Colorado House 2026 Legislative Day 094

Hi. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. 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.

Representatives Bacon. Barone. Representative Barone.

Basenecker. Bottoms.

Bradfield Bradley

Brooks Brown Caldwell Camacho Carter Clifford

DeGraff

Duran English Espinoza Fure Flannell Froelich Garcia Garcia Sander Gilchrist Goldstein Gonzalez Hamrick Hartsook

Jackson Johnson

Excuse

Representative Kelty

Leader Lindsey

Luck

Excuse

Rep. Marshall is excused

Representative Phillips

Representative Richardson

Ricks.

Excuse.

Here.

Rep. Sirota.

Slaw. Smith Soper Representative Soper Stewart K Stewart R Story Sukla Representative

Excused.

Rep. Valdez.

Velasco. Weinberg.

Wilford. Winter. Woodrow. Woog. Zokai.

And Madam Speaker.

With 47 present, 18 excused, we do have a quorum.

Madam Speaker, you know, the journal has been around since the territory has been around. There's a lot of information in the journal, and it is the keeper of the history of what goes on here. And I move that the journal of Thursday, April 16, 2026, be approved and corrected by the chief clerk.

Aye.

No.

Happy day to you, Madam Speaker. It's an honor to serve with you.

Good morning. Colleagues, please join me in welcoming the fifth grade students from Denver Academy here in Denver, Colorado. Denver Academy is widely regarded. Stand up, guys. Please stand up. Stand up and be welcome. Denver Academy is widely regarded as a standout private school known for its highly personalized and supportive approach to education. Founded in 1972, it serves students in grades 2 through 12 with small class sizes and a strong emphasis on individualized learning, allowing teachers to tailor instruction to each student's strengths and needs. What makes Denver Academy especially notable is its focus on students with diverse learning profiles, including those with dyslexia, ADHD, and other learning differences. The school uses a student-centered model with close collaboration between teachers, parents, and students, helping build confidence and academic success. Now, the coolest part about Denver Academy's visit this year is that we are joined by my son, a fifth grader at Denver Academy, Ari Woodrow. And it just so happens to be his 12th birthday today. And if you would be so kind as to join me in singing happy birthday to Ari, that'd be great.

That's cool.

Madam Speaker, I move to proceed out of order for consideration of Memorial.

Senate Joint Memorial 1 by Senators Cutter and Marchman, also Representative Wilford.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move Senate Joint Memorial 001 and ask for it to be read at length.

