March 27, 2026 · 21,664 words · 13 speakers · 267 segments
The house will come to order. The Pledge of Allegiance will be led by Majority Leader Duran. Members, please follow me in the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Mr. Schiebel, please call the roll.
Representatives Bacon. AML Bacon. Barone. Basenecker. Bottoms. Bradfield. Bradley. Brooks. Brown. Caldwell. Camacho. Carter is excused. Clifford. Oh, he's here. DeGraff. Representative DeGraff. Excused. Duran. Duran. English. Present. Espinoza. Foray. Flannell. Froelich. Garcia. Garcia-Sander. Gilchrist. Goldstein. Representative Goldstein. Gonzalez. Hamrick. Hartsook. Representative Jackson is excused. Johnson. Joseph. Kelty. Leader. Representative Leader. Excuse. Lindsey. Rep. Lindsey. Excuse. Luck. Lukens. Mabry. Marshall. Martinez. Morrow. McCormick Wynn Pascal Phillips Richardson Ricks Routenel Representative Routenel excuse Ryden Representative Raiden is excused. Sirota. Rep. Sirota is excused. Slaw. Smith. Soper Rep Soper is excused Rep Soper is excused Stuart K Stuart R Story Sucla Taggart Titone Valdez A Representative Valdez excused Velasco Rep. Velasco excused Weinberg present Wilford Representative Wilford
Wasn't she excused?
Yes, is excused. Winter, Representative Winter. AML Winter. It's excused. Woodrow. Rep. Woodrow is excused. Woog. Zokai. And Madam Speaker.
Thank you.
Thank you.
59 present and 6 excused.
We do have a quorum. Madam Majority Leader.
I don't know. Five out of five.
We're going to fire you from this job, Madam Majority Leader.
We'll give it to someone else next week. Way to make me feel special. Madam Speaker, I move that the journal of Thursday, March 26, 2026, be approved as corrected by the chief clerk.
Members, you have heard the motion that the journal be approved as corrected by the chief clerk. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. Thank you, Madam Majority Leader. Members, we will start with any announcements or introductions.
Thank you Those who signed up get to go first Representative Phillips Thank you Madam Chair It an honor to serve with you It is an honor to serve with you. Today, coming to you live from Denver Public Schools, we welcome Northfield High School students and teachers. I presented at a conference recently for educators, and Mr. Kotcher volunteered to bring his students from the multi-intensive autism classrooms. They'll be here later, but please welcome Northfield High School students and Mr. Koccher and Ms. Olanachak to the Capitol later today.
Representative Johnson.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to rise and wish a very happy belated birthday and a huge thank you to Staff Sergeant Maurice Schaffer, who turned 100 years old. He's a World War II veteran from Logan County, and I wanted to make sure that we recognized both his service and 100 years of being a strong patriot in both Northeast Colorado and in the state as a whole. Thank you.
Wonderful.
Happy birthday.
Representative Camacho.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Dear colleagues, this announcement may be relevant to a lot of you who are still sleeping or sleepwalking. I rise today in recognition of March 13th, granted, it was a while ago, as World Sleep Day. It's established in 2008 as an international campaign to raise public awareness of sleep health and sleep disorders. Undiagnosed and untreated sleep disorders can be a link to an increased risk of accidents, anxiety, memory issues, obesity, high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, depression, and strokes, reduced quality of life in individuals. and if that list doesn't scare you, it should, so please get some more sleep. As a member of this body, I would like to publicly recognize the importance of sleep health, encourage increased education and screening for sleep disorders, and commend the efforts of those working to ensure that all Coloradans have access to effective preventive diagnosis and treatment of sleep-related conditions. So with that, happy Friday. Representative, it's nap time. Thank you.
Members, we are moving on to business. I will ask you to take your seats. Thank you. Madam Majority Leader.
Madam Speaker, I move to proceed out of order for third reading.
Seeing no objection, we will proceed out of order for third reading of bills. Madam Majority Leader.
Madam Speaker, I move to lay over Senate Bill 43 until Monday.
Seeing no objection, House Bill 43 will be laid over until Monday, March 30th. I think that's the right date. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1320.
House Bill 1320 by Representatives Wynne and Garcia, also Senator Benavidez, concerning statutory requirements for ballot title language and in connection therewith, requiring the use of accessible language and allowing for the modification of statutorily required ballot title language.
Madam Majority Leader.
Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1320 on third reading and final passage.
The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1320 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?
No, ma'am.
Representative Weinberg votes no. Representative English, how do you vote? Representative English, you are on mute. Representative English? Representative English?
Yes, can you hear me?
Yes, we can.
Thank you.
How do you vote?
I vote yes Sorry I have a bad signal Thank you Representative Ricks how do you vote Yes Representative Ricks votes yes
Garcia and Stuart R. Garcia is excused. Representative Garcia, $1 fine. Is her vote recorded? Members, this is a malfunction of our technology. Representative Garcia will be recorded as having voted yes. Please close the machine. With 43 I, 19 no, and 5 excused, House Bill 1320 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1101.
House Bill 1101 by Representatives Espinoza and Soper, also Senators Linstead and Pelton B, concerning adding criminal offenses related to critical infrastructure components to criminal offenses involving commodity metals.
Madam Majority Leader.
Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1101 on third reading and final passage.
The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1101 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?
No, ma'am.
Representative Weinberg votes no. Representative English, how do you vote?
Yes.
Representative English votes yes. Representative Ricks, how do you vote?
Representative Ricks votes yes.
Please close the machine. With 54 ayes, 7 no, and 4 excused, House Bill 1101 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1193.
House Bill 1193 by Representatives Martinez and Lindsay, also Senator Wallace, concerning Vision tests for pre-kindergarten students.
Madam Majority Leader.
Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1193 on third reading and final passage.
Representative DeGraff.
Good morning.
Good morning.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. All right. Just again for parental rights here, this was a big topic of discussion yesterday. And then going back through this, we have this vision, and I'm not opposed to the testing. I think all kids should be, you should be watching your kids. You should be watching photos. I mean, looking back on my son's photo when he's covering one eye or squinting one eye, that was a good indication that he had something that was wrong with that eye. Now he's got two good eyes, very functional, better than mine. And so I think it's important. So when we're looking at a bill, we're looking at the structure of the bill. We're not really looking, I mean, yes, there's the intent behind the bill, and I think the intent is good. But we also have the structure behind the bill, and then we also have what we're doing here in this body. And this body, we are here, again, our role is not to make the trains run on time. Our role is to make sure that we secure the rights for our constituents. And part of those rights and responsibilities are those of the family and parents. So all we asked for yesterday was just that this would be an opt-in, because anything involving the medicalization of children should be an opt-in. Because one thing we know from the state in listening to parents is that when things like art club become grooming clubs, We know that things can go off the rails. So when we want to put guardrails on something, it's not to say that we don't want to have the children tested for their vision tested. We just want to make sure we put guardrails on the actual program. So it doesn't become a grooming club called Art Club. so when we have this we have some things that i'm looking in here the vision of all children in pre-kindergarten and vision hearing in the first and second grade all children and that the sponsors were supposed to bring some amendments or had said they were going to bring some amendments that limited or defined the scope because we have the scope of according to crs 22-1-101 a public school is a school that derives its support and hold or in part from monies raised in general state county your district tax. So then these include school-based, community-based, home-based. So if they receive money in whole or in part. Community-based centers licensed by the state for preschool operation often provide full daycare. Are they exempted or are they included? Now the public school would already have these systems in place. As they've said, We have the systems. We have them in place. I don't know what the vision test entails. Probably something that we should know about if we're going to be mandating something at the state level because these do come with a cost and they do come with an incurred burden. I know this year is the year for unfunded mandates because the state is broke. The state has wildly surpassed its budget, blowing through billion of surplus and another billion of participation trophies Smart Hearing Act Federal requirements for steering the programs We have federal Head Start programs. We have steering programs. And these things are, this is a time frame when children are going to their doctor, to their pediatrician on a regular basis for regular checkups. This would be probably a better thing to have the pediatricians looking for that they are already geared for. But no, we're going to be putting this in the school, and there's always an agenda behind this, but all children pre-kindergarten, and what does that entail? And so all we asked for yesterday was a simple opt-in for parents. Not because necessarily, certainly not because, you know, it becomes a narrative where if you don't support this bill, you're for blind children. And that's just a non-starter. That's just a silly conversation. What we're talking about is refining the bill, making sure that we are representing and securing the rights of our families to be the parents of their children and not continually ceding this to the state. anything that has to do, anything beyond the state's initial charter, and this is beyond the initial charter, this is something that is beyond what parents are signed up for with their kids, then it needs their approval. Not the nanny state's approval, but the parents' approval. Not the nanny state, the parents'. There's a difference. There's a big difference. And so I am for being aware, being cognizant of the vision capabilities of your children. I am against the state stepping over its bounds because it feels like it's a good idea. It feels like it's a good intention. If a good intention was a good idea, it wouldn't need a gun. These are ultimately taxpayer-funded. They are all, you know, and when we say all, all children in pre-kindergarten shall be tested, shall make, unless they go through the efforts of proving some sort of religious or personal grounds. Then do they have to justify it or do they just have to say no? Why do they have to go find a form to opt their children out? A lot of the problems that we have in the state right now with our education system is because we have indoctrinators, because we have very good educators, but unfortunately they've been infiltrated by indoctrinators that take it on themselves to, and so that distinction needs to be made, but they take it on themselves to impose their good intentions on the children and bypass the parents. So is this bill that? No, I'm not accusing him of that. I'm just saying that we need to habituate in this part, this program, this building, that we honor the rights of families, that we honor the rights of our parents, and that we don't supersede them because we think they're good ideas. So it's not a bad idea. Yeah, I think we need to be aware of the vision capabilities of our kids because there can be some really easy things done, well, based on the plasticity of the brain to make sure that that eye is brought online or that they are able to get the glasses and that they able to read But there is a very this is at perhaps somewhere on a very slippery slope And for the sake of our parents, for the sake of that, I'll be a no vote on this. It's unfortunate because it would have been a very easy accept. and then I would suspect that maybe a few of my colleagues would not be up here joining me. So thank you. I'm voting no on behalf of the children, for the children, and I'm voting no for the parents of those children.
Representative Garcia Sender.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I spoke to this briefly yesterday, and I just want to explain again, since it's really quiet in here today. I will be a no on this, not because I don't believe in the value of vision screenings for kids in general, birth on up. Obviously, I'm a fan of glasses. But this, to me, looking at who's supporting it and who's in amend and monitor, my understanding from a lot of our small and rural schools, and what I see as having been a former school administrator is this is an unfunded mandate for schools that aren't participating, preschools that aren't participating in some of our Colorado state funded programs. And so I have concerns about that and I think a lot of our districts, our small and rural districts do also. So we know that our kids get screened in kindergarten through third, fifth, seventh and ninth grade for their vision. So I know our teachers are very cued into students' learning and reading. Our preschool teachers especially are, and they are sometimes some of the first reporters to parents, hey, I think your child has some vision issues, and this is why. There are lots of cues that they're picking up on, especially now that they do our preschool, pre-kinder readiness assessment. They are looking at some of the pieces that we didn't look at many years ago, And so our children who are in preschool programs and coming into school, there are lots of supports in place for their teachers to notice that they have vision problems. And, again, I think putting a mandate on this just becomes an unfunded mandate for rural and small schools. So I'll be a no. Thank you.
