Colorado Senate 2026 Legislative Day 094

Let's do this.

Senator Wallace, would you, For the final time this week, lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Approval of the Journal, Senator Carson.

That's right.

You've heard the motion. All those in favor say aye.

Opposed no.

The aye still have it, and that motion is adopted. Senate Services.

Proceed out of order. Moment of personal privilege. Majority Leader Rodriguez.

You have heard this very rare motion. All those in favor say aye.

Those opposed, no.

The ayes shall have it, and the Senate will proceed out of order for moments of personal privilege. President Coleman.

Granted.

Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Majority Leader Rodriguez.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Let do it

Thank you, Mr. President. I move the Senate take up special order second reading of bills consent calendar, which consists of House Bill 1110, Senate Bill 78, and Senate Bill 151 at the hour of 9.35 a.m.

Aye.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move the Senate resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for consideration of special orders, second meeting of the bill's consent calendar.

No.

Thank you. Thank you.

House Bill 1110 by Representatives Camacho and Jackson and Senators Catlin and Danielson concerning the protection of vulnerable adults from financial exploitation in relation to financial institutions. Senate Bill 78 by Senators Amaboli and Kirkmeyer and Representatives Smith and Taggart concerning modifications to certain statutes relating to institutions of higher education and in connection therewith changing procedures related to information sharing, data, and capital construction projects. Senate Bill 151 by Senators Kolker and Gonzalez concerning modifications to the Public Employees Retirement Association.

Madam Chair, I move for the passage of all three bills on Special Order's second reading of bill's consent calendar and the associated committee reports, which is House Bill 1110 in the Business Labor Technology Report, Senate Bill 78 in the Education and Appropriations Report, and Senate Bill 151.

Aye.

Aye.

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

Aye.

The Senate will come to order. Senator Marchman.

April 17, 2026, Mr. President, the committee of the whole begs leave to report it. It is entered into consideration the following attached bills being the second reading thereof. It makes the following recommendations thereon. Senate Bill 78, as amended. Senate Bill 151, passed on second reading, in order to engross and place in the calendar for third reading and final passage. House Bill 1110, as amended, passed on second reading, in order to revise and place in the calendar for third reading and final passage.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move the report.

Mr. Majority Leader. I didn't read the script. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the Senate take up special orders second reading of bills, which consists of Senate Bill 6 and Senate Bill 15 at the hour of 941 a.m.

Opposed no.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move the Senate resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for consideration of special orders. Second reading of bills.

Thank you The committee will come to order and the code rule is relaxed Will the clerk please read the title to Senate Bill 6?

Senator Ramabile. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 6 and the Health and Human Services Committee report.

We made some amendments in there, partly to reduce the fiscal note and then also to make some of the health insurers happy. Very good. Is there any discussion on the committee report? Seeing none, the

To the bill, Senator Amabile. Thank you Madam Chair. So this is a bill that basically says that every health insurance provider has to have at least at least one non-opioid pain medication that they offer. Because we have, as I think all of you know in this building, a massive problem with the overuse and overprescribing and addiction to opioid pain medications. And this bill, we have a whole host of manufacturers who are coming out with products that manage pain that aren't addictive, that aren't opioids. And we are saying that the health insurance companies have to cover these medications. And we have to do as much as we can, in my opinion, to stem the tide of addiction in our country. It is like no other place in terms of the number of people who are dying on our streets, who are becoming homeless, who are suffering immensely. And the costs to the state are massive, massive costs that we pay because we don't have alternatives. And kids are getting addicted to these drugs. Oftentimes the first time they encounter that is when they have their wisdom teeth out. And my nephew had his wisdom teeth out, and then that started him down the road of addiction, and he ended up with a heroin addiction. And we have to do what we can to stop that, and that is why these drug manufacturers are coming out with these medications, is to address that need. And I ask for a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I, too, ask for an aye vote on Senate Bill 6. As I already stated, this bill isn't about limiting opioids. it's actually about making sure that there are safer alternatives, safer alternatives without the same addition addiction risk that they aren't harder to access. This bill it does remove prior authorization but it also removes then care delays and we don't have to worry about care abandonment with the prior authorization. It gives providers and patients the ability to choose the right treatment for the right situation for that person. In short it's about more options not fewer and it's a good bill it ensures equal access more choice better alignment with modern pain management practices we specifically ask for your support very good senator mullica thank you uh madam chair and thank you to the sponsors We had the opportunity to hear this bill in health and know where the sponsors are coming from

and we heard some of that even in committee. but I was the only no vote in committee and I don't expect to change anyone's votes we're not paying a lot of attention on seconds anyway but I do think it's important to to really I think set the record straight because I do work in this field I work in the ER and I do think it's important that our patients have options especially our patients when they come to us and say they have some sort of history of addiction, that they have those options. And we have those options now. And we have those options that are affordable now. We have drugs like Toradol, gabapentin. We even use ketamine. All of these are options to try to address pain that do not have the addictive properties that opioids have. When we talk about safer alternatives, those are safer alternatives. We're hearing the ask to have more options. I think that that's great. We can have more options. I think that you need to add the word expensive in there, though. These drugs just came onto the market. They're still coming onto the market, and those drugs are expensive. And I think that when you look at that and when you mandate that, there is an impact on the cost of health care. There is that potential. Now, we can have the argument, we can have the debate of what that means and what that means for patients who maybe have addictive, maybe have a history of addiction. But at the end of the day, you have to understand that when you're talking up here and you're asking for more options, that we have those options. and those options are affordable right now. And those are options that are being used in the course of health care right now. And so what this bill does is it mandates that other more expensive options have to be offered, and that inherently is going to increase the cost of health care in a time where I think we are hearing from our constituents that the cost of health care, the cost of gasoline, the cost of groceries are all going up and becoming more and more unaffordable. And I think that has to be a part of the conversation. And so when we look at this and we ask ourselves, do we need more options? Maybe. Do we need to mandate more options? Probably not, when we have options that can address that. And I really, sincerely, genuinely, I don't want this to come across as I disagree with where the sponsors are coming from because I do agree with where they're coming from and what they're fighting for. I just think that we need to understand that there are these other options already in place and that what this bill is doing is it's mandating options that are more expensive when we have options that are less expensive that can do the same job. I would ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, we understand there are more options. Here's the problem. Non-opioid treatments are often subject to more barriers like prior authorization and step therapy than opioids. All we're asking for is those options to be treated the same as opioids. Non and opioids should be treated the same so that doctors can go ahead and treat with their patients in mind what is the best situations for them So, again, we understand there are options. We just want those options treated the same as the opioid option.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will just add, too, if there really were tons of other cheaper alternatives, I don't think we would see what we're seeing, which is that 35 out of 100 prescriptions that are written are for opioids. That's nationwide, 35 out of 100 prescriptions. And the number of people dying on our streets from opioid-type drugs is growing. It isn't shrinking. It's growing. And every day people are dying. And we have medicine in this country, modern medicine, where it is evolving all the time. And this is an evolution in pain medication. And to say, well, we shouldn't actually have pain medication evolve and change. We shouldn't develop new things that address this problem in our country. That would be crazy. And the only way we get the pharmaceutical companies to develop new treatments is by making sure that they get compensated for that. Otherwise, they wouldn't do it. and we need them to keep doing it, not just for pain management, but for all kinds of things, like to say, oh, we have enough good medicine already in the world. Let's not develop anymore. That would be a crazy thing to say. So I ask for a yes vote.

Sorry. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let's be clear. Never in any comment did I say not to develop new medication. I'm pretty sure that those words never came out of my mouth. What did come out of my mouth, though, is saying not to mandate it. There's a lot of medication, a lot of pharmaceutical drugs that have been developed in this country, and that's a good thing, without necessarily mandating that they have to be offered. What this bill is doing is it's mandating that these drugs, these new drugs on the market, and let's be clear, let's be clear, we all, I think, have a pretty good understanding how the pharmaceutical industry works in this building. We all understand that when a drug first comes onto the market, it's pretty expensive, right? They have to make up their costs, their research and development. That's neither here nor there, but that's the fact. They are expensive when they come onto the market. What this bill is doing is saying these new drugs coming onto the market, we are going to mandate that when an opioid prescription is offered, that we have to offer this new, more expensive drug. I guess my question to the sponsors is, if we're interested in having an alternative to opioids, why wouldn't we offer and say, let's mandate that if you're going to prescribe an opioid, you also have to give the option of gabapentin, which is on the market right now, which is less expensive, which is a pain controller. Why not do that? Why do we have to mandate a brand new drug coming onto the market that is expensive? When we have other options... I'm hearing that it doesn't work for everyone. We don't know that these new drugs coming onto the market is going to work for everyone either. Okay? So what we're doing is we're mandating new expensive drugs. When we have drugs on the market that are less expensive... that can do the same job that makes no sense to me, I would ask for a no vote.