Whereas Faith Winter, our beloved colleague, passed away on November 26, 2025. And whereas a native fifth-generation Coloradan, Senator Winter attended Littleton High School and the University of Redlands. And whereas that she would end up in the state legislature working on transportation and climate issues surprised few who knew her as a young organizer. She interned with the Colorado Environmental Coalition and trained with the Green Corps, eventually serving as National Program Director for EnviroCitizen, a sustainability-focused initiative, and Program Director for Colorado Conservation Voters, which works to protect the state's climate and advance environmental justice. And whereas Senator Winter was elected to the Westminster City Council in 2007, often the youngest woman and mom at the City Council's dais, she would spend her entire career opening doors and pulling out chairs for women, ensuring that they had a seat at the same table. And whereas Senator Winter represented the people of Adams County in the Colorado House of Representatives from 2005 through 2019 and the people of Adams, Broomfield, and Weld Counties in the Colorado Senate from 2019 until her death. And whereas a mentor and champion of women throughout conventional halls and at community centers and kitchen counters and with organizers like the White House Project, Emerge Colorado, and Vote Run Lead, Senator Winter encouraged women to take the microphone and then the ballot, training many future leaders to run for office. But her support did not stop there. As a progressive Governance Academy trainer, she shared her time and seemingly boundless energy to assist newly elected leaders across the country. And Whereas, named one of Governing Magazine's Public Officials of the Year in 2018 and one of 5280 magazine's disruptors, changing the local political landscape in 2019. While Senator Winter was often recognized for her individual contributions, she always worked to shine the light on others. We lift as we rise was her mantra. And whereas one of her most important legacies, the Paid Family and Medical Leave Insurance Act, came to fruition in 2020, Senator Winter's advocacy and legislative work helped pave the way for the successful initiative. She spent years losing forward, as she called it. When she would introduce a bill, she knew that even though it might not pass, its defeat would give organizers more time to build the coalition and refine the policy. And whereas, but more than 200 of Senator Winter's bills did pass. In 2021, she was a Senate prime sponsor on House Bill 21-1266, the Environmental Justice Act, which strengthened regulations on greenhouse gas emissions and centered communities disproportionately impacted by pollution The next year Senate bills she sponsored instituted free fares for clean air on public transportation throughout the state and created the Rural Healthcare Workforce Initiative to financially support students in the healthcare field so they could practice in and better serve the people of rural Colorado. And whereas Senator Winter worked with her colleagues across the aisle to pass bipartisan bills on conservation easements, protection orders for crime victims, and affordable housing programs for victims of abuse, soil health, and ballot access for candidates with disabilities. And whereas during her 10 sessions under the dome, Senator Winter chaired the transportation and energy committees in the Senate and the House, vice-chaired the House Business Affairs and Labor Committee, and the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, and served on many more, including Legislative Council, the Transportation Legislative Review Committee, and the Colorado Youth Advisory Council Committee. And whereas a longtime supporter of animal rights and former board member of Broomfield's Butterfly Pavilion, Senator Winter brought a special guest, the pavilion's Rosie the Tarantula, to the Senate floor several years in a row. Keso, one of her four beloved dogs, could often be seen roaming the second floor, sometimes in a tuxedo. And whereas, as caring as she was driven, the small stick of dynamite tattooed on Senator Winter's arm was a fitting metaphor for her spark, her potential, and the transformative power she wielded in order to make a lasting impact on and to improve the lives of every person in the state. And whereas she fought, often in flip-flops, for Coloradans to breathe clean air and to spend more time with their families, she cared about and ran bills to help co-workers, working moms, and eating disorder patients. She empowered legislative aides and tenants to protect transgender people and to make sure high school students had access to menstrual products. She was bold and resilient, grounded, and persistent. And whereas Colorado was a better place because of a little girl who was grateful for waterfalls and rainbows and who grew up to dedicate her life to public service, helping to protect those precious resources as she championed renewable energy, electric vehicles, and public transportation. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate of the 75th General Assembly of the State of Colorado, the House of Representatives concurring herein, that in losing Faith Winter, the people of the State of Colorado have lost a devoted public servant, an invaluable friend and colleague who led, listened, legislated, and laughed with her whole heart. That we extend our deep and heartfelt sympathy to her family and friends, and that we pay tribute to a woman who believed that every Coloradan was worth fighting for. And we remember the caring warrior she was as we continue her work to create a greener, fairer, and kinder Colorado.