AML Winter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And that's the reason I followed the school teacher in the building is I can't say it as eloquent enough. is her. But one thing I do hear as I travel the districts is I hear that in our small rural schools a lot of times the superintendent or the teacher is also shoveling snow and driving the bus, helping serve and lunch and breakfast and at the end of the day it does cause another unfunded mandate on these schools that don't already have this program and as we see a teacher shortage in rural Colorado their jobs are already monumental and when we look at all the reporting that they have to do to see CDE and all the unfunded mandates that come on them from the building. This is just one more that's going to come on top of them. And I think that there are these safety nets, like my good colleague said from Weld County. And we just got to find a way to be able to bridge this gap. And I respect what the sponsors are trying to do, but I wanted to get up and explain why I was no vote. And the no vote is, is I think that safety net's already there for these kids. I think it's going to be caught up somewhere. And right now, our schools just can't handle the brunt of a little bit more work. so thank you.
Representative Bottoms Thank you Speaker I kind of feel for the bill sponsors here
I don't think they anticipated all of this because I think their intentions are good. They just want kids to get glasses, right, if they need them. But there's a, and I do too, But there is a bigger issue here that is consistently brought into this conversation is that this body has got a bigger part of a subject that they need to address. And that is we habitually in this room go against parental rights, parental authority. and there's no way that I think the sponsors saw that as part of this bill but but I do that this is part of a bigger picture where we maybe not this bill in a vacuum isolated but when you put it with all of the other bills that we run through this place and pass that are all part of this same subject I have consistently in this building tried to pass laws that say any kind of medical procedure of any type done on minors in the state of Colorado should have parental consent. And that is consistently, unanimously voted against by the left in this room. So when you bring a bill like this that says, hey, let's do this for a child, albeit as small, but it is a medical procedure, and there is no parental consent. And then we tried to bring an amendment yesterday that said let's add parental consent to this. That would have fixed this. I think for everybody on our side of the aisle, if you would have just added this to this, it would have fixed this. But not adding it to it gives credence to my argument that this is a bigger subject, that we take away parental authority. We take away parental rights in this building, and we will do it piece by piece by piece by piece by piece. Sometimes, I think, most of the time knowingly, maybe not this time, knowingly. But when you add all this together, we just continue to tear away. And this one is innocuous. It could have easily been added to this yesterday, but we continue to tear away at parental authority. This room is not the parental authority. this room is not in charge of children. Parents are in charge of children. But this room continuously acts like it is in charge, thinks like it is in charge, passes bills like it is in charge of children. And we have had from this dais, and in committee, people have said that when are you going to realize that your children don't belong to you, they belong to the state. Well, that's the problem. That right there is the problem, and I believe everyone on our side will continue to fight against that ideology.
I'll ask you to speak to the bill, please. Thank you.
We will continue to fight against that ideology. And when we tried to pass an amendment yesterday that did push back against that ideology, it was rejected. And so that is, to me, that is continuing to confirm what I'm saying here. Parental authority, parental rights, this bill does as a continuation a systematic cutting into that, eroding that over something that appears to be very casual and personal. that I think that we would all agree on. We want to make sure that children have their eyesight checked. Seems simple. Just tell the parents first. Just ask the parents first. Just include the parents first. And that's why I have to be a no on this. Our side strongly believes children should have their eyes checked. Nobody's arguing that. but tell the parents first and we just don't do that in this building
representative Bradley
thank you madam speaker happy Friday we've made it through another week yes I too would love to be in support of this bill I'm pretty bummed out that I even have to come up here I want you guys that don't have parents or kids in this room to understand what happens when you're preparing your kids for back to school. You know when there are pet bills being run in this building and all the emails you get, like thousands of them? That's what back to school emails look like for parents. They are buried. They are buried under millions of emails, especially when you have four kids like me. So to try to find an opt-out somewhere in there is like trying to answer constituents' questions about pet bills or gun bills. There's thousands of them. You can't get to them, and you're not going to be able to find the opt-out. Okay, so I just wanted to give you some context for the people that aren't parents in the room. Back-to-school emails are suffocating. They are hard to get through, and they're every parent's, like, worst nightmare. They're like gun bills. And opt-in is way easier for parents, and that's why we're coming up here to talk about it. We act like it's so flippant. Oh, just opt out. No. Next time, I'm going to have the bill sponsors go put, I'm going to have you do my kids' registration for school next year. Okay? So that you can go through the enormous task of what that is. Because it's not easy. It's our worst nightmare. It truly is. I have PTSD from doing it every year. Because it takes a lot of time. You can't get through it all, especially if you have multiple children. My son just graduated. I'm like, oh, my God, one down, three more to go for registration every year for school. So that's why we fight for opt-ins, you guys. We're not coming up here filibustering. This is ridiculous. Let parents opt in if they want to do vision screening. We're not against screening kids for vision problems. I have horrible vision problems. You don't want to be on the road with me if I don't have my contacts done. I just there was an amendment there was an amendment to keep us from talking to just give parents the rights to opt in to a vision test and I want to talk about and I did talk about this on seconds but it's hard to hear in here and we're not paying attention 10,000 kids in a single year have dropped out of public schools that's a 1.2 percent decline in enrollment And what has gone up? Homeschooling has gone up in the state 5.5%. Online schooling in the state has gone up 2.9%. And you can argue why that is. I will argue why homeschooling has gone up in Douglas County because of things like this. Parents are sick of it. Parents are sick of their rights being usurped, even for vision tests. They are drawing a line in the sand They are brave this moment We are tired of you guys legislating mandates on what happens to our kids I personally am not going to have my kids eyes checked at school. I love my optometrist. I don't want a mandate. I don't want thousands of kids being seen by someone I don't know, I don't necessarily trust. I love my optometrist. I picked a job where I have good vision insurance. I go to Dr. Vervey. I love her. She's seen my kids for forever. So what does that equate to? A 1.2% decline in enrollment. $11,800 per child is what we get in the state. That's $118 million per year, state formula only. The full funding picture, let's say 10,000 students times 19,000, if we're looking at the full funding picture, that's $200 million a year. Are you guys aware of the fiscal crisis we're in? The Denver Post is. The Denver Gazette is. I mean, are we just going to continue to kick the can down the road like kids with a blank debit card? $198 million per year, despite fewer students, our total K-12 funding is still $10 billion statewide. So how many parents need to pull their kids out of schools in Colorado? Because every time I post something like this, the parents say statewide, pull your children from public education in Colorado until the nonsense stops. and we offered a fair amendment and we just are like scoffed on parental rights, whatever. What are we doing? It's an amendment to opt in, to let parents have that choice that's not buried in email after email. We're supposed to be working bipartisan and we offered an amendment. We weren't striking the bill. We were just saying, let parents opt in. I understand that the word parent is broad sometimes, but just opt us in. We continue to attack parental rights. We're going to continue to have people pull their children out of schools to the rate of $200 million per year in this state. I think next year will probably be $300 million. And our fiscal crisis will continue because we won't listen to the constituents telling you to stop the attack on parental rights. I don't care if it's a vision test. I don't care if it's medical procedures. The parents are coming to the table. The Supreme Courts are ruling in our favor. And Colorado will continue to lose their funding. Vote no on this bill. Thank you.
Representative Kelty.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I do agree with my colleagues. We've heard at least this morning five times, well, from five individuals, that this was an unfunded mandate. One of them was a teacher, or is a teacher, and was a principal of a school. And even she is saying this is an unfunded mandate. And we heard it dozens of times yesterday, but it felt like it was on deaf ears. Parents should be able to opt in when a school is trying to do a medical procedure on their child It shouldn't be an opt-out, it shouldn't be an automatic that a school is trying to do medical procedures. Yes, vision and hearing tests are medical procedures on a child. So the opt-in, the amendment that we brought to you, should have been accepted. I don't know why it wasn't accepted. I think it's unacceptable that it wasn't accepted. And one of the things with this bill, and I don't think I remember hearing anyone mention it, but it doesn't carve out, when you're talking about having his kids checked, it doesn't carve out the kids who already have glasses. It doesn't carve out for kids who already have hearing aids. It says in the bill, all children must. Well, if they already have glasses and they already have hearing aids, then why in God's name does a school even have to do it for all children? They've obviously been to their doctors. They've obviously already had the care that they need for their hearing and their vision. They don't need to also be checked or double-checked, triple-checked by the school. You think the school is going to know more than their own doctors and optometrists? No. but there's no carve out for that. So let's spend more money on doing kids who definitely don't need it. On top of this, doing these kind of things in school, I remember when I was young, not so long ago, they had a test for lice in our school. And they went through kid by kid, pulled us into the hallway, checking for lice because one kid, his name was TJ, had lice in class. And I tell you what right now, that gave a huge stigma to every kid that had to have their head checked just because they sat within a perimeter of TJ. All the kids are scared to play with you now, scared to do anything with you. It gives stigma. I myself, and I will say it right now, most of you know it, I have a hearing impairment. Even I am embarrassed of that. I have a stigma from that. I won't wear special devices. I won't do that kind of stuff because it embarrasses me. So when you bring kids, little children, I'm an adult. You bring little children who can't process those emotions, think about what that does to them. So I'm asking you to just vote no on this because, honestly, it's not covering everything it should and shouldn't. Amendments weren't accepted. It's not a great bill, and we should be concentrating on putting great laws through here, not ones that are not. I'm asking for a no vote. Thank you.
Representative Martinez.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's an honor to serve with you. It is an honor to serve with you. Thank you, members. and my colleagues from the other side of the aisle to bring all of the discussion around this bill. I want to also frame this in a different light and really why we're bringing this bill forward. When I was born, I had a very well-known eye problem when I was born. And my mother knew about it and I had to get surgery on my eye before I was one year old And so for the remainder of my life obviously I had to wear glasses I had to have a patch on my other eye, 80s callback. But, you know, that like my mother knew that that was there because of what was going on when I was at a very young age. and was able to get me the help that I needed in that moment and being able to make sure that I had all the eye envision screenings that I had. That being said, there are parents that if you haven't had eye problems, if you don't wear glasses, if you don't understand what it looks like, you may not realize that your child has that problem. You may not understand that they may be struggling to see. Maybe the kid is sitting closer to the table or to the TV. Maybe they're having the book close up when they're reading. Maybe they're struggling to read or not understanding. All of those things are in there. And again, if you haven't had that experience, you may not even understand that that is a possibility or reality. What this bill does, House Bill 1193, is it just bumps up the screening that we're already doing from kindergarten, and we're bumping it up a year. and saying we are going to get professionals to come in to provide the screening on this and making sure that in a method that they understand best to being able to identify these problems and being able to give that back to the parents to make that decision for their children to being able to help get them the help that they need in assistance. All of the statistics show that if we can identify these problems earlier, then that means that kids aren't falling behind in school, they are successful, and ultimately you can address a medical issue if there is a serious medical problem on there to making sure that they don't have any worse problems later on in life. Losing vision, having to go through other medical procedures. So I want to frame this around what this bill is. This is a screening. This is having a professional person coming in to do a screening for these children to ensure that they are set up for success and making sure that other medical issues are addressed and then letting the parents be able to handle what is best for their children. An aye vote on this is a vote to making sure that we can do that and being able to help out our children, not just today, but for the rest of their lives. Vote aye.
