get on the airplane to fly back to the United States. the German immigration official almost kept my wife and kids in detention with him because they were no longer legally present in Germany and they saw them as using the resources of their country in an inappropriate and an illegal way so this is where this circles back to this bill it didn't matter that the gentleman at immigration there did not like my family. That wasn't true. He recognized that I had a wife and three very small children at that time. We didn't have the fourth yet. But he also recognized that we weren't legally present, and therefore we were not due the benefits of being in the country that he protected Similarly with this bill we are providing we are still even with this bill we are still providing for people who are not legally present because we do have compassion for their situation. We do care about the children. We absolutely care. If we could repeal the whole thing, I wouldn't be sad about that. I think it's a bad policy, and I think it's one of our biggest problems in the state of Colorado, absolutely one of our biggest problems. Arguably, our biggest problem in the state of Colorado is our sanctuary state status. Arguably. It impacts our crime. It impacts our education. It impacts our health care. I would love to work on seeing real and lasting solutions at other levels of government. But that is more of a federal matter than here. What we have to talk about is the expenditure of Coloradans' money, true Coloradans, and the money that they earn and that they contribute to the system, and whether or not we simply cap the number of people who can benefit from that money. I know we had an amendment. I don't think it was a good one. In our Declaration of Independence, we said that taxation without consent was one of our reasons for needing to separate from the country that we once belonged to. I would say that many people, a vast majority of people in the state of Colorado, would not consent to being taxed and having that money spent on the benefits of people who are not here legally. though they would recognize with compassion, like all of us have, that something must be done. So we allowed for something to be done. I don't know that we need to allow for an indefinite and an increased all the time, far above and beyond the scope of the original intention, thing to be done with compassion. I think the cap was a good thing. I think we should have stuck with that. I think we need to address the problem that is larger as we move forward with other legislation.

Madam Speaker, thank you. This is my second time to speak.

And I've got about four minutes left.

Okay, three minutes.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'd like to very respectfully use my colleague from Aurora, his scenario as an illustration to what I was trying to get at the first time I came up, that if 5,000 children showed up to a single point, a single point of need in a school system, if 5,000 kids show up on Monday, To the school, in the school district, they are not going to get a hot meal. They are all not going to get a seat in a classroom. They are not all going to get a teacher. Not because, not because we don't want to do that, but because the infrastructure will not support it. If you've got 5,000 kids that show up on Monday that want those things, despite our best intention, we are not going to be able to deliver those because we do not have the infrastructure to deliver what we would like to or what we want to or what we feel is our responsibility to or what makes us emotionally feel right about it. There's an infrastructure need there that needs to exist before we can support what we want. By removing in an amendment the cap that the Joint Budget Committee had painfully placed on this program, we are opening an opportunity if not inviting it with warm arms to completely overwhelm our ability to be able to answer from an infrastructure ability i.e. we don't have the money we don't have it it doesn't matter what we want to do it doesn't matter what we think that we should do we can't do it

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I, you know, if the majority of this chamber decides to vote no on this bill, that would be really, truly, actually a great day for me. Why? Why? Because then we make zero cuts, zero changes to cover all Coloradans. The program stays completely and totally intact. You all vote no. The advocates, my true wish, becomes real. That would be such a great day in this state. But I'm actually not going to say please vote no. Because I also fundamentally understand our obligation of passing a balanced budget. And while there are these ideas of what might, may, possibly, maybe, probably might happen, the amendments we adopted in 1411 still maintain a balanced budget. Voting no on 1411 will unbalance all of the work that every single person that has come down to show esteem for our JBC members has done. As much as I would love to see 1411 go down it needs to pass. I also need to clarify some things. Colorado revenue comes by many different sources and one of those sources are taxpayers Who are taxpayers in Colorado Taxpayers is every single person that lives here and spends money. It's the people that travel through Colorado, stop at a gas station, get their road trip treats. Who lives in Colorado? Coloradans live in Colorado. There is no such thing as a Colorado citizen. There are Colorado residents. Colorado residents can have many different statuses. From being a U.S. citizen to being an asylum seeker, maybe temporary protective status, a refugee. Colorado residents are people who move to Colorado or are born in Colorado, and they pay taxes. In 2022, immigrants, undocumented immigrants, contributed 10% of Colorado's revenue. Supporting programs that ensure that every person who lives in this state has the ability to thrive does not solely sit on the backs of citizens. It's every person who lives in this state, every person who crosses through this state, and every person who pays taxes. And that includes immigrants, documented, TPS, refugee, asylee, the tiniest population that everyone somehow thinks to clump all undocumented immigrants as actually undocumented. But the reality is they are documented in just many different forms. if we had longer maybe the good representative from Denver could give everyone in this chamber a true lesson on what our immigration system is like there is no single one right way but again go ahead vote no vote no on 1411 that would be a gift to me thank you