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and thank you to all of the members that showed up today. I do really appreciate it. I also appreciate everybody that has come to or that showed up after Senator Winter passed away, not only at her memorial here at the Capitol, but also for this resolution in the Senate and then also today. we just heard all of the incredible policy wins that Senator Winter championed and she did so with the greatest amount of love and care for this state that she called home in fact her family called home for five generations I want to just spend a few minutes telling you about the person that I knew and I want to start by sharing some lyrics from one of her favorite songs, Wildflowers and Wild Horses by Laney Wilson. The chorus says, I'm five generations of blazing a trail through barbed wire valleys overgrown dells. I'm barefoot and bareback and born tough as nails. I'm four-fifths of reckless. I push like a daisy through old sidewalk cracks. Yeah, my kind of crazy is still running its courses with wildflowers and wild horses. What most folks don't know is she also, in addition to her little stick of dynamite tattoo, she also had a tattoo of a daisy pushing up through concrete. And it came from this song. And we were in Atlanta for a conference. And we had just finished dinner. And she was like, hey, let's go get a tattoo. And I was like, you're crazy. But we did it anyway, because we always did the crazy things when Faith got a big idea. And we went. And that's what she got. I think we can all agree that this job is incredibly hard. it's incredibly difficult and she and I since we both started at city council and worked our way up we were both a part of an organization called the Young Elected Officials Network and this was really a place that was intended to build community and intended to help young elected officials get the skills and the support to be able to continue to serve in a really ugly environment, one that literally asks everything from you and politicizes your very worst days as a moral failing. And what I want every Coloradan to know is that a substance use disorder is not a moral failing. It's not. It is a sickness. It is a disease. It is not a moral failing. every single one of us is more than our worst day. And I hope that none of us ever has our worst day on the front of a newspaper for our kids to read about every day to be reminded of their biggest struggle. Because in spite of her biggest struggle, she moved mountains. But I share all of this because it's not just Senator Winter that struggled. We've lost three other young elected officials in the last six months. One to suicide, actually two to suicide, and one earlier this month to domestic violence. People had bright futures, but this job takes a toll, and every big policy win comes at a cost to someone. she and I used to talk a lot about how as a woman and a woman especially in this work there's this expectation that you're warm as toast and tough as nails you're supposed to be both of those extremes at the same time and just how frustrated she would be when she had a big idea and she'd speak up and someone would pat her on the head and tell her oh that's cute and she loved Taylor Swift so I want to share some lyrics from one of her favorite Taylor Swift songs called The Man. I would be complex. I would be cool. They'd say I played the field before I found someone to commit to, and that would be okay for me to do because every conquest I had made would make me more of a boss to you. I'd be a fearless leader. I'd be an alpha type. When everyone believes what that like I so sick of running as fast as I can wondering if I get there quicker if I was a man And I so sick of them coming at me again because if I was the man then I be the man They'd say I hustled, put in the work. They wouldn't shake their heads and question how much of this I deserve. What I was wearing, if I was rude, could all be separated from my good ideas and power moves. And they chose to me, oh, let the players play, and I'd be just like Leo in Saint-Tropez. She was a person who deeply believed in the power of women's leadership. And I know that so many of us are here today because she believed in our leadership, asked us to run for office, trained us to run for office, saw something in us that we didn't see in ourselves. and she is part of the reason I would argue a huge part of the reason that Colorado has one of the highest majorities of women serving in a state capital in the entire nation and she believed that as you rise as you continue to take on more and more responsibility as you reach that higher office that you don't just close the door behind you, that you reach out a hand, and that you pull someone up there with you. And so my challenge to all of you is keep the door open. Pull someone up with you. Just because somebody else is making amazing moves, power moves, doesn't mean that you can't too. And I want to end with this. I brought you all some of her most favorite things today, and I left them, well, the sergeants left them on your desk if we want to be precise about it. But first, AML Bacon had these made, but they say, lift as you rise, so that you always have a reminder to keep the door open and extend a hand. Skittles. There are no purple ones. She was a monster. She hated purple Skittles. so you can have skittles and taste the rainbow except for the purple ones I also gave you seeds Faith loved flowers she also loved pollinators and butterflies and believed in their connection to this earth and the need for them for a sustainable future so I ask you to plant your wildflowers and watch them grow and then I gave you a Colorado adventure bucket list and what's really cool is when you turn it around you get to scratch it off and they're all different places across our state this one's from Marvada you're supposed to scratch them off and go and check out something that maybe you haven't gotten to do in Colorado yet and I shared these with you because she loved to her bones Colorado. As you heard me say earlier she was a fifth generation Coloradan and always believed that there was another adventure ahead of us and so I invite you to join in the adventure and go and explore somewhere wonderful within our state But most of all please take care of each other This work is hard It takes a toll It comes at a cost Take care of yourselves. Take care of your hearts. Take care of your families and lift as you rise. Thank you.