Representative DeGraff, this is your second time to speak. You have two minutes and six seconds remaining. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Again, we're not opposed to the vision screening. I'm opposed to bringing professionals in in an unfunded mandate for schools, especially talking to colleagues that some of these fall outside these districts. We are against bringing in professionals. Who are these professionals? We don't know. We haven't been told. They haven't been vetted by us. We do this in this body, and we turn these things loose to nonprofit organizations, non-audited government organizations, and we say, go do this. What we're saying is we're going to put an unfunded mandate out there to put your children in front of professionals, ostensibly there for their eyes, etc., And what we want is we want all we've asked for is parental involvement. We've asked for parental involvement so the parents can say yes. The parents then could say, I, I would like my kids' eyes checked. But now they don't have that option. They have to go through, they have to comb through everything, they have to figure that this is going to happen, and then they have to jump through the hoops to do that. What we ask for, we're not opposed to having kids' vision checked. We're opposed to unfunded mandates. We're opposed to medicalization of any kind, and this falls in that category. So if it falls in the category of medicalization, then we need to have the parents involved. We need to have this put before the parents. We need to habituate the idea that parents opt their children in. Otherwise, we'll see the parents continue to opt their children out of public school, which I think is probably their safest bet. And it is for reasons like this.
Representative DeGraff, you have 15 seconds remaining.
Vote no for the ayes. Vote yes for the ayes. Vote no for this bill.
Representative Lindsay.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's an honor to serve with you. It is an honor to serve with you. Oh, thank you to my co-prime. because I'm a shorty. I just, I wanted to finish up the discussion on this because I am quite surprised at the lengthy debate, but I welcome it on thirds. I just want to say one of the things I do have in common with my colleague from Douglas County is the four kids. I think we all have done the registration. I am in the same boat. Like I said yesterday, one of my favorite things about having all of my kids grown is that I never have to fill out all those 5 million forms again, which are lengthy and you do go through everything and you are given all of the information about what your kids are going to be going through and you can sign it or you cannot sign it and I would argue that it is much easier to do that there and to opt out than to require every parent to opt in that is a nightmare for the school trying to collect all these five gazillion informs when in statute we already have it that schools are required to do this and you can opt out for religious or personal reasons. I also want to say yesterday I put up a picture of my son. It's really important that we are making sure that children can see. It's one of our most vital senses. The earlier you catch it, the better. It impacts their learning if they go into kindergarten and are not able to see well. So we are just adding an additional age to this so that we can catch it earlier. So by the time they are in kindergarten, they are rocking it with those letters and that alphabet and reading Dr. Seuss and anything else because that's so foundational to every other year of learning. And I also appreciate a lot of people are taking their kids to get screenings earlier. Great. That is awesome. There are a lot of kids who don't have access to that. And so this is a way for every kid to be on kind of a level playing field of when they go to school, they can get their eyes checked. It's a very basic thing. I appreciate all the conversation. But with that, I would ask for an aye vote.
Representative Martinez, this is your second time to speak. You have six minutes, 38 seconds remaining.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. This will be quick. I requesting an aye vote for the children Seeing no further discussion the motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1139 on third reading and final passage
Sorry, 1193. Apparently I can't see. Oh, touche. The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1193 on third reading and final passage.
Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote.
Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?
No, ma'am.
Representative Weinberg votes no. Representative English, how do you vote?
Yes.
Representative English votes yes. Representative Ricks, how do you vote?
Yes.
Representative Ricks votes yes. Please close the machine. With 40 aye, 22 no, and 3 excused, House Bill 1193 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine.
Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 118. Senate Bill 118 by Senators Coleman and Simpson, also Representative Clifford,
concerning the payment of designated benefits to a charitable organization upon the death of a donor.
Madam Majority Leader.
Madam Speaker, I move House Senate Bill 118 on third reading and final passage. The motion before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 118 on third reading, final passage.
Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote.
Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?
No, ma'am.
Representative Weinberg votes no. Representative English, how do you vote?
Yes.
Representative English votes yes. Representative Ricks, how do you vote?
Yes.
Representative Ricks votes yes. please close the machine with 54 I 8 no 3 excused Senate Bill 118 is adopted co-sponsors Please close the machine.
Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1210. House Bill 1210 by Representatives Bacon and Mabry, also Senators Weissman and Judah, concerning limiting the use of intimate personal data to make inferences that impact a person's financial position.
Madam Majority Leader.
Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1210 on third reading and final passage. The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1210 on third reading and final passage.
Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote.
Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?
No, ma'am.
Representative Weinberg votes no. Representative English, how do you vote?
Yes.
Representative English votes yes. Representative Ricks, how do you vote?
Yes.
Representative Ricks votes yes. Please close the machine With 39 I 24 no and 2 excused House Bill 1210 is adopted Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Representatives Brown, Sirota, and Taggart are excused at such time as necessary for the Joint Budget Committee meeting.
Madam Majority Leader.
Madam Speaker, I move for House Bill 1195 to be removed from the special orders calendar and placed back on the general orders second reading calendar. Seeing no objection, House Bill 1195 will be removed from Special Orders and returned to General Orders Calendar.
Madam Majority Leader.
Madam Speaker, I move to add the following bills to the Special Orders Calendar on March 27, 2026 at 9.59 a.m., House Bill 1302 and Senate Bill 77. Seeing no objection, the bills listed by the majority leader will be added to the special orders calendar today, March 27th at 9.59 a.m.
Representative Lindsay.
Members, you have heard the motion. Seeing no objection, Representative Lindsay will take the chair. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We're good? We're good?
The committee will come to order. With your unanimous consent, the bills will be read by title unless there is a request for reading a bill at length. Committee reports are printed and in your bill folders. Floor amendments will be shown on the screen, on iLegislate, and in today's folder on your box account. Bills will be laid over upon motion of the majority leader, and the coat rule is relaxed.
Majority Leader Duran.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I move House Bill 1302 and the State Civic, Military, and Veterans Committee report. I withdraw that motion. Thank you.
Thank you. Sorry.
Majority Leader Duran.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I move House Bill 1302 and Senate Bill 77 to the beginning of the special orders calendar.
If there is no objection, we're going to move House Bill 1302 and Senate Bill 77 to the beginning of the calendar.
Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to HB 1302. House Bill 1302 by Representatives Duran and Hartsook concerning the Colorado Bureau of Investigations, Firearms, Background Check, Operating Hours.
Majority Leader Duran.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1302 and the State Civic, Military, and Veterans Committee report. To the committee report. In committee, we ran an amendment to add clarity to the process once there is a submission.
And with that, I move L003 and ask for it to be properly displayed.
Do you have three?
I never got anything from...
Let me...
The amendment is properly displayed.
Please proceed.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
This amendment adds clarity that many committee members ask for in committee,
and it tweaks some of the language from L002 to make it more comprehensive and I ask for a yes vote Is there any discussion on this amendment Oh well okay sorry her hand was up first but
Representative Hartzock. Thank you, Madam Chair. As was just stated here on this amendment on L3,
there were issues that were brought up. There also was an amendment that was talked about,
so what it specifies the bureau shall immediately place in the processing queue and that was a question that was brought up for clarification so we did that for a background check regardless of wedding time requirements these were issues that were brought up so we specify crystal clear in this amendment of what that will happen we request an aye vote
is there any further discussion on this amendment representative luck
Thank you, Madam Chair.
No, I didn't want to move it with your stuff on there.
So I sat in committee on this particular bill, and I did ask for three amendments. I identified three particular areas of concern for me, and I do appreciate that the bill sponsors are, I believe, trying to respond to some of those issues. I fear I can't support this particular language because I don't think it does what we actually were trying to address. And I'm just going to go through each of these paragraphs in sequential order so that I explain why that is. If you take the, thankfully, this amendment is clear insofar as all we have to look at is the paragraph that is on the committee report. That paragraph reads, Christmas Day, notwithstanding unforeseen and unavoidable background check system outages. What is it that we are actually trying to accomplish here in this amendment? Well, if you poll the bill, you will note that in the initially, sorry, I have a lot of information on this bill. So in the introduced version, there was a desire to give CBI flexibility in when they were open and when they were processing through. And to give their team that ability to decide what is best hours. And there's a reasonableness to that because let's just take a look at this. Prior to the three-day waiting period, CBI had the requirement to be open from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. every day of the year, except for two, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. And they were required to be processing all of the background check requests that came in during that time. And if I remember correctly, they said that they had about a seven-minute turnaround time. So basically, it was an InstaCheck system. that was very useful when you were working in an environment where you could walk into a gun store do the background check and walk out with the firearm But once that three waiting period was passed no one can now walk into a Colorado gun store and immediately walk out with the purchased firearm. They have to, obviously, wait three days. And so then when that request comes in, obviously it's not as essential to get done within a short period of time because there are three days. the three-day waiting period bill that was passed a couple years ago stipulated that when a gun store initiated the request the three-day period began the time frame started you didn't have to wait three days after the background check was completed the minute that that background check was initiated the three-day period started. And so, so long as someone could initiate the request, they could then tell their customer, hey, the request has been initiated, you've purchased your gun, you're good to go, right? We'll call you in three days and we'll let you know. And maybe we'll call you earlier if there's some issue with your particular background check, but by and large, you know, we don't see that. When you couple that particular three-day waiting period with all of the other restrictions that have been put on firearms, firearm dealers over the last number of years, what you find is a diminishing number of background checks requested by substantial numbers. And the department that processes these background checks is funded by the background check fee. They don't receive general funds. It's a cash fund. And so when an individual goes in to purchase a firearm, they have to pay the cost of the background check. CBI is saying because we have an ever-decreasing number of people requesting for these background checks, we are looking to be insolvent by next year because we don't have the dollars coming in to sustain the staff required to meet the 9-to-9 commitment. And so we're either going to have to adjust our operating hours or we're going to have to charge a higher fee to the people when they come and purchase a firearm. And so the introduced bill was seeking to address that so as to lessen the likelihood of an increase in fees to the purchaser by giving greater freedom to CBI to determine when they are there to run these checks. But the language that was presented in the introduced bill created a lot of consternation within the 2A community because there was concern that CBI, if they weren't specifically told they had to work for at least 12 hours every day and only that they got to determine when their hours were open, that people would find themselves unable to request the background check and therefore their three days could become four days or six days. if they went into a gun store on a Friday Friday evening, after the business hours that CBI chose and asked for a background check, there was concern that they would have to wait until Monday morning for that request to be received, which means their three days wouldn't start until Monday morning, when it otherwise could have started at 7 o'clock on Friday. And so the bill sponsors brought this amendment to try to thread the needle. This was the amendment in House Committee. And in that amendment, they laid out that during the hours when CBI is open, they have to immediately process whatever comes in. But that they don't have to be open that full time. Instead, what they need to do is create some mechanism whereby the FFLs can request for a background check to be reviewed, right? They can initiate it, thereby starting their three-day period from 9 to 9. Except for the fact that, of course, we're continuing with the current policy, which says that you don't have to have that on Christmas or Thanksgiving Day, that option. and that their intention was to say that also in the event that the system went down. In this amendment that's proposed here, this first part, process during business hours, is being struck, which means that that first part of their amendment, that the Bureau shall immediately begin to process whatever comes in while they're at work, shifts to they need to be put into a queue, which I think actually exacerbates some of the issues that were brought forth in committee because there was concern that they wouldn't be processed immediately, as is currently done. The second section of this seeks, I think, to address the conversation we had around making this submission process open for 24 hours instead of just these 12. When we were discussing, what we were envisioning is something like a portal, right, or a process by which those applications can come in and then, you know, a button is clicked that doesn't allow for that during 9 p.m. to 9 a.m. And our argument was, well, if they're able to receive them from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., why click the button to say that you can't receive them from 9 p.m. to 9 a.m.? Why not just allow it to be a 24-hour portal, for lack of a better word, a submission opportunity? And CBI said, you know what, we actually want to walk in that way. We've actually been talking about that. We actually desire for that to happen. And so they seemed to be on board with it. And I think that's what the bill and amendment sponsors are trying to address with this second section, lines 5 and 6, because what they are striking is the language at a minimum from 9 a.m. until 9 p.m. The concern that I have about that language though is the way the sentence reads it would be the Bureau shall allow the submission of a background check request every day of the year except Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day Well, what does that mean, every day? So if you're only open for an hour or two, did you meet that? Because you were open every day, you allowed it every day, but from what time to what time? So I don't know that that actually is precise enough to imply or attack what we were trying to accomplish. And then this last section, line 7 through 10, where it says, pursuant to section 18-12-115-1A1, which is the three-day waiting period section, the three-day waiting period to deliver a firearm to a purchaser begins when a licensed gun dealer initiates a background check of the purchaser. And really, that language is redundant. It's already in this other section of statute. That's already very clearly laid out in the act that was passed to have the three-day waiting period. And so I don't, I can't get behind what is presented here, though, like I said, I appreciate that the bill sponsors were trying to address some of the concerns that were raised in committee. And so I am going to present another amendment that I think cleans this.