I rise in support of this bill and I heard it in committee and I'll tell you why I'm supporting this. if we went through all of our legislation over the last few years and talked about mandates you'd probably find me not supporting most of them and I would say that anything that addresses the opioid crisis is probably a good measure one of my larger reasons, and there's a number of reasons why we might support or not support bills that come through here, and so I'll just provide my own experience, and that is, I've lost some of the most important relationships in my life to opioid addiction, and I believe that the financial considerations of this, while there are probably a little bit more expense up front, I believe that the immeasurable benefits of non-opioid options down the road far, far exponentially outweigh the cost up front. And if there's anything we can do to encourage investment in this space into non-opioid medications, not only will it save us dollars down the road maybe it will save us relationships and the people that we care about the most now thank you

thank you Madam Chair I have to feel really strongly about legislation before I get up and argue about it. I also heard this in committee and really had a thoughtful debate, discussion around it. I think there's lots of reasons why medical care is expensive in this country. That could be a long conversation for sure, but the fact is that the system has allowed opioids to proliferate, and it's up to us to do something to break that system. I know every time I go to the doctor for any gum surgery I had, you get a prescription automatically. They just hand you a prescription for opioids. So every single time I've had any kind of medical procedure that's a little bit intense, they give you a prescription. And that's just become matter of course. My sister lived in Germany for a long time. They would send her home from surgery with extra strength Tylenol. And so it's just something we do in this country, and we shouldn't be doing it. We heard lots of stories. I have a story. A family member became addicted to heroin because her husband was on opioids for a shoulder injury. Then they weren't prescribing them anymore, so he got addicted, and then she got addicted to heroin. And she died because of that. And it was awful, and it didn't have to happen. And so I think we need to shift the system and shift the paradigm and I think this is a great way to start and I really appreciate the sponsors for bringing it and I hope you guys will support it

Aw, thank you, Madam Chair. That's very kind of you. Members, I stand in support of Senate Bill 26006. I also heard this in Health and Human Services and found the arguments particularly compelling. You know, I have a friend who has got ongoing pain management issues, and they are going to put her on gabapentin. And I asked her, I was like, well, are there side effects to that? Because I've heard some not-so-good things about gabapentin. Because this is the thing. We get opioids. So, yeah, you have a medical procedure and you get your prescription for an opioid because that's what that, that's always just like the first go-to. And I don't, I've never been asked, do you want something besides an opioid painkiller? And I think that that question should be asked. And that's what this bill is about. But going back to gabapentin, I mean, this particular painkiller, when used for long periods of time, maybe not even long periods of time, depends on your body, but it creates, you can have memory issues. You can have cognitive issues that are similar to dementia. Lots of physical effects, dizziness. And so this isn't always the best solution. We're just saying, and what this bill is saying, and I think it's an important statement, is you should have options offered to you that are not opioids. I don't want to take an opioid. It's not that I have an addiction issue. I just don't want to take an opioid. And I should be able to have that question asked when I have a medical procedure, what kind of pain management medication do you want? That's what this bill is about. I urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise in support of Senate Bill 26006 and appreciate the good center from Thornton's position. and find yourself here regularly conflicted to some degree about very generally against mandates. But it's a nuanced conversation here. It's like many of us are all for local control until we're not for local control. It happens here, maybe even more so this session for some reason. But, you know, thinking about all of us, too many of us have had too many personal experiences of folks impacted by the effects of opioid prescriptions. Without going into great detail, people close to me, they're just lost in the system. I don't know where they're at. And it all started with an injury and a prescription for opioids. So trying to work through that nuance and then the economics about you potentially are paying more now up front but the good senator from Platteville highlighted what I wanted to talk about ago Sometimes you have to do this instinctive analysis that says yep we mandating something we mandating an alternative and it may cost more, but the impacts, the cost to society and to us as a state outweigh that. And some of that is not, I mean, it's not 100% scientific. It has to be a little bit based on gut instinct. And I think there's value in having this conversation and setting this up for an alternative to opioid-based painkillers. And I appreciate the sponsors bringing this forward and thinking about how it impacts all of us individually. Too many of us, again, have experienced this very firsthand. And you can count me in that pool of folks that, unfortunately, have had to experience this and deal with it. So thank you again, Madam Chair. I rise in support.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for this conversation so far, because I do think it's important, and I think that there is no doubt that health care has not played a role in the opioid crisis that we are in today. No doubt. No debate on that. I think my issue with this bill is that if we didn't have other options, then I think that this is maybe a more appropriate conversation, but that we do have other options. And gabapentin got brought up. There's side effects on any medication that we have. There's probably going to be side effects on medications that are coming into the system that this bill is talking to that we haven't even realized yet. But there's also other drugs. There's Toradol. We use ketamine in the ER oftentimes instead of opioids, instead of fentanyl or other drugs when it comes to pain. So there are other options. I think that that, again, going back to the question is if we have other options, why are we going straight to the more expensive new drug on the market if we have other options to try to address this rather than mandating a more expensive option? This bill is supposed to be about options. We have those options. If we want those conversations to happen, put that in there. Let's talk about that. Let's have the providers talk about that. Let's make sure that we're having that conversation with patients, that they do have other options other than opioids. I'm all supportive of that. What I struggle with is that we are running legislation in this building that is going to mandate a more expensive option that is going to financially benefit a certain industry or company. and that's tough that that we should all be thinking really long and hard about that the the minority leaders correct we have a lot of conversations in this in this chamber and and a lot of feelings on mandates and affordability on this side of the aisle and now we have a bill that is undoubtedly going to increase the cost of insurance for options when we have other options and we're not talking about those other options. And I'm just sitting here wondering why we're not talking about those other options. Why is the only option that we're going to mandate be the most expensive option? I work in the ER. They are effective. People have prescriptions for gabapentin. It works. You come into the ER and we use Toradol. constantly for pain That non We have options Let not just jump right to the most expensive option that going to financially benefit a certain industry And if we want conversations to happen if we want those options to be offered to our patients let talk about that Let's not mandate expensive options for patients with drugs just coming onto the market. Let's have real conversations on how we're going to address this, because you are right. you are right we have played a role in the opioid crisis and we need to do something about that i'm not sure if the if the solution is just offering the most expensive brand new drug onto the market when there's other options to try to make sure that we can address folks pain that is non-opioid i would ask for a no vote senator kirkmeyer

Members, there is not a mandate in the bill. Let me just clear up some confusion. I know when this bill was first introduced, and if you notice, my name's not on the bill right now, but it is, got on this bill. But when the bill was introduced, there was this conversation that there was only one drug company that offered one alternative.

Senator Mullica.