Representative Lindsay votes yes.

Representative Routenel votes yes.

Representative Furey votes yes.

Representative Foray co-sponsors.

Committee on Appropriations. After consideration on the Mercer Committee, I recommend the following House Bill is 1028 as amended, 1075 as amended, 1078 as amended, 1227 as amended, 1287, 1298 as amended, 1307, 1317 as amended, and 1338. Be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation.

Madam Speaker, I move that the following bills be made special orders on April 17, 2026 at 9.32 a.m. House Bill 1317, Senate Bill 85, Senate Bill 95, Senate Bill 60, House Bill 1075, House Bill 1078, Senate Bill 153, Senate Bill 83, Senate Bill 19, House Bill 1227, House Bill 1338, House Bill 1298, and House Bill 1245.

Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you. 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 the motion of the majority leader and the coat rule is relaxed. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of House Bill 1317.

Madam Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is an honor to serve with you. It is an honor to serve with you. I move House Bill 1317 and the committee report from education and the committee report from appropriations. To the appropriations committee report.

Today in appropriations, we removed any reimbursements for travel or other expenses for participation in the transition advisory committee for this bill, which brought the fiscal note down to zero. I ask for an aye vote. Committee, any further discussion on the appropriations committee report? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of the appropriations committee report.

Aye. All opposed, no.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In the Education Committee, we did make several adjustments, both to acknowledge that adult learners and adult education belongs within the reimagining of our Department of Higher Ed. we made adjustments to the transition advisory committee membership, including and clarifying, including Additional participants as well as clarifying the organizations they represented. And we concluded by making sure that those departments that may be considered as part of this transition remain as type one entities and are not impacted with those changes due to our bill. I ask for an aye vote.

To the bill, Representative Taggart. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's an honor to serve with you. It is an honor to serve with you. I would ask all of us in the chamber to consider two types of individuals and families. First, a first-generation family, a family that has never, parents have never been to any form of an institution of higher education. And the second group I would ask you to think about is an adult in today's world that's going through a major transition. And as we know, those transitions are going to come upon us very quickly, especially with the adoption of AI. And then think about this. Those two groups of people in today's world in Colorado must navigate an overwhelming set of options. Those individuals have to navigate 472 schools in the arena of higher education or training, 300 apprenticeship programs, 4,500 eligible training programs, and nearly 10,000 degree options. options. That's hard enough for those two groups and then consider that we have that spread across 20 divisions of state government and seven departments. Where do they start? How do they find the right program? What door do they enter? within our state government. And thus the purpose of this bill is to look at by way of a transition advisory committee how can we pull all of these many programs together in one potential department that make it considerably easier for that first generation family and for adults going through a major transition in jobs. And I would ask you to consider that and vote aye on this bill.

Representative Garcia-Sander. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For my colleagues who sometimes question bills coming out of the Education Committee, I'm going to say this is a really good bill. it consolidates and streamlines bureaucracies. So please vote yes on this bill.

All in favor say aye. All opposed no.

Senate Bill 85 by Senators Frizzell and Ball, also Representatives Duran and Hartzook. Concerning military protection orders and the connection therewith, a peace officer's duty to determine whether a military protection order exists when responding to an incident of domestic violence and a requirement for the court to consider the existence of a military protection order as relevant evidence when determining whether to issue a temporary civil protection order.

To the Judiciary Committee report,

Is there any further discussion on the Judiciary Committee report? Seeing none, members, the question before us is the adoption of the Judiciary Committee report. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. The ayes have it. The Judiciary Committee report is passed. To the bill, Representative Hartsook. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning and happy Friday.

Seeing none, members, the question before us is the passage of Senate Bill 85.

All opposed, no. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 85 is passed. And that's how it's done. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of Senate Bill 95.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Senate Bill 95 and the Judiciary Committee report.

Thank you. In Judiciary, we ran an amendment from the AG to clarify some language, and we asked for an aye vote on the Judiciary Committee report.