You want this is a substitute?
Okay.
Well, I will do that in a minute because I am being asked to allow for additional conversations. Representative Bradley.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the good representative from Fremont County.
we brought up a lot of specifics regarding this amendment in regards to the outages and so
we heard a lot of testimony from the second amendment community about specifically the outages and a lot of people brought up what happened in Nevada and in Nevada for all of you listening Nevada's Brady point of contact firearms program was crippled by a cyber attack on August 24, 2025, halting most gun sales for over three weeks. Your Second Amendment right to buy a firearm was halted by a cyber attack for over three weeks. The system, which handles state-level background checks, just like CBI here, was restored three weeks later, September 14, 2025. Significant backlogs and transaction delays were reported following the outage. So it didn't even just stop everyone for three weeks from owning guns it then backlog the system so if something like that happens in colorado and we've carved out outages for the cbi and it goes on for three weeks then the backlog of not having sufficient staffing then could go on for we don't even know how long the duration the system was largely offline for from octo excuse me august 24 2025 until being restored on Sunday, September 14th. Cause was a cyber attack on state systems affected the Nevada Criminal Justice Information System and the Civil Name Check Program impact on cells. As a point of contact, state Nevada processes its own checks rather than using the FBI. Welcome, CBI. The outage meant legal licensed gun transfers, FFLs, could not be completed. So carving outages out hello FFLs this will happen to you In the aftermath following restoration the system experienced extreme demand causing continued though decreasing delays due to the massive backlog of applications. So we're carving out outages. So for three weeks, people couldn't go through their criminal background checks. FFLs couldn't do business for three whole weeks. and then we're decreasing the staffing and so then there's a backlog to it. So let's see if Colorado has had any cyber attacks. Yes, Colorado has experienced several significant cyber attacks across various departments and critical infrastructure in recent years. Most notably, a November 2025 cyber attack on third-party emergency alert vendor severely impacted dozens of local law enforcement agencies across the state. Emergency alert systems in November 2025, a cyber attack on the Code Red emergency alert platform owned by Crisis24, took the system offline for several weeks. Law enforcement in Douglas County, Weld County, and the city of Aurora reported being unable to send critical alerts for fires and shelter-in-place orders. Hackers reportedly stole user data, including names, addresses, and passwords. Office of the State Public Defender in February 2024, a ransomware attack forced the agency to shut down its entire statewide computer network. This incident sidelined public defense activities, blocked access to case files, and exposed personal client information. Colorado Gov Web Portal, a cyber attack claimed by an anonymous foreign actor, took the state's main homepage offline for several days. While other state services remained online, the portal's homepage was replaced with a temporary page to direct users. Department of Higher Education, a highly sophisticated data breach targeted the department, leading to massive exposure of personal data and potential permanent loss of some records. All four of my children's information was leaked in that one. Department of Transportation, CDOT was hit by two successive SAMSAM ransomware attacks that crippled its computer systems. The state refused to pay the ransom and successfully recovered using offline backups. A January 2026 state audit of the Governor's Office of Information Technology identified 85 new security deficiencies, many classified as material weaknesses. So we were just asking that you don't carve out outages so that people's constitutional rights are always protected with a 24-hour system and some sort of backup plan. These are our constitutional rights. And if we, in the state of Colorado, continue to be hit with cyber attacks on different departments, I just quoted five different departments in the state of Colorado who have had cyber attacks, then we should make sure that our second amendment rights are always protected maintain a 24-hour system that's what cbi talked about wanting and make sure you have a backup system in case there is an outage so that people can maintain their god-given constitutional rights and ffls are not sabotaged for three weeks like nevada ffls were up until six weeks when the backlog was able to be restored. Don't carve this out. Don't give them any reason to not allow the people of Colorado to get their checks done and the FFLs to operate There got to be a better way than this amendment and I sure we will hear some Thank you
Is there any representative?
Thank you, Chair. So the Nevada example was already given, so I don't have to restate that, but I do want to address some of the things that actually happened in committee and how we were discussing this. The outages is a major problem from my perspective. And with the example of the Nevada group being given, I've had a handful of people say to me, well, this is the government. They're going to have problems. They're going to have slowdowns. They're going to have outages and things like that. I'm not denying that. What I'm saying is that doesn't make it okay. That doesn't make it as an excuse or escapable for that reason. The CBI did, in the discussion in the committee, the CBI did say that they would be open to a 24-hour portal, that you could do this, that the actual language of the bill that says immediately could actually be accomplished right now with these carve-outs, with even some of the staffing issue, but specifically this carve-out, you cannot guarantee it immediately. You can guarantee it immediately when they get back to the office or when the computers come back online. That's part of the problem with the language of the bill. But why would we carve out a government group just because we know they probably are going to have some problems. Well, we discussed that. There was somebody that came up and testified that gave a bunch of ways to accomplish that, that you could have the 24-hour portal. You could have Rick's taking care of this. You could move it to one direction or another. CBI bragged on the fact that they have a better background check system than the FBI does. But this is not a moment for territorialism in this context. That's when you could easily, CBI could easily say, if we have an outage, these are the things that we will do. We will defer it to the FBI. We will automatically go online with a different system that is a backup system. We could use a different state system. There's all kinds of things we can do. but in committee the answer was no we'll just deal with the outage we'll just deal with it well how long is that outage going to take what if it's a hack how long is this going to take are we still going to try to do it when we realize hey this outage is due to a hack do we just continue to go there with allowing people's record to be taken there's so many problems with this carve out that this carve out takes an idea that seems to be maybe a legitimate idea and turns it into a very bad bill that has very controlling leanings to it, that this is not about the safety of the citizens, not about the safety of the FFLs, not about the safety of gun buyers, any of those kind of things. This is a carve-out that says, if somebody nefariously wanted to do something, we're going to make that okay. and we're not going to hold CBI accountable, any of these things. And by the way, CBI was okay with changing some of this and trying to figure out a way to accomplish what we were saying without these carve-outs. So this is not totally at the feet of the CBI. This is at the feet of the originators of the bill. We need to take this language out. We need to say no to this amendment. We need to stop with the carve-out for these outages. And then we need to put this back in CBI's lap and say, when something happens, what are you going to do? How are you going to fix this? How are you going to protect the people, protect their information, protect their rights, and still give them the opportunity to start that process, that three-day process, which is already unconstitutional, and now we're going to start that three-day process right now because we have taken care of these back up or maybe built in some redundancy or something like that. None of that's included. This is a very bad amendment and it needs to be struck down as well as that section of the bill and while we're at it, just strike the whole bill down.
Is there any further discussion on
Representative Luck?
Thank you, Madam Chair. So now I
am going to move the amendment that I had given a little bit of a teaser on before. So I move amendment L005 and ask that it be displayed.
As a substitute amendment. The amendment is properly displayed. Please proceed.