Senator Kirkmeyer Thank you Let me just finish the sentence We are requiring and I guess you could call and say that a mandate but we are requiring parity in insurance coverage between non pain management drugs and opioid drugs in several areas. We are not mandating that an alternative non-opioid drug be used. We are not mandating that there is only one alternative, because there are several. So we're not mandating that a certain drug, non-opioid drug, be used. What we are asking for in this bill and requiring is that there is parity in insurance coverage between non-opioid pain medication and opioid pain medication. And we are, through this bill, addressing the opioid overprescription. over prescribing opioids when there are other alternatives. We are addressing that by ensuring that the both non-opioid and opioid medications are treated the same way. That's what this is about. Thank you. Still ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And first off, I would like to disagree with the senator from Thornton, where he says people's ideas and thoughts don't change on seconds. Well, I know this is Senate Bill 06. This was introduced on the first or second day of session, and I'm not in the health committee. I have zero e-mails from anybody discussing this. I've had zero phone calls on this. This is where I'm getting my information is by listening to the differing ideas on this. And so people's minds are being made up here because a lot of us aren't in the health department. I mean, we certainly don't go to work with you whenever it is that you go to work. But with this here, I mean, and I've just sat here the last week listening to conversations about cost of health care. And, you know, I keep trying to wonder how our budget has changed so much. And I keep trying to figure out, well, how is it that we're doing that? How are our health care costs going up? How is our budget going up? And it's clearly from actions like this. Actions like this is what is going to cause our health care to go up. And consequently, when our health care goes up, here in the state of Colorado, we have made it a priority to fund Medicaid for people within our state. So that's going to cost that expense to go up, which in turn is going to cost our budget. to go up. So it's actions like this that brings us to the discussion that we've had the last week here in this chamber. And, you know, hearing from somebody who is on the front lines, I mean, is sitting there and talking about the different types of things that are being used that are not opioids I mean there is no question from anybody about the damages that opioids and their prescriptions to people within the state of Colorado have gone through We are getting millions on the verge of billions of dollars from those companies for the opioids that they prescribed here within this state. and those types of things are trying to be eliminated from pain medication and listening to an ER nurse, he's telling me that that's what's happening on a daily basis. That's what I'm going to believe. That's somebody that I trust and telling us the costs of those. We don't need to go in unless we're going to have more discussion on it and if somebody's going to explain more of this to me. but we've got 26 days left, and then it's just got to go over to the other side for them to decide. So thank you for enlightening particularly me on this subject, and I'm going to be a no, not because I'm in favor of opioids, but I think there's alternatives that are out there and that we should be addressing that. And if we don't have more of an option of addressing that here in the very near future, I don't have an alternative other than to say I think we should maybe wait. So thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, everyone, for paying such good attention to the conversation that we're having. We did an actuarial study because we were required to do one to bring a bill like this, and the cost per member per year is under $5 for this bill. That's what the actuarial study said. I think it was $0.46 per member per month. And the cost to our society of reducing the number of opioid pain medications that are prescribed is enormous. And on balance, this is actually a cost-saving measure. If we look in the long term, which we don't really do in this building, we just look in the short term, we are really constrained in our ability to take a longer view of things. so we did take Medicaid out so Medicaid members will not be able to get these new medications and that is a tragedy actually but we are in this budget situation that we're in and I do believe that once we have these drugs introduced once there is competition in this marketplace the prices will go down. And then Medicaid members will be able to access these medications. And we also took out the state plan to get our fiscal note down. And that's too bad, too, because we have state employees who are being prescribed these medications and are at risk then of forming an addiction to these medications. And that makes me very sad that we had to do that. but that's what we had to do to get the fiscal note down. And that's the reality that we live with in this building. It doesn make me happy but if we can actually say that for this less than per member per year price we can actually address a whole lot of people in our state and make sure that they have access to different types of medications that will help them. And this is a new frontier. And it is a new frontier in medicine. And I think it's a very needed one. You know, there's talk about, well, we preferenced these manufacturers. But you know what we've been doing and what we continue to do is preference opioid manufacturers. And that's why they've had to pay us all this money because they've done enormous damage to our country, enormous damage to our country because we have given them a preference. We have said this is the first thing we're going to do is prescribe these medications that we know are killing people in our country and are addicting people, are ruining lives. That's what we're doing. That's who we are giving a preference to. And I want us to get to a place where no one is getting prescribed these killer medications. And so if I have to pick who would I like to preference, I would like to preference companies that are creating new medications that don't have these just horrible and incredibly expensive downstream costs. And so I would ask for a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll wade into this, I guess, because I have received an email on it. One, it was a grand total of one, but it was from a constituent who is in recovery and asked me to support this bill. And that's what really got me to dig into it. And I appreciate the conversation that we've seen here. I appreciate the comments from the good senators from Boulder, Brighton, Thornton, and Centennial on this. Healthcare, pharmacy is a highly regulated market. It is a highly price-controlled market. For the end-use consumer, for the patient, it is not in any sense of economic theory a free market. And when you have a set of options available to you, but one set of options is cheaper for the consumer, the end-use consumer, that's the patient, that's often not a choice for the patient. And so if you have a opioid and a non-opioid medication, and they're both available to the patient, to the consumer, but with the copay structure set by the insurance company, the opioid has a lower end-use price, a lower copay price for the patient than the non-opioid alternative that's not exactly an even choice that's a choice that favors the opioid when you have a set of restrictions on the authorization that are more restrictive for one of the two options and that greater restriction is on the non-opioid choice so it is easier to qualify for the opioid prescription that is not an equal choice and so what you have is a is a market that makes it easier to access the opioid rather than the opioid alternative. And that is the problem that I understand the sponsors are trying to address here, and that is the position that I support with that. And as to the overall cost argument, which I think is a very fair argument and a very valid concern, what I would counter with and what has been the experience of my constituent is when the only affordable option to you is the opioid option and you become addicted to that option, to the opioid, that the costs associated with that addiction outweigh the initial savings of the cheaper drug price. Now, that manifests in many forms, and it's really difficult to calculate and tabulate that all in different columns and see what the total cost is. So I'm going on a hypothesis here that the end result of that, that the sheer levels of addiction driven through prescription opioid as the entry point to that addiction have back end costs that add up and continue to stack for years and years and ultimately outweigh the cost difference that you would see potentially reflected in insurance premiums. And so I think that in the long run, on the net, when we consider the broad social cost and the cost to patients, to consumers, to the health insurance industry as a whole, I think that Senate Bill 6 is the cheaper option. I think it's the option that ends up ultimately giving more choice.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 15, the Judiciary Committee report, and the Appropriations Committee report. Very good. To the Judiciary report.

In the Appropriations Committee, we adopted an amendment that lined up the definition of commercial sexual activity with the federal definition and struck out an outdated spousal exception in the statute. Judiciary.

the committee adopted L-006, which eliminates the fiscal impact of this bill and directs the sentencing for one of these crimes if the defense conviction is resulting in probation to the county level, and we've worked with the counties on that and the sheriffs, and they still remain in a support position, so we ask for an aye vote.

All those in favor say aye. Aye.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues, moving on from one tough topic to another, this bill is regarding some of the most heinous crimes that occur in our society, commercial sexual activity involving children, where the victim of those crimes are under 18 years old. Unfortunately, this is a crime that Colorado is increasingly seen happening in our state and makes us one of the highest states in the nation for the instances of these types of criminal activity. These are crimes, as I mentioned, that are perpetrated against individuals, mostly young girls who are under the age of 18, by older men, mostly white and socioeconomically advantaged individuals who purchase and solicit children for commercial sexual activity. We already have these crimes on the books in Colorado. This is not what this is about. This is about making sure that the punishment for those crimes fits what I think most Coloradans would expect, which is prison time. The crimes of soliciting commercial sexual activity with a child, pandering of a child, procurement of a child, keeping a place for commercial sexual activity with a child, pimping of a child, inducement of commercial sexual activity with a child, engaging in commercial sexual activity with a child, internet luring of a child with the intent to engage in commercial sexual activity are all felonies in our state. Of course they are. But they also allow a judge, the way the statute's written, to issue probation if somebody is convicted of those crimes. Not charged with those crimes, but convicted of those crimes. Can still get probation in Colorado and not spend any time in the Department of Corrections or even in county jail. We believe, you know, there's a very tough conversation about prison budgets and the budget as a whole. We understand that. But this is a bill driven by victims, driven by law enforcement, driven by district attorneys of both parties who know that when they see these crimes happening in our communities, the only way to prevent them from happening again is to have real consequences for them. And so that's what this bill seeks to do, is to add in a prison requirement for these specific types of crimes that happen against our children in our state. I will note, in order to deal with the fiscal issues that we know we had to deal with in order to move the bill forward, we adopted the amendment this morning in the Appropriations Committee that has to deal with one of the crimes listed in the bill, which is soliciting commercial sexual activity with a child. This is the one that happens most frequently in Colorado of the list of crimes that i listed earlier between 2022 and 2025 there were 51 convictions of that crime 13 of those 51 convictions received a DOC sentence which means that 38 of those convictions 38 received only probation So about 13 per year were receiving only probation out of those during that three-year period. The amendment we adopted says and encourages judges to exercise their existing authority and sentence a defendant in that case to the Department of Corrections. But if they don't and only are giving them probation, then a condition of the probation needs to be 364 days in a county jail. This is not unheard of and not unprecedented in Colorado law. We do the exact same thing with felony DUI, which is three or more DUI convictions in somebody's driving history. A condition of probation is time in the county jail, not in DOC. We have talked to county commissioners, CCI, the county sheriffs. They remain in support of the bill even with this amendment because it's mirroring what happens already and the numbers are thankfully small enough that they can make this accommodation because they believe in the public safety benefit of making this change. I want to thank the many stakeholders who have worked on this bill. We heard some pretty powerful testimony in committee. this is one that I know is a huge problem in our state and we're not going to fix it with this bill alone but if we can show the state of Colorado and these victims that the state recognizes the severity of these crimes and has adequate punishment for them then I think we're going to take a big step forward and a huge thanks to my co-prime sponsor the good senator from Sterling who is very passionate about this issue has worked very hard on this for a number of years I am glad that we are debating this on the floor of the Senate and have the opportunity to move this over to the House so we can move this conversation forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd first like to thank my co-prime, who is a lawyer, and he's the good senator from Frisco who has helped me out through this whole process of all the things that I can and can't do when we want to put stuff in a bill. I do so much appreciate him and his hard work to support all of us in this, and I appreciate it. I also want to say how important this bill is. This bill is so important because it's brought to us by victims and advocates. That's why this bill is important. They see the increase in child solicitation, and they want to go after demand, and that's what they're going after with this bill. it is so important that yesterday the good senator from frisco and i received a text message and let me read that text message to you guys if you ever needed a stronger reason to pass senate bill 15 one of our clients barely 17 years old was found dead in a hotel room this morning with a buyer we have to pass this bill i'm sorry that we're ruining your morning but this is a huge reality and that's why this is so very important. Let's protect the children's innocence in Colorado. This bill is a message that says that God's children are not for sale, and that's what we need to send this message saying. So I ask for an aye vote on Senate Bill 15.