Aye.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, measures to support victim survivors of crime come from, this bill generates from, victim survivors. Have you checked on the women in your life lately? Because a lot of us are not okay. What started as a somewhat facetious question on the Internet, would you rather be alone in the woods with a man or a bear, has shocked the world in the vast percentage of people, women, who have chosen bear. When fathers are asked, would you rather your daughter be alone in the woods with a man or with a bear, fathers are saying bear. And why are they saying that? Because when victim survivors come forward, they have a 2% chance of getting a case even prosecuted. And an even slimmer chance of getting a conviction. We live in a world where a CNN report just reported a website with 62 million visits. That is an academy that tells you how to put your wife to sleep for the purposes of assaulting her. And on that website, you can view those assaults for $20. 62 million visits to that website in one month. We ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this bill was heard in judiciary and when we have bills that come before, well when I have a bill that comes before me, I generally believe that if there's something that needs to be worked on in the bill, I'm more than willing to help and work on this bill. One of the issues is the sponsor, this bill specifically states that the jury no longer needs to be in the same room with the defendant. We I believe that at no point should you not be allowed to face your jury That is one of the tenets of every bit of jurisprudence and constitutional law that I know The idea that in a criminal case, a defendant could be in a different room, not because they've done anything, not the innocent until proven guilty, not because they've moved any, not because they've been disrespectful to anyone, not for any other reason than because of this law and because of this bill. And so I don't believe I can support this bill. I've told that to the sponsors. Actually, I have a respect for the process. But you should be able to at least, if you can't face your accuser, you should be able to be in the same room with the jury that's going to decide your fate. And so I'm not in support of this bill at this time.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. and for the same reasons as my good colleague from Denver, I also can't support this bill. I really want to, so it pains me to say that. But in our system of laws under the Sixth Amendment, right to face your accuser, and that's been confirmed in Crawford against Washington. So the idea that the defendant is not in the same room as the jury and that the ability to test the veracity of what's being said in real time, it changes. Think about when someone reacts on Zoom versus in person. You can see a different facial expression in person. People respond differently in person. That's the reason why we have the confrontation clause, the ability to see other subtle gestures that may not appear on a screen and a screen can block out a lot of things. And it pains me to have to come down here and say that I'm going to be a no vote. But it is so difficult to see this in a bill. And we have to respect the Constitution. We have to respect the fact that this is part of our system of justice and this is how you test the veracity for truthfulness. So, members, I'll be a no vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise, as did my fellow legally trained and lawyer, to also indicate that I'll be a no vote on this bill. I think it's an excellent bill except for this one issue. Well, I have two issues with the bill, neither of which could be resolved, my understanding is because the Senate sponsors would not agree. And I just want to put on the record that I really value my colleagues in the House for taking the issues that we raised to the Senate and seeing if they would concur. But because that was not going to be possible, my understanding is they would not strike this jury from the presence of the victim. But I also want to clarify, I don't see this as a direct confrontation, lack of confrontation, because we have recognized in our court's history that video testimony is allowed. So it's not specifically confrontation that's wrong, but what it is is it's a prejudice to the defendant which undermines their due process. That is, and the District of He said the reason we want the jury in with the witnesses is so they could be impacted by the emotional testimony that the victims are giving. The trial system is based on a fairness of the jury evaluating the defendant's response to those witnesses, not based on being swayed by the emotional impact of being in what might be relatively close quarters in another courtroom without having the benefit of assessing that impact on the defendant who they are supposed to be making the determination of guilt or innocence about. So that's my issue as I interpret the confrontation slash due process issue on the jury question. I raised a second concern with this bill in that we are originally there was a question that I had with regard to how could we even do this arbitration question that's also in the bill. Because doesn't that violate the other terms? However, there's a federal statute which addresses that issue, and I then withdrew my objection with regard to the arbitration clause. However, in this statute that's written right now, we're in accordance with the federal law referring to tribal courts or tribal law. So if it's domestic violence harm as defined under tribal law, that is also being brought into this bill. However, no one decided to talk to the tribes again about the inclusion of that provision in the statute, triggering any thought that maybe then we should also include the tribal courts into the application of the bill. So we're applying the tribal law. So if somebody's had a sexual assault or domestic violence assault in a tribal court or under those tribal definitions, they fall within the statute, but we're not equally applying this to the tribal courts because we don't have that in the bill. This was another question that I raised because I think we should be stakeholder with the tribes. We should include, if we're going to reference their law, we should make sure we've done the rest of our homework and include them in the provisions of the statute. And those two defects are the reason that I will be voting no.