Thank you, Madam Chair. This substitute amendment hones in on lines five and six of the underlying amendment, which seeks to strike the phrase at a minimum from 9 a.m. until 9 p.m. And as I mentioned before, leave the bill to read. The Bureau shall allow the submission of a background check request every day of the year except Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. In the current state affairs report, there is an understanding that CBI has to allow for these submissions to take place for a 12-hour period every day. By striking that language, it opens the door for CBI to decide what it looks like to allow for the submission every day? What does that look like? Is that every day during our business hours? Is that every day for two hours before our business hours and two hours after our business hours? What does that mean? Does it mean for five minutes a day you open it? It's not clear. It's not precise. And since that's one of the issues that the 2A community brought, that the amendment in State Affairs Committee was seeking to address, striking that language makes the conversation go back a few steps and makes the bill, I believe, worse. And so I proposing that instead of striking that language entirely and instead of keeping the State Affairs Committee report as a 9 that we substitute it in light of what the committee was discussing and make it a 24 submission opportunity The option B for 24 hours every day. This is a time when CBI is not having to man that. It's just allowing for the requests to come in. Now, my view on this is supported by the idea that sorry, I'm just trying to get some documents out here supported by the idea that if CBI is comfortable that it has the technology to allow for submissions for a 12-hour period then presumably that technology can continue to exist for the other 12-hour period such that the technology can continue to receive those submissions for a 24-hour period. Now, I anticipate that one of the concerns CBI might have is what happens when we open this portal for a period longer than this 12 hours that we're used to, and we get a barrage of background check requests at, say, 7 in the morning. Will we be able to keep up on that? I suspect that's really the only, I mean, I would be open to have a conversation about what other issues they could foresee. But if they get the tech worked out, then I can only imagine one other area of issue, which is, well, if we allow it for this additional 12 hours, then we have 24 hours of requests coming through in a given time, and what if we can't keep up? But then that goes back to the underlying issue that's driving this entire conversation, which is background checks on a whole are going down substantially year over year, such that they do not have the dollars they need in order to actually pay the staff to work the amount of time that statute currently prescribes. And so it stands to reason that if they've seen such a diminishment, such that they have to reduce their staffing, that more than likely they are not going to get such a barrage between the hours of 9 p.m. and 9 a.m. that they can't keep up and get those processed through within three days of each submission. I would say, sorry, I know there is a total here, but we're talking in the millions, the millions of background checks that are not being seen over the last couple of years that used to be seen. And I will continue to look for that particular page, but I think it used to be something like 5 million, 6 million applications a year, and now we're down to something like 2.5 million, 3 million, somewhere there. And so presumably if they were able to process those kinds of things they should still be able to do that And so I don know that there is any reason why we shouldn allow them in statute to have this 24 expectation especially when they were open to it And so for that reason
I ask for an aye vote. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Majority Leader
Duran. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to my colleague for bringing this. And I must say, we are not comfortable putting something in statute that's going to require a 24-hour because it hasn't been tested. But what I do want to acknowledge and make sure that the chamber hears is that CBI is going to be doing kind of an announcement and a test for seven days, 24 hours. They're going to see how the system will work going 24 hours a day. And I think that's great because if there's any issues or concerns or glitches, this will make them aware of what they are, and then they can work to fix those. And if that's the case, my hope is that if that works really well, then that's going to be something that becomes the new norm. So they are going to be conducting a test, which I am very supportive of, and I'd rather see that test done in that trial before we put something in statute. So I would ask for a no vote. Thank you.
Is there any further discussion?
Representative Bradley. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the bill sponsor for explaining that. I think it would be nice if CBI would have done that before this bill came forward. We know that the NICS system is used in 31 states and can be used 19 hours a day. It saves a lot of money. We heard from a lot of testimony that this is a safe way. It jumps through three different hoops and catches a lot of different things. You know, I wish CBI had jumped on this because they know that Second Amendment rights have been the subject of a lot of gun control in our state. And it would have been nice had they talked about 24-hour-a-day background checks to come up with a game plan against outages and things like that before this bill came through. Thank you.
Is there any further discussion on this amendment? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L5. Those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Those opposed, no.
No.
The amendment fails. To Amendment L3.
Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I have another amendment that curiously, because of a word that is shared between both, I need to run here in order to, on this amendment to the committee report, in order to avoid a settled question. And so I move amendment L006 as a substitute amendment to L003 and ask that it be displayed. The amendment is properly displayed. Please proceed. Thank you Madam Chair All right so we back to the pretty green paper There at the very end of the amendment lines 10 through 12 read the words Notwithstanding Unforeseen and Unavoidable Background Check System Outages. Normally, notwithstanding clauses are at the beginning of the phraseology, but because of construction, it makes sense that it would have to be at the end. And so if we read it in the way that we would normally read it, It says, notwithstanding unforeseen and unavoidable background check system outages, the Bureau shall allow the submission of a background check request. Now, there was a bit of confusion about this because some of us on the committee read notwithstanding to mean in spite of, right? Even in spite of unforeseen and unavoidable background check system outages, CBI still must allow for the submission of a background check request. But as we talked in committee more and more and more, it became clear that that was not the bill sponsor's intent or the drafter of the amendment's intent. It's my understanding that's a separate group. And so we came to understand that the purpose of this clause is to say that in the event there is an unforeseen and unavoidable background check outage, that CBI does not have to allow for this submission. And it was discussed by some opponents of this bill and this amendment that that's concerning because in other states there have been such outages that have prevented people from being able to acquire these checks. And so what happens then? Should we actually relieve them of that responsibility in this way? And so the amendment that I'm proposing strikes that language. it leaves it blank. It's silent. And I'm doing that because I think that there are some instances where it makes sense that CBI not be responsible for such outages. An EMP strike, for instance, takes down all electronics. I don't think CBI should be responsible for that. OIT, not ensuring security system, it's probably unforeseen and unavoidable to CBI. But should the government not be responsible in that instance? and so I'm just asking for that to be struck such that it becomes a factual question in the event that it occurs and someone is deprived their ability to access their firearm within the three day period because the system goes down at that point it becomes a question of fact to a court to decide was that appropriate or not was that an infringement or not and so I ask for an I vote. Representative Bradley. Thank you, Madam Chair. And this is what I came up originally to speak of. So I just looked up notwithstanding, because I'm not a lawyer. I don't pretend to be one. I don't play one on TV. It is something that it signals that something is true, even though there's a conflicting factor. Examples, notwithstanding the rain, the event continued. The event continues despite the rain. Notwithstanding his lack of experience, he was hired. He was hired even though he lacked experience in legal or legislative use. Notwithstanding, it is especially common in statutes and bills. It means the provision over... provides or applies regardless of other laws or sections. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, this rule applies even if other laws say something different. It takes priority. And so I rise in support of this amendment. We just, you heard me talk, those of you that were actually listening. I'll come back on third. It's not a big deal. That the Nevada outage lasted for three weeks so ffls could not do business for three weeks and people couldn't get background checks for their constitutional god-given rights for three weeks and then because they were so backed up the nevada bureau of investigation then had to have extra staff to go forward after the outage and now we're going to limit the staffing so if there is an outage, they're going to be carved out. And then we know they're not going to have the staffing because they've lost seven full-time equivalents and had to maintain staffing. So the bill is needed for the flexibility of cost differential for staffing. So if there is an outage that we're now carving out in this bill, we've lost the staffing. So if there's a three-week outage like Nevada, and then we have a backup because of the outage, now we don't have the staffing to give you the background checks to get the FFLs up and running again so everything pauses. So there's no backup plan and now we've carved out to allow for the outages to happen with no transparency or accountability. The least we can do is make CBI be accountable and have a backup plan for our constitutional rights and for the FFLs in our state that are trying to operate after being strangled by regulations and mandates against them. This is a very good amendment. I urge strong support of this amendment for our constitutional rights. Thank you.
Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of L6. All those in favor say aye.
Aye.
All those opposed, no.
No.
The amendment fails. To Amendment L3.
Is there any further representative luck? Thank you, Madam Chair. So again, I appreciate that the bill sponsors were trying to address what they understood to be the issues raised in committee. I rise in opposition to this amendment even still because I think it makes what was done in state affairs worse. I don't think that this actually addresses what we were asking for, and I would prefer for the underlying State Affairs Committee report to continue to be what it is. I do really appreciate that they were trying. I just can't get there with what has happened, and I would rather it stay the same than try to fix it in this way, and so I ask for a no vote.
Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of L3 to the committee report. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The amendment is adopted. To the State Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee report.
She just said to the real. Did L3 strike the camera?
Nope.
10 minutes 10 minutes No it okay Well we need to I move amendment L007 and ask that it be displayed Thank you. place in the event that the courts strike down the three-day waiting period. There are two sections, Section D and Section E. Section E outlines that if the courts find that the three-day waiting period is unconstitutional and strikes it down, at that point it triggers the effectiveness of Section D, meaning Section D will not apply unless and until the courts strike all of this down. Which means that really if there is a belief that the three-day waiting period is constitutional and good to go, that Section D will never actually apply. but in the event that we no longer need to wait three days to walk out with a firearm then the bureau needs to revert back to its current practice of being open and able to process background requests from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. every day except for Easter or sorry that's another conversation Christmas and Thanksgiving those days and so I ask for an aye vote
is there any further discussion seeing none the question before us is the adoption of L7 those in favor say aye those opposed no the amendment fails to the committee report Representative DeGraff
thank you Madam Chair So we have an affix to this. We have an amendment, so I'm just going to speak to it now. And instead of going to the bill, they've just discovered that it needs to go to the committee report, so I'll be moving it to the committee report once it's changed from the bill to the committee report. Not yet. So what we're looking at, but because it talks about the same language as the committee report. So it's kind of a, it's just kind of a little, but even though it's in the bill. So when we go to amended bill, page two, line 20, amended bill, page two, line 20, that is going to be strike 7B, 4A, and substitute A and add 7C. And 7C what 7C will say is not the 7Cs but just 7C We be honored before January 15th of each year the Bureau shall submit a report to the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee or their successor committees detailing average background check processing times, any significant changes to operating hours, system outages or disruptions that resulted in the Bureau's inability to have submissions accepted, and any steps taken to improve access and efficiency. And basically, if something's going to be important, you're going to you need to create a metric to to track it to to say why because we want to ensure that colorado law operates within the clear constitutional framework set under the supreme court in bruin the court made unmistakably clear that the government may not burden the right to keep and bear arms unless it can demonstrate that such a burden is consistent with the nation's historic tradition in firearm regulation, which until we decided to start legislating total utopia, has not been. Of course, as we've legislated more and more gun control, crime has increased. So that's a whole different correlation. The right in Heller and applied to the states in McDonald is not merely theoretical. It is the right of law-abiding citizens to acquire and possess firearm for lawful purposes. If the state imposes unnecessarily prolonged delays in that process, the right itself is burdened. So because this bill is imposing or repairing, because we have this CBI in the middle, what we're talking about is a possible delay and a possible violation of somebody's rights. So this is to allow the Bureau to submit a report to the representatives of judiciary, because we're talking about the Second Amendment Act, because normally in the smart hearing, CBI talks to finance. One of the – that they go and talk to finance. But we have several organizations that talk to multiple committees. And so this one, of course, because it's dealing with the Second Amendment, it's entirely appropriate for them to also make a report to this committee. This amendment ensures that the background checks are processed without undue delay and as expeditiously as possible. It does not eliminate the background checks. Love to do that. It does not undermine public safety. It simply ensures that once a citizen has submitted to the lawful process, presuming a lawful process, I should say, let me correct that. not necessarily a lawful process, but the process of the law, the government fulfills its obligation in a timely manner. So we are going to... At some point, this will show up. So importantly, the amendment is reasonable. It allows the delays in cases, incomplete information, verified system outages. So what this again what this amendment does is it allows the CBI to answer for any delay And without it we risk creating a system where the timeline for exercising a fundamental right is not dictated by law but by bureaucracy And that is precisely the kind of modern regulatory burden that Bruin prohibits. A constitutional right cannot depend on how quickly paperwork is processed. It cannot hinge on administrative convenience. And it certainly cannot be diminished through delay. This amendment ensures that Colorado respects both the Constitution and the citizens it serves. So again, but it's also important that the CBI has the ability to address any shortfalls so that they can address any background check and processing times. Still not done? Yeah. Average background check, processing times, any significant changes to operating hours, and system outages or disruptions like we just spoke about, any acts of God that resulted in the Bureau's inability to have submissions accepted. Steps taken to improve access and efficiency. So again, the idea is just to, we've created a system. If we want to make sure that the trains actually run on time in this regard, then we actually need to monitor the performance of those trains. We need to make sure that we are not creating an undue burden, or an increased burden on the citizens of Colorado. And so when this shows up, I'll be asking for an aye vote.