All those in favor say aye. Aye.

thank you madam chair I move the committee rise and report the motion before the committee is to rise and report all those in favor say aye Opposed no The aye has it and the committee will rise and report

Thank you, Mr. President. The committee has met and had a number of bills considered. Mr. Shoffley, would we please read the report? April 17, 2026.

in place in the calendar for third reading and final passage. Senator March. Thank you, Mr. President. I move the report. The motions, the adoption of the community of the whole report. Are there

House Bill 1262 by Representatives Stuart Kaye and Stuart R. and Senators Ball and Roberts concerning preserving patient access to compounded medical items. Senate Bill 145 by Senators Bright and Kipp and Representatives Baysnicker and Gilchrist

Mr. Majority Leader. Thank you, Mr. President. I move for the passage of all the bills on third reading of bill's final passage consent calendar,

And if there are no votes, Senator Marchman. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. I wish to be recorded as a no vote on Senate Bill 145.

Senator Carson. Brazil.

Senate Bill 66. Senate Bill 66 by Senators Judah and Carson, Representative Jackson, concerning the regulation of compounded weight loss medications that have not been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration.

would like permission to offer a third reading amendment, Senator Carson. Thank you, Mr. President.

Now that's how you explain why you want permission to offer a third reading amendment. The request is Senator Carson's request, the motion is Senator Carson's request to offer a third reading amendment.

Opposed, no. No. Why? The aye is have it, even though there was a very compelling no, and that motion is adopted. President of the desk, Mr. Schauffler, please read.

Senator Joodle. Thank you, Mr. President. I move L-16 to SB 66.

Thank you, Mr. President. So essentially what this does, and it pretty much is the whole bill, it targets deceptive practices, and so it makes false or misleading claims about compounded weight loss drugs. It advertised products as FDA approved when they are not, makes unverified claims about safety, effectiveness, or outcome, and distributes products without proper legal authorization or ingredients. Again, that's what we are labeling as targeted deceptive practices. I want to talk about enforcement for a little bit. That's in the amendment. Inclusive, sorry, exclusive enforcement by the Attorney General. Violations are enforced under the Consumer Protection Act, and there is no private right of action. And so it prevents excessive litigation. And the final thing that I think is important to note here in the amendment is that it does not apply to medications administered directly by licensed providers, long-term care facilities, home care and adult daycare providers, PACE programs, and veterinary or animal compounding. And with that, I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. President. Senate Bill 66 and this amendment are about consumer safety and accuracy in marketing and advertising. We've made a lot of changes here with this amendment to address concerns from our colleagues and from various interest groups and consumers. And as I mentioned earlier, I do believe sincerely that this is not, at this point, a piece of legislation that is going to affect individuals' rights to get particular compound drugs with their physician or their health advisor or their pharmacist. The bill uses the same approach we use in other bills to prohibit deceptive trade practices within the Colorado Consumer Protection Act with enforcement exclusive to the Attorney General. Now, to make my point, earlier this week I went to the grocery store looking for peaches. And now I'll get to the point here because this is important. I didn't find very good peaches.

and this amendment in particular any further discussion on l16 there is discussion on l16 senadora gonzalez

Well, thank you to my colleague from Denver.

Senator Dora.

Further discussion? On L-16, Senator Carson.

Further discussion on L-16. Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of L-16 of Senate Bill 66. Are there any no votes? With a vote of 35 I, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, excuse, L-16 is adopted. To the bill. Further discussion. Senator Carson.

Those are very important points to Senate Bill 66. Senator Judah.

Further discussion on Senate Bill 66. Senator Frizzell.

Further discussion? There is discussion.

Further discussion, seeing none of the motion, is the passage of Senate Bill 66. Are there any no votes? Senators, Brazil, Zamora Wilson, Kirkmeyer, Rich, Amabile, Marchman, Colker, Weissman, Ball, Sullivan. Pelton B Mullica Bright Pelton R Catlin With a vote of 20 ayes, 15 no, 0, absolute excuse. Senate Bill 66 is passed. Co-sponsors. Mr. Schoffler, please read the title of Senate Bill House Bill 1084.

Very well done. Senator Weissman.

Further discussion? Seeing none. The motion is the passage of House Bill 184. Are there any no votes? Senators, Mr. Minority Leader, Kirkmeyer, Frizzell, Zamora Wilson, Rich, Baisley, Liston, Pelton R, Catlin, Carson, Bright, Pelton B. With a vote of 23 ayes, 12 no, 0 absent excused. House Bill 1084 is passed. Go sponsors. Senators, Wallace, Kip, Roberts, Sullivan, Gonzalez, Snyder, Exum, Benavidez, Please add the President. Mr. Schoffler, please read the title of House Bill 1202.

Senator March. Thank you, Mr. President. I move House Bill 1202 on third reading and final passage.

Mr. Schaffler, please read the title of Senate Bill 002. Senator Bill 002 by Senators Kipp and Exumon, Representative Wilford concerning emergency affordability and in connection therewith establishing a percentage of income payment plan program for income qualified utility customers.

Further discussion? There is discussion. Senator Exum.

That's very kind of you, Senator Exum. Senior for discussion, the motion is the passage of Senate Bill 002. Are there any no votes? Even after all that? Yeah. A lot of work done on this bill. All right. Mr. Minority Leader, Senators, Frizzell, Kirkmeyer, Zamora Wilson, Rich, Helton B., Bazley, Bright, Liston, Carson, Pelton R., Catlin. With a vote of 23 ayes, 12 no, 0 opposite excuse, Senate Bill 002 is passed. co-sponsors, senators, Wallace, Marchman, Cutter, Gonzalez, Amabile, Weissman, Lindstedt, Benavidez, Snyder, Ball, Roberts, Colker. Please add the president. General orders, second reading of the bills.

You've heard the motion. All those in favor say aye.

How are you going to vote both ways? and the motion is adopted. The Senate will resolve itself a committee that will consider the original general orders, second the bill, and Senator Marchman will take the chair.

The motion is to lay over House Bill 1071 until Monday 420. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. That bill will lay over until 420.