thank you madam speaker and i appreciate this

okay so i appreciate the discussion that we had because as i said earlier this is a very very um touchy subject i am so glad that my colleague from adams talked about the taxpayers because the importance of the taxpayers shall not go unnoticed. And how do we do that and how do we protect our taxpayers with Tabor? Tabor is the reason why the people can have nice things. I would just like to add, I would be more inclined to support this bill if we had a cap. We did. We cannot continue to go down this road of unsustainable, insolvable, long-term types of policies that at the end of the day, we're basically incentivizing this behavior. We are. And I know a lot of you love this federal administration. What these policies are doing is that you are literally jeopardizing federal funds. When we are making cuts, we have to make cuts We also taking a risk This is coming from members of JBC We are taking a risk of losing federal funds of some of the policies that we have pushed in this body Now, unfortunately, as much as I would love immigration to also fall in the hands of the states, it does not. Federal law is supreme. Sorry. Federal law is supreme. At the end of the day, it is supreme. And I think that's something that we have to account for. because when we have to protect every dollar, every cent at a time when we have to cut a billion dollars, we cannot jeopardize federal funds, and we risk losing that, and we will be in a bigger hole. So if we had a cap, I'd be happy to support it, but I'm still in it.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think it's important to recognize that if you were born in the United States, if you were not born in the United States, if you have documentation, if you do not have documentation, you are a real Coloradan. Do not mistreat foreigners living in your country, but treat them as you would treat your own citizens. Love foreigners as you love yourselves because you were foreigners at one time. That is from Leviticus. You know, I'm always so confused when people say, this group of people came here the right way, and this group of people did not come here the right way. What did it mean to come here the right way if you were a pilgrim? What did it mean to come here the right way in 1810? What did it mean to come here the right way if you were the ancestor of George Washington? And indigenous people own this land. That is what's great about this country. Immigrants make our country great. And this program will save us money, by the way. Let's just talk about how all of the research out there that says that preventative care saves money. People will rely on emergency rooms without programs like this in place, which is more expensive. This program will save the state money. I'm proud, yes. I was proud to support the amendment. And then the last thing I got to say, I got, anytime anybody says this, I got to come down to the well. There is no link between immigration and crime. There just isn't. The FBI data, Department of Justice data show that undocumented people commit crimes at much lower rates than citizens. There is no link between migration and crime. Proud to support this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just to answer the previous speaker's questions, what does it mean to come here the right way? Well, you can start off by following the laws of the country that you're immigrating to. I don't think there was established laws when the pilgrims came over here, but I could be wrong about that. I'll ask our fellow historian from El Paso County. So I was ready to be a yes on this bill because it did put that cap in, even though I disagree with the program in general. And I think a lot of my fellow colleagues felt the same way because the cap indicated to me some kind of accountability and responsibility. There's a lot of programs that we do that we put caps on because you don't know how much it's going to be used and you don't know how fast or how large it's going to grow. So the responsible thing to do is put a cap on it We do it with our own spending and our own personal capacities Put a cap on to make sure you don go over it And so speaking for myself I was ready to be a yes on this with the cap, even though I disagree with the program itself, because there was at least some level of responsibility there. And back to the AML's point, the system minority leader's point earlier. I again want to say thank you to the JBC for the work that they did. And we had a very emotional debate on this on seconds. And that indicated to me how hard of a decision it was because it was emotional on both sides of the aisle. And I know how hard it was to come to an agreeance on that. I will be a no today because we did remove that cap and because we are not being responsible anymore. Even though, again, I disagree with the program in general. But I appreciate the debate here, and again, I appreciate JBC working so hard on it, because I know this took weeks and weeks and weeks to finally get to some kind of agreeance. And now that agreeance isn't there anymore. So I'll certainly be a no.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. A question was posed that connects into the scriptures. I just want to lay on the record that the scriptures do have two terms that they use to identify aliens and foreigners. One term speaks to those who wanted to embrace Jewish custom and live by the laws of the people of Israel. and one term speaks to those who did not. There are different standards for behavior and treatment of both of those groups. I just wanted to lay that out in answer to the question that was posed.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, like my minority leader said, a lot of us were going to be yeses on this bill because of the reason it did provide a cap, some kind of responsibility to the state, to the taxpayers of the state. And just to answer one other question that was said earlier, there is a difference between legal, illegal, immigration, and colonization. There were no laws in this country for immigration back then. That was colonization. So are we now saying that we should be colonized? There's a difference. We have laws in this country. We went through, many of us, some of us in this chamber went through the process of legal immigration. We know what it's like. I was a little young to understand it back then. My parents did it, though. So there is laws. This bill has morphed into something that basically does nothing anymore. We need to hold ourselves responsible to the taxpayers of the state. I was willing to vote yes on this bill the way it was originally intended. Let's be responsible.