Representative Hartzok.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to my colleague from El Paso. As he was just laying out some good points here, we're having printed, this will be to the community report. And some of the things that it does specifically, These are reports that are going to be done or due, I should say, during the smart hearings about judiciary and finance. And what it's going to point out when it says the average background processing time. So here's the accountability and the metrics that we're specifying. Any significant changes to operating orders? Hours. Again, it is going to be a metric that will have to be reported. And this has been brought up questions. How about system outages and disruptions? And here's the key thing that resulted in the Bureau's inability to have submissions accepted. So these things are all metrics that will have to be reported again in the Judiciary Committee and then also under DOR in the finance. What is very interesting that's going to be about this amendment that we are accepting is that it points out on these metrics of where the accountability is. There's not one but two committees. and in addition, it will show what is within the control of CBI versus what is in control at the federal level. And then the final one where it says steps taken to improve access and efficiency. One of the things that we're hoping to see as the trial period goes for this 24-hour operations, that these will be reports that will show up as to what does it do, where is the efficiencies, where is the inefficiencies, How do we make a system better so everything can get processed under the Second Amendment and getting everything done? We are...
Okay, go ahead.
Okay. So let's just speak. It'll be here in a minute. So part of this is this amendment speaks to the real-world accessibility of a constitutional right. And this is addressing the accessibility to it. Because the Second Amendment doesn't really mean anything. if you choke off the ability to exercise it. The Supreme Court held in Keller and McDonald confirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right belonging to law-abiding citizens In Bruin, the court made clear that the right cannot be burdened by modern regulations that lack historic precedent. There is a concern. A system may appear neutral on its face, but if it limits access to certain times, locations, or conditions, it can effectively restrict who is able to exercise that right. This amendment requires the Bureau to consider all forms of access. how it is ensuring that it is not unreasonably exceeding the bounds that was created for it and that we don't create a restriction by just having heavy-handed bureaucracy. Many Coloradans do not have the flexibility to access service during those times. So how do we access and improve access and efficiency during limited weekends hours? Rural residents may already face significant geographic barriers if access to lawful firearms transfers is constrained by narrow operating window. So how does the CBI address that? This amendment calls for that to do that. As the founding, there was no tradition of restricting access to firearms based on governability or office hours. The right was understood to be broadly accessible to the people, necessary to be broadly accessible to the people. Under Bruin, we cannot oppose new practical limitations that undermine the accessibility without historic justification. This amendment does not mandate specific hours, doesn't approve rigidity.
Representative DeGraff, do you have the amendment?
I do.
Do you want to move it for me, please?
I would like to move it and move it. So I move L015 to House Bill 1302 and ask that it be displayed.
It is properly displayed. Please proceed.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So now everybody can see what we're talking about. So we're talking about a constitutional right that must be meaningful in practice and not just in theory. This just helps it maintain that, but keeps CBI inside its bounds. If access is limited in ways that exclude large portions of the population, this amendment should help identify that. It's a measured thoughtful step towards aligning our system with constitutional principles. So again, this is honored before January 15th of each year. The Bureau shall submit a report to the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee talking about the average background, addressing the average background check and processing time, significant changes, system outages and disruptions that resulted in an inability to have the submissions accepted. Steps taken. I think this is the biggest one. Step taken to improve access and efficiency. I ask for an aye vote.
Is there any further discussion on the amendment?
Representative Bradley. Thank you, Madam Chair. And to the representative from El Paso, I'm just wondering if you looked up, there's no explicit statutory requirement in SMART Act that says CBI must report the number of firearm background checks annually. However, the Colorado Department of Public Safety can and often does include operational metrics like number of background checks, approval, denial rates, processing times, and legislators can ask for that data during the hearing. So CDPS already does those things, just FYI.
Is there any further discussion on the Amendment L15? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L15 to the committee report. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The amendment is adopted. Is there any further discussion on the committee report? Seeing none the question before us is the adoption of the State Civic Military and Veteran Affairs Committee report Those in favor say I calling the question for the vote Representative Luck Okay, Representative Luck, please present your amendment. Just make sure everyone's trying to pay attention. I know it's complicated, but go ahead.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the bill sponsor for that. This is my last amendment to this bill. I move amendment L-004 and ask that it be displayed. To the committee report, yes, and ask that it be displayed.
The amendment is properly displayed. Please proceed.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Under the current law and under the current bill, there are two days at which CBI does not have to be open the whole year. 363 days a year, the CBI needs to process these checks under current law and under the new bill at least have a mechanism by which to receive the requests. I'm asking that this body consider adding another day, another day when these requests are not actually received or processed. And that day is Easter. The two days right now that are reserved are Thanksgiving and Christmas. But Easter is equally significant. In fact, our constitutions, founding documents, and histories recognize the profound contributions of the biblical faith traditions to the moral, cultural, and historical foundations of our state and nation. The beginning of the biblical Hebrew calendar in the month of Aviv, which is also called Nisan, usually commences with the sighting of the new moon between late March and mid-April and is foundational to God's appointed feasts, including Passover, as the first major observance of the year. In the book of Exodus, there is a note that says, This month shall be unto you the beginning of months. It shall be the first month of the year to you. It is designated as the head of months, marking the start of the religious year centered on redemption and his appointed times. during the passover week which precedes easter sunday it customary to recount the story of deliverance from bondage share symbolic foods and blessings at the Seder meal wish freedom renewal health prosperity and peace upon family and community This week, this holy week, is celebrated across the United States and around the globe. In fact, 15 million Jews worldwide celebrate Passover, and billions of Christians join them in celebrating that as well as Easter. many return home gather with friends and family recount the story of deliverance whether the story that is itemized in the book of Exodus or in the gospels and affirm blessings of freedom togetherness and faith with loved ones Passover and Easter are some of the most ancient festivals ordained by God in the Holy Scriptures, commemorating the miraculous deliverance of the children of Israel from slavery in Egypt and the deliverance of mankind through the cross. All of this culminates in this holy time. On the night of the first Passover, the Lord instructed the Israelites to select a lamb without blemish, to slay it and apply its blood to the doorposts and lintels of their homes.
Representative Luck, can you bring this back to the amendment, please?
It is. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is directly to the amendment because my amendment is to add Easter Day. And we need to understand what Easter is about in order to realize that it's just as significant of a day to honor by not having this business conducted as Thanksgiving and Christmas. As I mentioned, on the night of the first Passover, the Lord instructed the Israelites to select a lamb without blemish, slay it, and apply its blood to the doorposts and lintels of their homes so that the destroyer would pass over those households and spare their firstborn during the final plague upon Egypt. The blood of the lambs served as a visible sign of faith, obedience, protection, and redemption, securing the physical deliverance not only of the children of Israel, but also of the mixed multitude that went out with them. That story was reapplied through the Lamb of God, known as Jesus, who also served as a visible sign of faith, obedience, protection, and redemption, and who secured the spiritual deliverance of all people. His resurrection after that blood was shed is what is celebrated on Easter Day. and it is the act that formed the foundation of Western civilization Without Easter, we have no America. Without America, we have no Colorado as a state within it. to not acknowledge the significance of that day by continuing to do the work of administratively applying these background checks undermines the core aspect of who we are as a people. And so I ask that this body restrict that day and keep it holy, because it is truly the holiest of days.
Is there any further discussion on the amendment?
Representative Hartzook. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to my colleague. While I agree with everything she said from a Judeo-Christian perspective with Passover and Easter coming up, it certainly is the most important period of the year. we already we've heard many arguments about ability to process, time to process and everything else my concern is we in statute we've had two days historically we've had two days that have always been off Christmas and Thanksgiving as we add days that background checks would not be processed then you have the risk of more days that would be added and then we would be incurring more and more delays in the processing dates and times of background checks. So as much as I agree religiously and philosophically with this amendment and the purpose that is behind it, it negates what we are trying to do in this bill, 1302, and in the committee report, of trying to expedite, rein in government spending, and get things processed through with only the two existing days that are off. Therefore, we would ask for a no vote. Thank you.
Representative DeGraff.
I'm kind of surprised. I thought this would be an easy take because we're actually, the sponsor of the amendment is actually giving, giving CBI another day off. And so I'm surprised. I thought when we're cutting, we need to cut back on the hours of CBI, and here's a day that a lot of, I would assume CBI also wants to be with their family, that we would be voting against that. So I think it's a good amendment just to give CBI another... Those hours for that day are hours that can be distributed in the cost. So it's not only giving them a day, it's giving the General Assembly the money back in that case and giving it to CBI so that they can spread it around and they can use those hours in a way that is more supportive Because, you know, I don't think Easter is known as a big gun purchasing day. So, since it's a lot of the same people that support Easter also support the Second Amendment. So, I like the amendment to give mainly in terms of making sure that those CBI members that want to celebrate this very important Holy Day with their family have that opportunity, but I also like it from a fiscal standpoint of making sure that CBI has that extra budget that they need. So I ask for an aye vote.
Minority Leader Caldwell.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the sudden concern for giving CBI employees a break on background checks when the entire point of the bill is to give flexibility to make it more efficient. So currently there's only two days closed to do the CBI background checks. And with this amendment, we're trying to make it three days. So that's less days for gun owners to do these background checks. I just, I'm going to have to be against this. I don't think we should be taking more days away in the calendar year. So I'm going to urge everybody to be a no on this.
Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of L4 to the committee report. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The amendment fails. To the committee report, is there any further discussion on the committee report? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of the State Civic, Military, and Veteran Affairs Committee Report. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed say no. The committee report is adopted. To the bill.
Representative Hartsock. Representative Hartsock. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for the great discussion that we had on the committee report and the amendments that we accepted and the points that were brought up by our colleagues. So 1302, what's the purpose of it? It expedites the ability to submit and process background checks. It saves money. It provides immediate processing upon entrance into the queue. And as you heard, it's been announced now by CBI that we're going to run with a 24-hour submission. So that's going to be a test program. Hopefully as we go through that, we will see that we can get more efficient and effective ways to do that. That dovetails directly into the one amendment that we took on the committee report. So not only are we looking for additional ways to improve efficiency and be more effective, There now has to be reports that are going to be provided to the legislative body, both in judiciary and in finance. So you've got two committees. You've got reports that are going for submission. You will have metrics that they will have to measure against. We will have multiple ways of checks and balances to ensure that things are being processed. And as you heard many of my colleagues come up here, should the courts overturn the three-day waiting period it will be just like it was before in the amount of processing that things will be processed in that same expeditious manner so there is no wait for people to then they go out and they buy their weapon they submit that background check just like i've done most times with my kids i took them hunting as a member of the nra i go out there i've done all this i understand how much people want to have that Second Amendment right Therefore I urge an aye vote on 1302 Majority Leader Duran Thank you Madam Chair I honored to join my co sponsor Representative Hartzett
on this bill that supports our community. It also modernizes the current InstaCheck system, and it supports our budget during a very tight budget year. Just in fiscal 24-25, Instacheck processed over 340,000 background checks. Doesn't sound to me like that's slowing down at all. Only a little over 31,000 requests were submitted between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m., representing approximately only 9% of the total submissions. Despite the low volume, Instacheck must maintain full staffing, including supervisors, leads, and technicians during those hours, to meet the statutory operating requirement. All this bill does in its simplicity is it gives them the flexibility to shift around where those workers will be at the highest point during the day. That's all it does. So I don't want us to get lost. We've had great discussion. I appreciate the discussion here today. But just keep in mind, it just gives them the flexibility of where to put the people, where they need them throughout the day. And as my co-prime mentioned, that CBI is doing a seven-day trial, 24-hour-a-day processing trial to see how that works. And the hope, and their hope, is that this is something they'll be able to offer more permanently in the future. And I ask for a yes vote.