The motion for the body is to lay over 134 until Monday, April 20th. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. the ayes have it and that bill will lay over until monday april 20th majority leader rodriguez

favor say aye opposed no the aye has it we'll move that bill to the end of the calendar

Senate Bill 101 by Senator Pelton B. Concerning measures to assist local governments in complying with landfill methane emission reduction regulations adopted by the Air Quality Control Commission. Senator Pelton. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 101 and the Transportation Committee report To the T Committee report Senator Pelton Thank you, Madam Chair. So, members, we offered a strike below that just defines what available grants that local governments can go for in that strike below. So that's what we did in the Transportation and Energy Committee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So basically what happened this summer was the AQCC came out with rule number 31, which was saying that landfills have to capture their methane. So basically without any funds to do so. these local governments and other landfills public landfills and private landfills so uh the county commissioners in my communities came out and asked me to find a way to help be help these counties be in compliance because they're talking anywhere between 3.5 million dollars and 6.1 million dollars to put up these methane capture equipment. And then it's also anywhere between $200,000 and $400,000 a year to maintain and to do other stuff with that equipment. So basically what they were asking is, please do something about this unfunded mandate so we don't have to increase fees on our community so the cost of living becomes higher in our smaller communities. So I do have an amendment, and I know that my colleague has an amendment, so I'm going to offer my amendment now. Very good. There is an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please read L-005?

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L-005, the Senate Bill 101. To the amendment, Senator Pelton. So this amendment was brought to us by CDPHE, and it just strikes in where it talks about disproportionately impacted communities, where it strikes most recent five-year United States Bureau of Census American Community Survey data, and then adds five-year United States Bureau of Census American Community Survey is released no later than three years prior to the meets and meets one or more of the following criteria. So we're just changing that language in that section of the bill, and that's what we're doing. So I ask for an aye vote. The motion is the adoption of Amendment L-005. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and L-005 is adopted.

Mr. Schauffer, will you please read Amendment L-006? Amendment L-006.

Great. To the amendment.

The motion is the adoption of L-006. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and L-006 is adopted. to the bill.

Senator Roberts. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the good senator from Sterling for his leadership on this. I'm glad to be on this bill with him or hope to be added between second and third reading because I also represent some of the counties that are dealing with the financial impacts of this new rule of limiting methane emissions into our atmosphere, which is something I support. Methane is incredibly toxic. It can have very adverse impacts on communities. We should be doing what we can to limit methane emissions. but we can't do it at the cost of significantly raising fees on everyday coloradans to dispose of their trash. And that is what several of the counties, including Summit County that I represent, have come forward in saying is we want to comply. We want clean air, but we need some financial assistance to get us there or else we're going to have to massively raise fees on our residents. So this is a win-win. This allows them to apply for state grant money for compliance and then helps communities deal with the toxicity of methane. So thank you to the good senator for his collaboration on this. This has been a big stakeholder conversation, as you can imagine. The environmental advocates, the other community groups who worked very closely with us, I think everybody's either in a supportive or neutral position at this point, and this is a great win-win. I ask for your aye vote.