A lot has been said about this bill, and in particular, a lot has been said about the growth of this program. And it is true. It has been growing very fast. Since the initial fiscal note from 2022 was written, Colorado has been dealing with a migrant crisis. Families and their kids have come to Colorado fleeing violence, political persecution, and economic despair. Kids who came here through no fault of their own, and kids who need doctors and hospitals. Protecting this program, Cover All Coloradans, is essential. It is essential to our communities. It is essential to our health care providers who serve these kids. And as my good colleague from Grand Junction pointed out recently, this is uncompensated care if it is not for this program. In other countries, health care is a right. I was in the UK this summer. I had a small medical emergency issue. I was able to go to an urgent care style clinic, and I was able to get that taken care of, and I paid nothing. I believe that health care is a human right, and I will fight for that until the day that I die. But we live in Colorado, and TABOR, unfortunately, requires us to ration. It requires us to ration care, and it requires us to ration essential life-saving services. So this bill makes painful cuts. Contrary to the views of my colleague who believes that this particular program does nothing anymore, this bill does nothing anymore, this program, this bill still makes very painful cuts. Kids who are served by this program will no longer have any long-term services and supports. We have heard a lot about the cuts that we are taking in our traditional Medicaid program for folks with intellectual and developmental disabilities. This bill takes those services all out entirely. They will not have a cap on their caregiver service hours. They will have zero caregiver service hours. These kids will no longer have the kind of behavioral health support that they deserve. Our RAE program our ACC program provides behavioral health services that are beyond what fee can provide And these kids deserve that But we can no longer afford it And so that is what this program does As painful as these cuts are for me we are saving the program because it is essential. And in the interim, the JBC has made a commitment to figure out what is going on with our Medicaid program and our spending and what is going on with the increases in this particular program. I hope that someday I can come to this well again and I can run a bill to make sure that we have true universal health care and that any person, regardless of their documentation or where they came from or whether they were brought here through no fault of their own by their parents can have the kind of health care that they deserve because they are inherently worthy of that care, because every person is worthy of that care. But that day is not today. because of Tabor and our budget. I ask you for an aye vote on this bill to preserve what we can from the Colorado, the Cover All Coloradans program.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. this budget has been the most difficult thing I have had to work on and this bill is one of the hardest bills I've ever had to run. All three of us, the work that we do here, we spend our days looking out for Colorado's kids in all parts of the budget, in all the decisions we make. And we had to make really difficult choices and we made them not just talking with us between ourselves, not just talking with our nonpartisan staff and experts, but we talked to the people who were impacted by all of the decisions we're making. We did that. So we didn't make any of our decisions lightly. and I didn't make the decision to approve these cuts because I believe that some kids are less worthy than others I don't believe that for a single second we are all worthy, all of us no matter where we came from or how we got here but we had an obligation that we had to meet. So we had to make choices. And the choices we made was to preserve a program to ensure that kids can still access health care even if the benefits might be a little bit different I hope to join my colleague here someday coming back to ensure that everybody is able to equally access the health care that they deserve. but for now I'm asking you to vote yes on this bill because it is important it goes along with all of the other cuts that we have had to make it still represents cuts still millions of dollars worth of reductions in this bill but it goes along with all of the tough choices that we had to make when it came to cuts to Medicaid, cuts to services for adoptive families. This budget is filled with terrible choices. We did the best we could here. And I know it doesn't make anyone here happy. It doesn't make me happy. I don't like this. I hate this bill. But I'm doing my job. I'm doing the best I can to make sure that we preserve a program for the kids and pregnant people in Colorado, even if the benefits are a little bit different. I appreciate how we all came to the table to try and pave the best path forward. I appreciate that everyone in this room had an opinion about what the best path forward was. and this is part of the process. And I appreciate everybody's consideration. I appreciate that this is really hard for you all. It's hard for us too. But I ask for your yes vote.

No.

Yes.