I move L11 to Senate Bill 95.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is an articulation of the conversation that myself, Representative Soper, and Representative Espinosa were having. This is directly related to an individual should be allowed to at least have the jury that is going to determine their fate. That individual should be in the same room as the jury. I want to reiterate, I understand the concept regarding closed circuit TV for special witnesses. I'm not fighting against that. It is already in the children's code. That is already something we're doing. I also understand the concept of a witness not being in the same room as a defendant but it is highly prejudicial for the defendant not to be in the same room with the jury That going to determine his or her fate And I'm asking for an aye vote for Amendment 11.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I also support this amendment. With this amendment, I would be a yes vote on the bill. it addresses the concerns that we've had and I will say my two colleagues from Denver are a little bit more eloquent on this point than I was so I won't belabor it. Vote yes.

Thank you Mr. Chair. I want to express my appreciation for folks bringing this amendment taking the time to draft it and yet not having the time to have a conversation with the bill sponsors about it. That's awesome. To make sure that what exists in statute currently is altered and to make sure that what came from the Senate, where they have a couple lawyers, I'm pretty sure, with a two no vote margin in the Senate, through Judiciary Committee, unanimously in the Senate, one no vote in the House. This bill is about victims and survivors and their rights in the courtroom. It has been through this whole process with that in mind. We ask for a no vote.

And so I believe in this process. I believe in the decorum. So I voiced my issues in committee. I had an understanding that those issues would be addressed. The issues were never addressed. And so I am down here. If we want to make it about victims versus defendants, I will lose in this court. I will lose in this floor every time. I know that. But if it's about process, if it's about the fact that a defendant should have due process, I will not only lose, but I will go down fighting and swinging. Do you understand that at a certain point, innocent until proven guilty has to mean something in this room? I completely understand a special victim or a special witness needing to be behind a closed circuit television. I'm not even fighting that. I'm not. I understand if they don't want to be in the same room. I'm not even fighting that. What I am fighting is the right to due process and the face not only your accuser, but the 12 people who are going to determine whether or not you go to prison. I have tried to work with the sponsors. I told them how I felt. I sent them text, email. I have done what I'm supposed to do. I will not be impugned because I actually asked them to do something and they did not. I'm asking for an aye vote on Senate Bill or Amendment 11, not because I didn't do my job, but because I did.

This is a motion to the judge. It is not a piece of law that says the jury is here or the jury is there. This is a motion you can make among a series of things that you can request when the survivor has asked to be on closed circuit. So one of the main reasons for the bill is this portion, where victims have asked to not be in the courtroom with the accused. And one of the things that a judge can decide via motion is where the jury is located. And again, that made it through the whole Senate. Our colleague had a question in committee. We have had exchanges about that question. We did not know it was going to manifest in an amendment, but that's fine. It has manifested in an amendment, and we're asking for a no vote.