Mr. Schauffler, will you please read the title now of Senate Bill 159? Senate Bill 159 by Senators Weissman and Gonzalez and Representatives Mabry and Martinez as concerning measures for managing the capacity of the Department of Corrections. Senator Wiseman. Thanks, Madam Chair. We move 159 and the committee report from Judiciary. To the Judiciary Committee report. Members, we adopted actually a pretty substantial amendment in Judiciary. It has the effect of really simplifying the bill and relative to the introduced, kind of ratcheting back the expansions to some of the earned time changes. There was just it a funky statute to draft in and there were some miscommunications that led to the introduced so asking for your support of the committee report The motion is the adoption of the Judiciary Committee report All those in favor say aye Aye Opposed no The ayes have it The Judiciary Committee report is adopted To the bill, Senator Wiseman. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, our drafter in reviewing the bill between committee and the floor just caught some technical things to clean up in connection with which I have an amendment. There is an amendment at the desk. Mr. Schauffer, will you please read Amendment L-008? Amendment L-008. Senator Wiseman. Thanks, Madam Chair. We move L-8 to 159. To the amendment. Thank you. Members, as noted, technical change caught by the Office of Alleged Legal Services. Ask for a yes vote. The motion is the adoption of L-008. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and L-008 is adopted. Senator Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair. We bring forward for your consideration Senate Bill 159 after years and years and years of trying to work on this issue. Let me just begin by saying that although we have been working for years to try and ensure that the Department of Corrections effectively and intentionally manage its prison population, and although we have brought legislation to try and raise the alarms, there has even been an audit conducted. There has been numerous questions by colleagues on the Joint Budget Committee. And only now, following the triggering of the bipartisan past prison population management policy that passed this building with unanimous support back in 2018. Only now, this fall, has the prison population management measures been triggered. And then, just weeks ago, our dear governor informed us that the capacity crisis was so dire that we might need to purchase a prison or two. Colleagues, something's wrong with that equation. That math ain't mathin'. And so it is in that spirit that we bring forward for your consideration Senate Bill 159 in order to ensure that we are being thoughtful, intentional about how we are calculating earned time, about how we go and actually create a working group in order to more intentionally grapple with these challenges. Ask for your aye vote on Senate Bill 159. Senator Wiseman. Thanks, Madam Chair. So, members, just to say a little bit about the bill, and then it looks like we're going to have some discussion here. There are two major elements to 159 in its amended form. One is some pretty incremental modifications to our earn time statutes. Two is to set up a work group based on the reality we didn't get into this pickle in a day, and we're not going to get out of it in a day. So sub 10, which starts at page 7 of the introduced, if you're looking at that, is where the work group starts. If you've been around, you've seen provisions like this. We try to have a diversity of opinions and perspectives and backgrounds ...represented in the workgroup. We have a diversity of appointing authorities and the charge or directions, if you will, or directives to the workgroup is on page 8 of the introduced in the interest of time. I'm not going to read all the way through it, but the Department of Corrections and all of the factors that lead people to be there and that lead people to stay there for more or less time amounts to a complex system. Again, a lot of us have spent many, many, many, many hours this year, but we do not pretend we've solved everything. We need to get the right people in a room to keep talking about it, so the hope is the group will get going pretty quickly. We give it a timeline of June 30 of 2028, so two full legislative sessions for us to engage with the work product of that group, and we can see what's coming back. There is an interim report due this December. We can possibly react to its work product. We are specifically through the Judiciary Committees empowered to sort of give some requests or notices to the group. Again, if you look at that, that's sort of going forward. In the nearer term, we are making some incremental changes to earn time. Earn time is just that. If you will look on page two to the top of three in the introduced, there's a list of eight factors, all of which have to be complied with before earn time is actually earned and certified. in the mechanism set forth by the relevant case manager who is assigned to supervise that inmate. So if you don't behave well, if you cut up, you're going to lose it. The emphasis in earned time is on the earned part of it. The way that I would think about what the amended bill does is right now we sort of have two buckets for the accrual of earned time. Lower level offenders can get up to 12 days a month. Others can get 10, again, if they behave properly. What the amended version is going to do is for the offenders in the 12 bucket, increase that to 14. There are some exceptions who fall back to the lower rate of accrual. In existing law, we preserve that. We actually add another exception for felony motor vehicle theft because that's been an issue of conversation around here. And then the folks who are earning at, folks who were accepted from the ability to earn 12 now would not earn 14. They would fall back to 12. We preserve all of the exceptions. We preserve sort of what offenses, again, with the felony motor vehicle theft exception or addition. We preserve what's what. We're trying to encompass two realities. This was very well put by an appointee to the parole board that we were hearing and confirming in judiciary a couple weeks ago. The correctional system has to encompass two realities at once. One is that people do some bad things sometimes, and they need to be punished for that, and that's why they're in DOC in the first place. The other is that people are capable of change, and we want to incent change. That is fundamentally what earned time is. Any correctional administrator will tell you they need an incentive for good behavior inside. So with reference to the lower-level offenses that have been, again, classified, bucketed the way they have been for a long time, we're making an incremental change in the rate of earned time accrual there. So there's an even more powerful incentive for folks to behave well to do what the department is supposed to be doing, which is correcting. We call the Department of Corrections for that reason. If people behave they will become parole eligible a little bit more quickly Emphasis on eligible You still have to convince the parole board that you worthy of release and beginning your period of parole supervision In connection with everything else the Senator from Denver alluded to, the now well over a billion dollar cost of maintaining DOC, the budget pressures we know that we have, this is intended to be a small contribution to the other half of the equation, which is can we have people do time that they need to serve? Can we create an incentive for them to behave well, earn their parole out, so we have very, very expensive limited capacity to be used for incarcerating other folks who have done things that need some punishment? So we'll step back. Looks like there's going to be some discussion. We ask for a yes vote. Senator Carson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, thank you to my colleague from Aurora, the chair of our Judiciary Committee, and Senator from Denver for those comments. I guess I'd start by saying I don't disagree with the notion that we want to have incentives in place for inmates to improve their behavior. I just think we probably have those mechanisms in place now. And I'm not compelled to believe that we need to keep changing those and expanding on them. You know, I think there's an interesting thing going on with the legislature right now. There seem to be continual legislation, continual philosophy that we should move toward more early release, early release, early release. And you're seeing that in a lot of, quite frankly, a lot of the bills coming through this year and in recent years. And I think it's one of the main areas where the legislature, the philosophy of the legislature, differs from the philosophy of the public at large. You know, it's interesting when we have these Judiciary Committee hearings, oftentimes you'll hear the comment, well, the purpose of prison is to rehabilitate people. Well, that's certainly one of the issues you want to deal with in prison. But I happen to believe, and I think an awful lot of folks in Colorado believe, that the purpose of prison is also punishment for the crimes that have been committed against the victims and their families. certainly punishment is an important element of our correction system. And secondly, in many cases, public safety is another one. I mean, you know, let's be frank here. We're often dealing with violent individuals. That's why they're in prison. They may have murdered folks. They may have created other violent crimes. there's even a bill moving through the house right now around the issue of extreme indifference where people you know they might just be driving down the road intoxicated in their car and decide to shoot into somebody house and somebody gets killed And for some reason, there's a viewpoint that we ought to be a little more lenient in that area, which I find very difficult to understand. Senator Carson, will you please stay to germane to Senate Bill 159? I understand what you're saying, but if you could just say germane to this bill, that would be wonderful. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I've been admonished two days in a row, so I'll behave myself today. I will stick to 159 and simply say that I do have an amendment. And I think what this amendment reflects, and I'll offer it here in a second, is the viewpoint that the legislature is moving philosophically in a very different direction than the public. And I'll talk about that at this juncture. I'm going to place an amendment at the desk. There is an amendment at the desk. Mr. Schaffer, will you please read Amendment L-003? Amendment L-003, amended Judiciary Committee report. Senator Carson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move amendment L-003. To the amendment. Senator Carson. So what this amendment does is it says that, you know, anything we do with earned time, an extra credit, if you will, cannot interfere with an inmate who has committed violent crimes completing at least 85% of their sentence. Now, why do we pick that 85% number? Well, that's where the public is. They passed a ballot issue a couple of years ago, and they made it very clear it was an overwhelming vote that individuals who commit violent crimes in this state should serve at least 85% of their sentence. And so that still obviously leaves some room for earned time and potentially earlier release than is contemplated initially by the judicial system. But I think this amendment really gets at the point I'm making here, is that the legislature keeps moving in this direction of we need to have more early release. We need to have quicker parole. We need to have more opportunities to get out. And as I said, we certainly want to encourage good behavior, but I think public safety and punishment are also very important notions in our criminal justice system. It's not just about rehabilitation. It's about other things that the public values and holds important, and particularly the public safety element. That is a foundational role of government, is to keep the public safe, to enforce the laws, to make sure that we can live in safe communities. And so I think this is an important amendment. It's obviously a philosophical amendment. But I think it sends an important message that the voters of this state have said we not interested in these continual bills to promote more early release We would like to see violent offenders serving their sentences Thank you. Senator Wiseman. Thanks, Madam Chair. I'm going to try to bring the discussion back to the actual text of the bill and the amendment. We have some references to very serious upper-level felonies, which have never been in the bill to start with. I'm going to ask for a no vote on L3 because as written, it appears to essentially gut not just the bill, but the entire existing earn time statutory mechanism, which again, among other things, is a mechanism to create an incentive and ensure safety inside. Any correctional administrator will tell you, and several over the years have told me, that you need to have this incentive for good behavior. The voters did pass Prop 128, which provided that certain upper-level offenses did not become parole-eligible until 85% of time served. That measure called out specific offenses, not in a charge-level way, for example, by reference to felony five or six, but rather specific offenses. That was a choice made by the proponents of the measure and affirmed by the voters. At any rate, there's little intersection between what was listed in 85 and what's listed in the earn time statute in ways that are supposed to accrue at faster rates. Felony 4, 5, or 6, or DF 3 or 4. You typically serve only a few years for those. We're not saying you shouldn't serve time. You've been adjudicated to serve time. You were sent there by a judge or you pled to it. The way that L3 is written, you're essentially breaking the entire earned time statute, as I understand this amendment, which is not the policy that we should have in Colorado, so I need to ask for a no vote. Is there any further discussion? Senator Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise in opposition to this amendment because it is amendments like these. It is policy like this that drives the need for new private prisons to be built in the state. I ask for a no vote. Senator Frizzell. Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise in support of Amendment L3. This is simply, this is very simply respecting the wishes of the voters. Proposition 128 passed overwhelmingly. It wasn't even close. over 62 percent of coloradans said we think it's a really important thing to keep violent offenders in jail for 85 percent of their sentence because that wasn't happening i think that 62 percent of coloradans said we dislike what has become the revolving door of our justice system. 62% of Coloradans said, we want people to be held accountable for the violent crimes that they commit. This is a really important amendment, just as that initiative was really important to a lot of people in our state. So I rise in support of this amendment. I ask for an aye vote. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the motion before the bottom. Senatorial, a division has been called. Thank you. Thank you. A division has been requested. All those in the chamber not entitled to vote, please be seated. The motion is the adoption of L-003. All those opposed, no, all those in favor, please stand and remain standing without moving around the chamber until the count is complete. Please be seated. All those opposed, please stand and remain standing without moving around the chamber until the count is complete. The chair is not in doubt. L-003 fails. To the bill, is there any further? Senator Frizzell Thank you Madam Chair I just spoke about how I felt that it was important to respect the wishes of the voters of the state of Colorado. With that, I have an amendment. There is an amendment at the desk. Mr. Schaffler, will you please read L-006? Amendment L-006. Senator Frizzell. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Amendment L-006 to Senate Bill 159. To the amendment. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. This is a pretty straightforward amendment. It strikes lines 13 through 23 on page 7. This is a really important amendment that repeals the provision. set forth in this bill that allows inmates who demonstrate quote-unquote exceptional conduct that promotes safety of correctional staff, volunteers, contractors, or others, and each instance may be awarded as many as 60 days of earned time. I feel that this is a pretty subjective benchmark, and this provision is just pretty broad. What does this mean? what does exceptional conduct look like, who determines that, and it really risks creating significant sentence reductions based on subjective or inconsistency. It effectively allows earned time to be awarded at a high rate for conduct that may already be expected as part of basic institutional compliance and safety requirements. I don't know about you all who are parents, but sometimes, I don't know, I think that sometimes we lower expectations of individuals, whether they're your kid or somebody who's incarcerated or just somebody else walking down the street. If you are incarcerated, I believe that there should be an expectation that you are doing the right thing, that you are behaving. And if you are not, perhaps that lengthens your sentence. And, in fact, if you are attacking other prisoners, if you are creating issues in that environment, that's typically what happens. So I ask for your aye vote on this amendment. Senator Weissman. Thanks, Madam Chair. The answer to the question who determines whether this earn time is to be granted is to be found in the bill and in existing law, sub one of the section we're talking about here. The answer is the case manager, the corrections professional who is in charge of earn time in every other respects. I do appreciate the Senator from Castle Rock reading the text because I think it fully explains why I'm asking for a no vote on this. an offender who demonstrates exceptional conduct that promotes the safety of correctional staff, volunteers, contractors, or other persons. We want safety inside the correctional environment. Frankly, the strains that I think we all know about that we've had on the employee core of DOC over years going back to COVID for a mix of reasons have, among other things, created a bit of a safety risk inside for everybody, including state employees DOC staff We want to promote that environment of safety We do want those incarcerated thinking about that Hey did I hear something Is somebody planning something that they shouldn be doing? We want to incent people to come forward with that information. Frankly, there may be some risk to themselves if they do that. That's why the incentive. I don't think that we should militate against public safety inside by voting for this amendment, so I for a no. Is there any further discussion on amendment L006? Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of L006. All those in favor say aye. Aye. And opposed no. No. The no's have it and L006 Fails. Senator Rich to the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. It's been an interesting conversation so far. I guess one of the things that I get concerned about is that we'll have something go to the voters and it passes overwhelmingly. and then this body comes back and says, oh, well, maybe that's not what they meant and we're going to make some changes and you just kind of don't care what the voters think. But regardless of that, I have something else. I have an amendment. There is an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please read Amendment 7? Amendment L-7, amended Judiciary Committee report. Senator Rich. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L-007 to Senate Bill 26159. To the amendments. Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment strikes the working group and its responsibilities and duties from the bill. And the reason for that is because a working group to make recommendations for a capacity management plan for the DOC with input from the impacted groups. This amendment repeals the working group provision as the Department of Corrections already has the data and subject matter experts necessary to analyze the needs of the department. Rather than creating an additional working group, the focus should be on improving the effectiveness of the existing working group and strengthening the use of current internal expertise and resources. A working group would add another layer of unnecessary bureaucratic expansion, raising concerns about cost-effectiveness and effectiveness particularly where the responsibilities already fall within existing structures. Rather than creating a new body, the focus should be on improving and strengthening existing oversight and ensuring the current Department of Corrections data and subject matter expertise are fully utilized and address these needs efficiently and effectively. I ask for an aye vote. Senator Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me first begin by just acknowledging that I deeply resent the insinuation that we are not following the will of the voters by advancing forward this policy. Full stop. Second, let me now tell you why I rise in objection to this amendment. There was no stakeholder work that went into the proposition that now has exacerbated the long-existing challenge for the Department of Corrections to manage its prison population. Here we are. We have to govern. We have to do the work to ensure the safety of our staff, the safety of the inmates themselves, and our budget. We are now spending year after year well over a billion dollars on the Department of Corrections. Even though we see headlines like these that state homicides down 28% in 2025, we still are seeing a prison population increase that then begs the question, How are we going to get out of this structural challenge? JBC has been asking questions for years. Considered a whole audit. Audit came out. Recommendations. DOC is now recommending the purchase of a new prison. Thanks to our dear governor. said proposal went nowhere who's gonna come in and swoop in and figure this out we have to do that work so let us do said work with the subject matter experts within and outside of the department to actually figure out in a meaningful way in a time-limited way, let's pull together this work group and effectively manage the prison population for the state of Colorado so that we don't have to make the impossible decisions of deciding between four-day or three-day school weeks. Because if we keep this up, friends, that's where we're headed. Ask for a no vote. Senator Wiseman. Thanks, Madam Chair. Just on the first point, I think we try to hold ourselves to higher standards in this room than the other one. That does include going to motive. Anybody who wants to speak against the bill, totally you're right. Propose an amendment, totally you're right. please don't try to characterize what my motives are in running this bill and I'll try to not do that with anybody else here either now to the work group here are some of who's at the table a DA I don't want to cut them out the sheriff I don't want to cut them out a crime victim or survivor I don't want to cut them out we deliberately set it up so that both majority We end minority leadership, have appointments. That's typically how we do these things. Again, we didn't get here in a year. We didn't even get here in 10 years. We are not going to get out of here in a year, which is why a lot of thought has gone into who sits at this table, who is part of this work group, who is part of this work group, What they're going to talk about, how they're going to inform our future work. We think that it should exist. We think that we can learn something from these people who are criminal justice system and carceral professionals. It should stay in the bill. We ask for a no vote. Is there any further discussion on L-007? Seeing none, the motion before the body is the adoption of L-007. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The no's have it, L007, is lost. To the bill. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of Senate Bill 159. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. The ayes have it, and Senate Bill 159 is adopted. Mr. Schaffler, will you please read the title of Senate Bill 158? Senate Bill 158 by Senators Weissman and Ball and Representatives Carter and Espinosa concerning early parole procedures for a youthful offender who has successfully completed a specialized program. Senator Weissman. Thanks, Madam Chair. Remove SB 158 and the committee report from Judiciary. To the Judiciary Committee report. Members, the committee report clarified some language concerning applicability to existing circumstances. It was a good spot by our House sponsors. We ask for a yes vote. The motion is the adoption of the Judiciary Committee report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The Judiciary Committee report is adopted. To the bell, Senator Ball. Thank you, Madam Chair. Sponsors, I rise in support of Senate Bill 158, which corrects for an oversight in the program that we've created, the JYA CAP program. Under the current procedure, if the board recommends that someone be released after successful completion of the program, the governor then has ultimate authority to say yes or no. but the statute is silent on what happens if the governor just doesn't act. And so there have been 11 individuals who are recommended for a lease by the board for the last three years or so who are in this state of limbo. And so all this bill does is it clarifies that the governor has 60 days. When that 60 days is up, then the decision will revert back to what the board's recommendation was. I encourage an aye vote. Senator Wiseman. Thank you. as my co-prime sponsor, the senator from Denver noted, pretty narrow bill. Members, just to give you some history, in the 2010s, there was a U.S. Supreme Court case that invalidated on constitutional grounds juvenile life without parole sentences. This legislature, before most of our time here, reacted to that by passing two bills in the 2016 session that were bipartisan. and one was to provide a mechanism for re-sentencing those couple of dozen juvenile life impacted sentences, and the other was to set up the program we're now talking about, J-CAP. It was a program never meant to be easy to get into or very broadly available to get into, and it's pretty rigorous in its composition. Years later, we expanded it. You've now heard it called J-Y-A-CAP, as juveniles and young adults convicted as adults. There are exclusions, for example, the adult, young adult, LWAP sentences, everything about eligibility, about program completion.