Representative Bradley. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I do agree. In a fiscal impacted year, let's just get rid of what CBI is doing for background checks. That would be great. Let's just cut them out. Let's just cut them right out. Let's save the state money because 31 states already use the National Instant Criminal Background Check. And let me talk to you about what that is. So if we need to cut full-time equivalents and it's going to be insolvent, then let's just get rid of the CBI's ability to do background checks because we already have a system in place that is a year-round 24-hour system, maybe 19-hour system. It's a federal system used to check whether someone is legally allowed to buy a firearm in the U.S. It's operated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation under the U.S. Department of Justice. Here's how it works step by step. Hold on. You guys ready? When someone tries to buy a gun from a licensed dealer, the buyer fills out the ATF Form 4473, Background Info and Eligibility Questions. Dealer submits the check to NICS online or phone. The NICS searches multiple databases, criminal history records, mental health educations, immigration status, protection restraining orders, protection restraining orders. In our state, they check those. So if they do those correctly in our state, then they have the ability to check those. NICS returns one of three results. They proceed, safe to go through, delayed, more research needed, or a denial. I still is prohibited. What databases does NICS check? It pulls from three main systems, the Interstate Identification Index, which is Criminal Histories, NCIC, which is the National Crime Information Center Warrants Protections Orders. So they're checking those. So if the state is putting in the protection orders and the warrants, then that will flag that. And then the NICS Index, specific prohibiting records like mental health adjudications. Who must go through NICS? NICS, required for purchases from FFLs, does not automatically apply to private sales, depending on state law, and some temporary transfers States like Colorado have expanded background check requirements no way beyond federal law Common reasons for denial A person will be denied if they fall into prohibited categories under federal law such as felony conviction domestic violence misdemeanor, active restraining or protection order, fugitive status, illegal or certain non-immigrant immigration status, adjudicated mental incompetence, or committed to a mental institution. Timing rules. Most checks by the NCIS are completed within minutes. If delayed, the NICS has up to three business days to respond. After that, a dealer may proceed. This is the default proceed rule. Through some states, override this. Key policy debates. NICS is often the center of policy debates. Universal background checks, expanding NICS to all cells, reporting gaps. So we're already doing all this. All 50 states use the NICS system in some form, but they don't all use it the same way. So all 50 states use it. So if we're in a budget crisis, then why don't we just take CBI out of it, remove all the staffing, save the state some money, and just use this like all 50 states use it. And there were some witnesses that said there's loopholes and they're not open all the time. So I said, is FBI background checks open 24 hours a day? Yes, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System is operated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, including weekends and most holidays. So federally run NIC checks used in many states can be submitted any time. Most results come back within minutes, even late at night. Delays can still happen if records need manual review. So 24-7. So rural Colorado, the people that can't get there between 9 to 9 will still have access to do it. What does NICS actually catch? When someone who is legally permitted, prohibited, tries to buy a firearm from a licensed dealer, NICS can deny the cell, flag the attempt as potential illegal act, and refer the case for investigation. Each year, hundreds of thousands of transactions are denied. many of those involve felony records, domestic violence convictions, or active warrants. What happens after a denial? Denied attempts can be referred to the Bureau of the ATF or other law enforcement. However, only a small percentage of denied cases are actually prosecuted. So NICS is already flagging and prohibiting buyers, including criminals. In fact, the CBI, who runs all background checks through NICS, had 3.5 million gun purchase attempts and 77,000 were denied, which means they are already blocking 2 to 3 percent of buyers, and they're regularly catching prohibited individuals. So the system is already working. If we're in a budget crisis, then why do we need another system? And I asked, does NICS have access to restraining orders in Colorado? Because a witness mentioned that they don't. Yes, the National Institute Criminal Background Check System can access restraining protection orders from Colorado, but only if they are properly entered into the right database as well. Then maybe that's what we need to be flagging. if they're not entered into the regular databases then that is the bigger problem here NCIC is where active protection restraining orders are entered and 50 states are using this state records via the Colorado Bureau of Investigation is the Colorado own system that feeds into the check So if a Colorado Protection Order is active meets federally disqualifying criteria and is entered into NCIC or state systems then it will be flagged in NICS So I don't even understand why we need another background check threshold. If we are in a fiscal crisis, let's eliminate it. We don't have any issues of not being clear or transparent. Let's let NICS do the job that all 50 states are allowing them to do, and let's save the state money. Because of the duplicative nature and the repetitive fashion and not carving out these outages, I will be a no on this bill. Thank you.
Representative DeGraff.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I do appreciate the accepting of an amendment on this bill, but I'll still... that these checks are still an issue of... the CBI involvement is still a chilling, still has a chilling effect, the three days. and one thing that stood out to me today in looking at this and one final amendment that I'd like to run is on L01 I move L013 to House Bill 1302 and ask that it be displayed one thing I've noticed on a lot of the bills and I would have run I was going to run some amendments on some yesterday but we so often get wrapped up in what I would say is making the trains run on time. We impose restrictions, and we want to make sure government runs efficiently, and that's true. We do need to make sure that. But our charter, we always need to go back to our charter, and the reason that we're here is to secure those certain self-evident creator endowed rights. And that if we violate those, then everything else doesn't matter. Doesn't matter what your good intentions are. Doesn't matter what the greater good you feel is. and so one thing that just I think the other amendments that I had were pretty much wrapped up in the one that I had so this last one I just want to make sure and this just says change the business needs of the bureau and change it to the business not to the business needs but to the needs of the consumer because the bureau is there to serve the citizen the consumer in this case, the consumer who has purchased the firearm, the purchaser. And so first and foremost, we need to make sure that the citizens, the consumer who is trying to, because this consumer is not just a consumer in this case. This consumer is somebody who is having this burden placed on them, that they have to do any sort of thing with the CBI at all. And so what we need to do is we need to make sure that their needs are put forward first and foremost. ahead of the bureaus, because again, the bureau does not have rights. The government does not have rights. The state does not have rights. The citizens of Colorado have rights, and this needs to serve the consumer, this needs to serve the citizen over being concerned with the business needs or the convenience of the CBI. So I ask for an aye vote.
Representative Hartzik.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to my colleague. Normally, in the Finance Committee, I'm always arguing support businesses. And while we agree 100% of supporting businesses, this runs into multiple legal issues. The Bureau is a government entity. We in this body can hold them to a statutory requirement. We can control that. That's what we can do is our job. The multitude of businesses that are out there will have different needs, different flavors, different hours, different times, different incomes. Everything will be different for the multitude of businesses. It would be impossible to access and write statute that would address every single need and write a rule that meet every single need of every single business that's out there. It's not physically, financially, or legally possible. Again, the bill expedites the ability to submit and process background checks. It saves money. It provides immediate processing upon entrance into the queue. And now you've added the new 24-hour test phase that we're going to go through. These are metrics that are designed to support businesses. These are metrics that are designed to expedite that access to the Second Amendment right. These are metrics that will be accounted for and reported in the smart hearings. All of these things are ways that this body can look at that and then address future needs of the businesses. We would therefore urge a no vote. Thank you.
Representative Luck.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise in support of this amendment in large part because I think that both of these needs will actually overlap. But that when they don't overlap, that we should prioritize the citizen. Determine hours of operation that best meet. Not always and forever meet, not in every instant meet, but best meet the needs. Pesnita needs, as is currently written, of the Bureau versus, under this amendment, the citizen. So what would that look like in practice? Well, perhaps it would be better in practice, especially since the amendment that I put forward to say that in the event that this is struck down, it needs to revert back to its current status of processing these 12 hours every day. If the best needs of the citizen is for those hours to run from 7 to 3, but for the Bureau it's more like 10 to 6, still 12 hours, but if we're better serving the people under the first set, then I think the Bureau should have to align with that Now I suspect that the Bureau would say that really the business that they're going to align when the business and the consumers are most active with the times when they're most open. And so I don't anticipate that there's going to be all that much, at least in the present moment, of a disparity between the two. But for them to have to keep in mind every time they read this statute that they're there to serve, not to be served, is important. and if they end up being told that the three-day waiting period no longer applies, then that, in essence, does what we were trying to do in that earlier amendment in saying that they need to be open as much as is necessary in order to serve those consumers in that instance. So I rise in support.
Is there any further discussion on Amendment L13? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of L13. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. Amendment L13 fails. To the bill. Is there any further discussion on House Bill 1302? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of House Bill 1302. All those in favor say aye. Great. Thank you. The committee will go on a brief recess. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The committee will come back to order. The question before us is the adoption of House Bill 1302 as amended. A division has been requested. All those in the chamber not entitled to vote, please sit and remain seated. All those in favor of House Bill 1302, please stand and remain standing in one place, or raise your hand and keep it raised until the count is taken.
oh yes yes this is to the bill
all those in favor of House Bill 1302 as amended please stand and remain standing in one place or raise your hand and keep it raised until the count is taken Thank you. You may be seated. All those opposed, please stand and remain standing in one place or raise your hand and keep it raised until the count is taken. Thank you. Thank you. You may be seated. House Bill 1302, as amended, is passed.
Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of Senate Bill 77. Senate Bill 77 by Senator Judah, also Representative Gilchrist, concerning epilepsy-related mortality awareness.
Representative Gilchrist. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 26077 and the Health and Human Services Committee report.
To the committee report.
During the Health and Human Services hearing, we made a small amendment at the request of CDPHE. We changed registered user to medical certifiers. The amendment ensures that the bill uses existing terminology that appears elsewhere in statute and regulation for users registered with our vital record system, and we ask for a yes vote on the committee report.
Is there any further discussion of the committee report? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of the Health and Human Services Report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The committee report is adopted. To the bill, Representative Kay Stewart.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So let's talk about the bill. This bill is really about data gathering regarding the sudden unexpected death from epilepsy. And this is an important part of getting that data, changing the death certificate. And we heard a lot of very moving stories of families that have lost children from sudden unexpected death from epilepsy. and we're hoping that this data point is a way, a tool to move forward and do better with medicine. And as we make these changes, hopefully at some point we can solve this issue.