House Bill 1412 by Representatives Rota and Tigard also Senators Bridges and Kirkmeyer concerning authorizing the Department of Public Health Care Policy and Financing to use statistical sampling and extrapolation to recover overpayments to providers for certain Medicaid services and in connection therewith, making and reducing an appropriation.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1412 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

Yes.

House Bill 1413 by Representatives Sirota and Brown, also Senators and Abilene Bridges, concerning leave time allowed to certain public servants.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1413 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

Yes.

House Bill 1410 by Representative Sirota, also Senator Bridges, concerning the provision for payment of the expenses of the executive, legislative, and judicial departments of the state of Colorado and of its agencies and institutions for enduring the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2026, except as otherwise noted. Madam Majority Leader.

Representative Gonzalez.

Again, members, I would like to express my condolences for, I know JBC had very hard decisions to make. I do. I understand that. I understand that they did stuff that they did not want to do. And I just want to recognize my colleague from Grand Junction because he did put up a good fight. And I appreciate him standing on principle. I do. I just want to remind people that this budget deficit has been a culmination of years in the making from our desire to run gun controllable spending. And we like to deflect by using H.R.1 and Trump and Tabor when we should own it. We as a body should own what we have done to get us here. Because from the looks of it, of this trajectory, we are going to be in this mess again next year. And we're going to have to make even more tougher decisions. We have to get serious. we do. I would just also like to say I would like to support this bill so we can so we can fund our government. I do but I also believe that there's priorities in here that should not be prioritized at the expense of essential services. We talked about Medicaid, we talked about higher ed, we talked about public education but again as I have said we continue to cut while growing other areas of government and you know the governor's wish list some of it I I know JVC has stood strong and opposed and denied that, but there's still some of the things that the governor has requested that we're funding. And so for that, I think I just cannot support this bill. And I would like to, I said this last year, my fellow colleagues, and I'll say it again, taxation is theft. Representative Marshall.

It is an honor to serve with you. And thank you colleagues for allowing me to speak without being blocked, censored, or called childish names. There used to be what's called the law of the sea, where if a boat went down and there were lifeboats and people were in it, and they legitimately would be waiting for months possibly to be rescued, and they would have to cannibalize each other, there was a methodology that they would have to follow. And there was a famous case where some people wound up not following the law and killed the weakest member, the cabin boy, and consumed him. I don't know why this reminds me of this budget, but it does. Where the weakest and most vulnerable are thrown off first, but the strongest special interests and donor classes are protected. We could have eliminated entire departments in our government to face this crisis, but but that didn't occur. We could have started with a baseline of 2020, gone back to 2020 and eliminated as a baseline every program that had been started since then, and then decide what to add back if there was room. Colorado was not some dystopian hellhole in 2020. We could have done that, but we didn't. For three sessions before, I voted every year for the budget. But I've also had advocates constantly, since I've been on the finance committee,

Representative Brown.

Representative DeGraff.

Representative DeGraff, your time is up. Representative Taggart. Thanks for the warning.

Representative, you have 30 seconds remaining.

Representative Sirota.

But I do want to be clear about other choices we had to make. We had to reduce compensation growth for state employees and for community providers. We did transfer funds for affordable housing. We cut programs in behavioral health, early childhood, and public health. Every single department every single one had to share in the sacrifice They weren choices we wanted to make They were choices we had to make But we did produce a balanced budget as required and one that increases general fund spending by just 1.2% well below inflation. That is fiscal restraint in practice. None of us are perfect and maybe this budget isn't either. No budget in a year like this could be, but it is responsible, it is thoughtful, and it reflects our shared commitment to protecting the people of Colorado, especially those who rely on us the most. Looking ahead, we also need to recognize that this can't continue indefinitely. Coloradans will have important choices to make about the kind of state we want to be, whether we are willing to reform our fiscal constraints to fully fund the services people depend on or continue facing cuts like this year after year. But today, our job is clear. I ask for your support for House Bill 1410, not because it satisfies every priority, but because it represents the most responsible path forward in an extraordinarily difficult moment. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1410 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Leader, how do you vote?

Representative Leader votes yes. Representative Phillips, how do you vote?

Representative Phillips votes yes. Representative Zocay, how do you vote?

Representative Zocay votes yes. Please close the machine. With 43 I, 19 no, 1 excused, and 2 absent, House Bill 1410 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Madam Majority Leader.

Seeing no objection, Senate Bill 43 will be laid over until Monday, April 13th. Madam Majority Leader

Seeing no objection, the balance of the calendar will be laid over until Monday, April 13 Madam Majority Leader

Seeing no objection, the House is adjourned until Monday, April 13th at 10 a.m. Thank you. Thank you.