Senator Carson.

Mr. Schauffler, will you please read L-003?

Senator Carson.

To the amendment.

to respectfully ask for a no vote. Here's a few reasons why. So the amendment focuses on VRA offenses. We often treat those separately from non-VRA offenses in our statutes and with sound reason. Some of the most serious VRA classified offenses are actually not even eligible for JYA cap in the first instance. We did put it into the JYA cap statutes that if somebody is going into the program, there's a specific notification. Parole hearings are also what's called a critical stage in VRA parlance. So there's already and there should be a victim notification there. So So the whole program, as it should, has cognizance of which are VRA listed offenses and has from the get-go, again, correctly. So the governor from our Constitution, since statehood, probably the governor in almost every state, has a broad clemency power. And we're not talking about that here. Frankly, we can't because it's a constitutional power. The governor can grant commutation or clemency basically at will. different governors have had their own different procedures around that. Again, we're not talking about that here. What we're talking about is a statutory program that we set up back in the 2010s, amended, I believe it was in 21. Frankly, part of what I think we're trying to do here is guard the legislative prerogative concerning that statutory program by having timelines and just making sure things work. And the governor has, in the amended approach, represented by 158, as we bring it to you, The governor has a role. The parole vote also has a role, and there's a time clock. We're trying to make the mechanism work better. I'm asking for a no vote on L3 for those reasons.

All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. Well, members, once again, we're having a good, lively discussion, and I think we all agree that the governor, for the most part, should indeed, you know, has the ability to give exceptions for felonies, and especially when it deals with younger people, and certainly upon the advice of the parole board as well. And I know we were talking about, you know, the last amendment, and about 90 days, or maybe 90 days is not enough. So I do have another amendment that would maybe address this issue to give a little more time. There we go. And with that, Madam Chair, I do have an amendment.

Amendment L-002.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I move Amendment L-002 to Senate Bill 158.

Members, this amendment, what it does, it quite frankly extends the time frame for the governor to grant or deny parole from 60 days to 120. Well I know we were just talking about 90 but really this is a very very important decision that the governor has to make And even if it for youthful offenders it a very important decision that the governor has to make and even it for youthful offenders the governor, any governor, has a lot on his plate, especially today, and this is a very important decision that affects not only the inmate, but the victims' families, everybody. There's a lot of cross-current. This amendment ensures that the governor and his team have a flexible amount of time to review the cases when granting or denying parole. These cases are very sensitive, as I mentioned, for the victims, the inmates, and their families. This amendment aims to prioritize public safety over speed, upholding that a rushed decision increases the risk of releasing individuals who might not be ready for parole or denying parole too hastily. This amendment does not change the eligibility or the outcomes, but improves the decision-making process. And who's to say, you know, we're just giving the governor added time, an extra 60 days. That doesn't mean that he or she, the governor, they may make the decision after 62 days or 76 days, but let's give them plenty of time to make this very, very important decision. With that, members, I urge an aye vote on L-002.