Representative Gilchrist.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to my co-prime sponsor and to the amazing senators who worked on this bill. As my co-prime mentioned, across Colorado, approximately 60,000 people are living with epilepsy. For most, seizures can be managed, but for some families, epilepsy can become something far more devastating. There's a condition known as sudden unexpected death in epilepsy, SUDEB, and it occurs when someone dies during or following a seizure, often at night, and no other cause can be found. Despite its severity, we still do not fully understand why it happens. Each year, about 1 in 1,000 people living with epilepsy die. Experts believe this number is likely underestimated because epilepsy-related deaths are not consistently identified, recorded, or studied. For families who lose a child or a loved one to epilepsy, grief is compounded by something even harder, unanswered questions. Too often, they are left without a clear explanation of what happened. Senate Bill 77 is a step toward changing that The legislation will standardize how epilepsy deaths are investigated by requiring coroners medical examiners and forensic professionals to stay current with the latest medical guidelines and best practices, including recognizing SUDEP classification standards. Ultimately, this bill is about ensuring that every epilepsy-related death is properly recognized, carefully investigated, and accurately reported. In committee, we heard heartbreaking stories from families who have been directly impacted by SUDEP, families who experienced children suddenly dying and having to manage that unimaginable tragedy. Their stories underscore why this legislation matters, and we respectfully ask for a yes vote today.
Word to the bill.
Representative Bradley. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the bill's sponsors for bringing this forward. There were devastating testimony and there were a couple of questions that I had and the bill sponsor got back to me and then I reached out to my coroner I think the best coroner in the state in Douglas County and I just asked her is this going to create more burdens on you because there was there was something that had been put out that there would and so I went straight to the stores and she said I'm chair of the legislative committee for the association we spent a lot of time educating the sponsors on how death certificates are filled out and how epilepsy associated deaths are investigated whether in or out of a clinical setting. Originally the bill would have put the burden on coroners only but now the language includes all death certificate certifiers, physicians, and mid-levels to provide the data on the death certificate. CDPHE already collects this information through the death certificate for all deaths in the state, coroners, hospitals, etc. So instead of just coroners providing epilepsy associated deaths, 63 counties, all entities, hospitals, etc. across the state would provide the epilepsy-associated deaths. CDPHE would only provide the guideline for death certificate reporting, not necessarily providing a breakout of the data. She is in complete support, and so I rise today in complete support as well. Thank you.
Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 77 as amended. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. SB 077 is passed.
Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of Senate Bill 88. Senate Bill 88 by Senators Kirkmeyer and Carson, also Representatives Winter and Martinez, concerning the grounds surrounding the state capitol building and in connection therewith, providing for the maintenance and repair of memorials and monuments on the capitol grounds and in Lincoln Veterans Memorial Park. Representative Martinez.
Thank you, Madam Chair. It's an honor to serve with you. it's an honor to serve with you i move senate bill 88 to the bill um members this is a uh just a good governance bill um so when we were we were approached by the uh some members from history colorado and um the the attempt because of the veterans memorials and monuments that we have around capitol grounds um and in the park and really wanting to bring that maintenance of those memorials and monuments under their watch. They do an amazing job of this already and, you know, making sure that they're upkeeping this, especially in honor of our sesquicentennial 152 50 celebration to making sure that they're looking the best that they can and leaving it at the hands of the people that really do this best. And so that's really what this bill does. We think that it's a really good policy, good bill, and again, making sure that we're doing right by our veterans and letting them be taken care of by the people that can handle it most So we urge an aye vote Assistant Minority Leader Winter Thank you very much Members I want you all to know that this money doesn come out of the general fund
or it doesn't affect the budget whatsoever. The money that's collected off of this is collected off of the rental fees from a park across the street. I think it's important what Representative Martinez said. At the end of the day, you see all the school buses parked out here, and what better way for them to show up and see these beautiful monuments, especially the veterans' monuments outside. My co-prime is a veteran himself, and we really do stand on the shoulders of giants, and they're the reason that this country is free. And when our kids come here and people come and visit our state, they should know that we revere our veterans, and we appreciate the sacrifices that they've made and they continue to make for this great nation. He's correct history. Colorado is going to put it under their purview. They do a very good job with this stuff, and they just want to make sure, especially within the 150th, that we're doing the right thing. Appreciate you all. this is for our veterans and we urge an aye vote thank you
is there any further discussion on Senate Bill 88 seeing none the question before us is its passage all those in favor please say aye all those opposed please say no Senate Bill 88 is passed Mr. Schiebel
please read the title to House Bill 1304 House Bill 1304 by Representatives Lindsay and Winter also Senators Pelton B. and Henderson concerning the authority of history Colorado out to dispose of rights related to minerals and in connection therewith authorizing the disposal of Weld County rights and West Virginia rights.
Amel Hunter. Madam Chair, I'd like to move House Bill 26-1304. To the bill. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. This bill will come out of CDC. It's also... I didn't say anything.
Okay. Please continue. Myself and Rep. Lindsay sit on CDC.
this bill came out of CDC for history Colorado and basically what happened is there was a very nice lady who was a banker here in the state and she left some mineral rights to the state of Colorado and we didn't find out for a while until they went through her will and they found out she had mineral rights not only in Colorado was it West Virginia I think West Virginia and right now what history Colorado is trying to do with this money is is we have a collection of artifacts that are very important to this state the building needs repair we're selling the mineral rights and Just so you know, it's a competitive open bid process, and I'll let my co-sponsor finish up.
Representative Lindsay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. As my co-prime here said, we serve on CDC together, and one of the things that we get to do is tour around and inspect facilities so we can evaluate their capital requests, and one of them is from History Colorado, where we were able to tour their collections facility up on I-70 in Pecos-ish. so many fun things there they have like an old like ski gondola chair like a ski lift chair they also have like a sod house like it's a really wonderful collection of our state's history unfortunately the building is in a state of disrepair they have tarps that collect water that's dripping through the ceiling so it doesn't get on the collection and as i said in committee since I made that tour, I often think about it and panic about the state of our collection. So we have been trying to figure out how to fund this. Straight out of a Dickensian novel, these mineral rights came to the fore, and so now we can sell them and have money to put towards the refurbishment of this facility, which, by the way, you can go see anytime you'd like. So we ask for an aye vote.
Is there any further discussion?
No.
While we taking the You have the right to vote No Okay All right Any further discussion on House Bill 1304 Seeing none the question before is this passage All those in favor say aye All those opposed say no. House Bill 1304 passes.
Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the committee rise and report.
Seeing no objection, the committee will rise and report. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The House will come back to order.
Mr. Schiebel, please read the report of the Committee of the Whole. Madam Speaker, your Committee of the Whole begs leave to report as under consideration the following attached bills, being the second reading they're of and making the following recommendations thereon. House Bill 1302 is amended and 1304 passed on second reading. Order and gross in place on the calendar for the third reading final passage. Senate Bill 77 is amended and 88 passed on second reading. Ordered, revised, and placed on the calendar for third reading and final passage.
Representative Lindsay. Members, you have heard the motion. We do have amendments at the desk.
Mr. Schiebel, please read the Bottoms amendment to the Committee of the Whole report, House Bill 1302. Representative Bottoms moved to amend the report of the Committee of the Whole to reverse the action taken by the committee in adopting House Bill 1302 to show that House Bill 1302 as amended lost.
Members, I will ask for you to be quiet. Thank you. Representative Bottoms.
I move the Bottoms Amendment to amend the report of the Committee of the Whole.
That is a proper motion. It is properly displayed. Please proceed.
When we heard the voice vote, it seemed to be pretty close to me, so I just wanted to see if we could get this investigated and see if it actually lost.
Majority Leader Duran. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, I ask for a no vote on this if a yes vote would make this bill dead, die. So I ask for a no vote on this.
Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of the Bottoms Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative English, how do you vote? Representative English you are on mute No Representative English votes no. Representative Ricks is excused. I don't have a good signal. Representative Joseph and Sukla excused. Please close the machine. With 16 I, 40 no, and 9 excused, the amendment is lost.
Mr. Schiebel, please read the first Luck Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report, House Bill 1302. Representative Luck moved to amend the part of the Committee of the Whole to reverse the action taken by the Committee and not adopting the Luck Substitute Amendment L7 to the underlying Durand Amendment L3 to House Bill 1302 to show that the Durand Amendment L3 did not pass, that the Luck Substitute Amendment L7 passed, and that House Bill 1302 is amended past.
Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move the first luck amendment to the committee the whole report and ask that it be displayed.
It is properly displayed. Please proceed. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
This is the amendment that says that in the event the three-day waiting period gets struck down in the courts, then CBI has to return to its current business practices of being open 12 hours a day every day of the year, save a few. I ask for an aye vote.
Madam Majority Leader Thank you Madam Speaker Members I ask for a no vote on this If that three day wait happens to be revoked then we would go back to what current law was before that so I ask for a no vote
Seeing no further discussion the motion before us is the adoption of the first luck amendment to the committee of the whole report. Mr. Schiebel please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative English How do you vote? No. Representative English votes no. Representative Paschal. Please close the machine. With 17 I, 39 no, and 9 excused, the amendment is lost.
Mr. Schiebel please read the second Luck Amendment to the Committee of the Whole report Representative Luck moved to amend the Committee of the Whole to reverse the action taken by the committee in adopting the following Durand Amendment L3 to House Bill 1302 to show that said amendment lost and that House Bill 1302 has been passed
Representative Luck Thank you Madam Speaker I move the second Luck Amendment to the Committee of the Whole report and ask that it be displayed or I guess is that right It is properly displayed thank you Thank you Madam Speaker The bill sponsors brought forward an amendment
and that is the amendment that is displayed here on the screen,
and I believe an answer to the issues that I rose largely in committee. And I believe that they were operating in good faith to address the issues that were raised and trying to solve them. Unfortunately, I do not believe this solves the issues. I believe that these amendments make it worse, and so I would ask that we take this amendment that they seemingly offered in large part because of the conversation we had in committee, back off the bill, and return it to what was decided in State Affairs Committee. So I ask for an aye vote on this.
Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I ask for a no vote.
Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of the second luck amendment to the committee of the whole report. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative English, how do you vote? No. Representative English votes no. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Weinberg votes yes. Please close the machine. With 15 a.m., 41 no, and 9 excused, the amendment is lost. The motion before us is the adoption of the Committee of the Whole Report. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine, and members proceed to vote. Representative English, how do you vote? Yes. Representative English votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, no. Representative Weinberg votes no. Please close the machine. With 38 I, 20 no, and 7 excused, the report of the Committee of the Whole is adopted.
Additional announcements and introductions. Seeing none. Madam Majority Leader.
Madam Speaker, I move to lay over the balance of the calendar until Monday, March 30, 2026.
Seeing no objection, the balance of the calendar will be laid over until Monday.
Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move that the House stand in recess until later today.
Seeing no further, seeing no objection, thank goodness. The House will stand in recess until later today.