Thanks, Madam Chair. I do appreciate the incremental nature of the amendment. Nonetheless, I will ask for a no vote. One thing that the whole JYA cap process is not, and is not meant to be, is fast. We're talking about folks who have served decades. If they have earned their way into the program at all, they may not have. And then we have come, we, the Department of Corrections, case managers, program managers, have come to know a lot about these folks by the time that they've done 20, 25 more years and come through it and are even in the posture of being reviewed either by the governor or the parole board. So the information about how they've been doing, what was their underlying offense, if they were even eligible, the kind of person that they've become instead of who they were when they went in, that's all in evidence already. What we don't need is more time to gather that up together because we've been accumulating it for years and decades. We think that 60 days is enough of a window with all that information already being largely sewn up for there to be a grant or denial. We think we should leave it at 60, so I'm going to ask for another vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to support the amendment from the Senator from Colorado Springs. You know, I think this is a good compromise. You know, 120 days seems to me to be an appropriate period. This amendment ensures that the governor and his legal team have a flexible amount of time to review cases when granting or denying parole for inmates who've completed a specialized program. I think it also recognizes the decision should stick with the governor. That's his prerogative. I think we should encourage it, but I don't think 60 days is necessary. The appropriate period of time, I think 120 days makes a lot of sense. So I support the amendment.

All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed no. No.

Majority Leader Rodriguez. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to lay over Senate Bill 150 until Monday, April the 20th. The motion is the adoption. No, I'm sorry. The motion is to lay over Senate Bill

The Senate will come to order. Senator Marchman.

April 17, 2026, Mr. President, in committee, the whole begs leave the report as had in consideration the following attached bills being the second reading thereof, makes the following recommendations thereon. Senate Bill 101 as amended, Senate Bill 159 as amended, Senate Bill 158 as amended, passed in second reading in order to engross and place in the calendar for third reading and final passage. House Bill 1071, Senate Bill 134, Senate Bill 150, laid over until April 20, 2026, retaining their place in the calendar.

The motion is the adoption of the committee of the whole report. Are there any no votes? What?

With a vote of 27 ayes, eight noes, zero, absolute excuse. Can be the whole report is adopted. Senate Bill 101 is amended. Senate Bill 159 is amended. Senate Bill 158 is amended. pass second reading order gross place counter for third reading and final passage house bill 1071 senate bill 134 and senate bill 150 laid over until 420 26 retaining their place on the calendar members before we move forward in our regularly scheduled programming we have a special guest in the building to my right your left please join me in welcoming back the honorable senate tour janet buckner to the chamber Consideration of resolutions. Mr. Schaffler, please do the title of SJR 21.

Senator Judah.

Mr. Schoffler, please read SJR 21 at length.

Senator Judah.

Further discussion? Seeing no further discussion, the motion is the adoption of SJR 21. Are there any? No votes.

SJR 26021 is adopted. Co-sponsors, Senator Judah.

Seeing no objection, the current roll call will be added as co-sponsors. Consideration of House amendments to Senate bills. Mr. Schauffler, please read the title to Senate Bill 105.

financial interests and regulated businesses senator henrickson thank you mr. president i move the senate concur with house amendments to senate bill 105 please tell us why please tell us why we would stoop so long uh thank you uh mr president uh senate bill 105 comes from some of the challenges that uh have been widely reported on in the public county coroner's office uh starting

Senior further discussion emotions that the Senate concur with House amendments to Senate Bill 105. Are there any no votes? with a vote of 35 I 0 0 0 absent and 0 excuse that motion is adopted Senator Henriksen thank you Mr. President I move for the repassage of Senate bill 105 further discussion seeing none the motion is a repassage of Senate bill 105 are there any no votes with a vote of 35 I 0 0 0 absent or excuse Senate bill 105 is Repass. Call sponsors. Senator Wallace again. You're welcome. Mr. Schauffler, please read the title of Senate Bill 121.

Mr. Majority Leader.

Please tell us why.

Further discussion? Seeing none. There is further discussion.

Further discussion. Seeing none, the motions that the Senate concur with House amendments to Senate Bill 121. Are there any no votes on concurrence with the amendments? Senators.

With a vote of 30 ayes, 5 noses, 0 abs, or excuse, that motion is adopted. Mr. Minority Leader.

The motion is repassage of Senate Bill 121. Seeing no further discussion, are there any no votes? Senators.

Please add the president. Will the vote of 20 ayes, 15 noes, zero abstinence, zero excuse, Senate Bill 121 is repassed. Cosponsors. . Mr. Schaffler, please read the title of Senate Bill 128.

Senator Snyder.

Well, it's interesting. The Department of Revenue was a reluctant partner at the beginning,

Further discussion. Seeing none, the motion is that the Senate concur with House amendments to Senate Bill 128. Are there any no votes? With, there is a no vote. Senator Benavidez. With a vote of 34 ayes, 1 no, 0 abs, 0 excuse. That motion is adopted. Senator Kirkmeyer.

Further discussion? Seeing none. The motion is the repassage of Senate Bill 128. Are there any no votes?

With a vote of 28 ayes, 7, no, 0, absent, 0, excuse. Senate Bill 128 is repassed. Co-sponsors. Senator 05. Majority Leader

The motion is reconsideration of Senate Bill 121. All those in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. That motion is adopted and reconsideration is granted. Mr. Schaffler, please read the title of Senate Bill 121. Senator 5 Thank you End up Here we go. Mr. Schaffler, please read the title of Senate Bill 121.

employer is required to pay overtime to an agricultural employee. Mr. Minority Leader.

Further discussion? Seen. That's not the right motion. Oh sorry. Concurrence. Sorry about that. Mr. No. I'm already concurred. We already concurred. We just the repassage. Yeah you said reconsideration. Repassage. Mr. Minority Leader. Thank you, Mr. President. I withdraw the last motion and offer up approval for repassage of Senate Bill 121. Further discussion? Seeing none, the motion is the repassage of Senate Bill 121. Are there any no votes? Senators, Bridges, You're welcome. Danielson. Wallace. Gonzalez. Cutter. Judah. Benavidez. Kip. Marchman. Snyder. Ball. Sullivan. Exum. Weissman.

Senator Colker. Please add the president with a vote of 19 I, 16 no, 0, absolute excuse. Senate Bill 121 is repassed. Co-sponsors. It could still be a no. Consideration of Governor's Appointments Consent Calendar. Mr. Schauffler, please read the appointments listed on the Consent Calendar. Members of the State Plumbing Board, effective July 2, 2025, for terms expiring July 1, 2029.

Mr. Majority Leader. Thank you, Mr. President.

Any discussion? Seeing that the motion is the confirmation of the appointments on the consent calendar. Are there any no votes? With a vote of 35 ayes, 0 no, 0 absent, and 0 excused, those appointments are confirmed. Introduction of bills.

Thank you, Mr. President. I've asked the minority leader and the majority leader to have an excused absence on Tuesday and Wednesday, and they've granted that, so I wanted to make that announcement. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President. I ask for a moment of personal privilege.

Thank you. I have a tribute here for the American Bakers Association. The Colorado General Assembly honors the American Bakers Association, the largest U.S. trade association for the commercial baking industry, representing over 370 member companies since 1897. Bread is recognized as a nutritional staple, contributing nearly 40% of dietary fiber in the American diet and providing essential vitamins and minerals. Enriched grains have helped reduce neural tube defects by nearly one The commercial baking industry invested billion in U grown ingredients in 2023 and generated a $6.7 billion economic impact in Colorado, supporting over 12,000 jobs, $600 million in wages, and $663 million in tax revenue. This tribute acknowledges the American Bakers Association's commitment to food safety, workforce development, and responsible policy advocacy. The Colorado State Senate, with the House of Representatives, concurring therein welcomes the American Bakers Association to Colorado for its annual convention this coming week in Colorado Springs and celebrates the industry's vital contributions to Colorado communities and the American food security. Signed by Senate President James Coleman and Speaker of the House, Julie McCluskey.

It wasn't you doing it.

That's why.

I don't know if I signed it or not.

All right, any other announcements? Mr. Majority Leader, please help.

You haven't heard me move a motion yet.

You are the motion. All those in favor say aye.

Oppose no.

The I.T.A.V. and Senate will adjourn until 10 a.m. on Monday, April 20th, 2026.

.