Representative Carter. I will not be impugned on the House floor. Division.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am surprised by this amendment. And I'm going to ask for a no vote, and I want to explain why. did we talk about did we hear the concerns in committee from the good representative from aurora yeah we heard the concerns did we have a conversation after committee yes did i do my due diligence and follow up with the bill sponsors and the advocates yes i did and what i told the representative from arapahoe county was that we could not do this and i asked and I told him why. And that's because we already allow the jury to be present in cases where the plaintiff is a child or an individual with a developmental disability. We are mirroring that statute. And if you look at page 10, line 23, it says only the following individuals may It says may be in the room. It does not require the jury to move. It says may. And I would argue to my colleague from Aurora that yes, the jury does decide one person's fate, but they also determine another's as well. these cases are not just one-sided and I would also argue that most survivors do not see their day in court to get to this point at which there is a jury trial is a big deal most survivors don't report because they're not believed to get to this point means they not only found the person but there was credible evidence to move it forward and if the jury wants to understand the impact on the plaintiff, then they should have that ability. This amendment, as about whether or not we tie the jury's hands or whether or not we provide them the flexibility if and when a judge determines that the person who is there because they're a survivor of a case that involves human trafficking, domestic violence, stalking, should have the ability to provide remote testimony via closed circuit television. I would ask for a no vote on this amendment.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do just want to flag that I share the concerns of the representative from Arapahoe County and the representative from Delta on anything that we're doing that might impede on the confrontation clause. I take that very seriously. I think everybody in this room knows that I take due process and the fundamental principle that you are innocent until you are proven guilty in this country very seriously. I interpret the language starting on page 10 and going on to page 11 in the bill as permissive. And for that reason, I do not view this amendment as necessary. I understand the concern of not wanting to be in a position where the jury is not in the room with the defendant. I get that. We probably do. There probably are many strong arguments in any given case for a jury to be in the room with the defendant when somebody is testifying, when they're being confronted with their accuser. But as Rep. Espinoza has explained, courts have already ruled that it's not a violation of the confrontation clause to have somebody testify remotely over Zoom. And so what this language in the bill says is the following individuals may be in the room with the victim survivor, has a whole list, and then on line seven, that includes the jury. So that's permissive. The judge could easily make the opposite conclusion and say, okay, this witness testifies remotely either from their home, maybe from another room in the court, but that they will have the defendant in the room with the jury. And for those reasons, I do not believe that the court's hands are tied by the language in the bill. I also, with all respect to the sponsor of the amendment, I understand why you want to be as clear as possible. I just do not think that it's necessary.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise to clarify. my concession that closed circuit testimony has been allowed is very different from the question that we're asked to vote on right now the good sponsor has indicated that the issue has been settled because we have it in child testimony but during the judiciary hearing I specifically asked the attorneys who were relying on the U Supreme Court case of Marilyn v Craig what that case decided and specifically whether that case decided this question of whether the jury should be present in the room. And there's two important factors in that case. The first is that case was dealing with a child witness, not an adult witness. And the second factor is, in that case, the court did not answer the question of whether the jury should be present or not present because it was not raised in the case. So there is no precedent. When we establish the child witness testimony, this section was in the statute. I will suggest, at least from what my experience in this chamber is, there may not have been very many attorneys at the time that that was drafted to do the kind of check and verification that we are now trying to do in the Judiciary Committee. I would also suggest that there's a substantial difference between a child witness and an adult witness. And an adult's right to have the jury present in your courtroom when you are being confronted by your accuser, I believe is a paramount right. And so I don't think it's a problem to have two separate statutes. We're not saying that we should change the child statute, but there are different factors involved in the circumstance. The permissive nature that my good colleague from Denver talked about, which means that this is okay because the judge doesn't have to let this happen, however, should raise some concerns because that means in every case, guess what's going to have to happen? There will now be a factual determination that the judge must make because we're not telling the judge whether that should happen or not by eliminating the jury in the courtroom. In every case, the prosecutor will get up and argue, the jury needs to be in with that victim. Because as I said, the proponent district attorney said, yes, we want that emotional impact of the victims to be recognized when they're testifying. And the defense attorneys are going to get up and they're going to argue, this is a violation and we have rights under due process and confrontation. And so you're forcing a determination in every case by the judge that my belief is should be up to us to make, and that we can and should make the difference between adults and children in this circumstance, which is my understanding of why the Senate sponsor did not want to make this change. But I think we can make this change and say simply striking, and the most important part of this is to strike line 7, which just says the jury won't be one of the parties allowed in with the victim witness testifying. They're not going to be denied that access, and the protection that we're trying to do in this bill is to the victim themselves. That still happens. That is what this bill is about, and so I would encourage a yes vote on this amendment.

Representative Luck. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I didn't hear this in committee. I'm hearing it in real time on the floor. And I just want to put out there the idea that if those who are considering rejecting this amendment would understand what was just said related to that decision that will now be left to the judge, without additional guardrails to help the judge make that determination as to what, when, in what situation the jury should be in what room I think we do the defendant a disservice And I don know that with this being a Senate bill there is time to give clarity to what those guardrails should be So as if that is an option that the judge has to consider in each case, that they know exactly when and in what settings the jury should stay in what

And members, I also want to talk about the other sovereign, which is the federal government. So when we look at rules of criminal procedure, rule number 43, it specifically states that the defendant has the right to be in the room with the jury. So in a similar instance where you would be tried before a federal jury as a defendant, it would not be contemplated. The jury and the defendant would be in the same room. And with this bill, if we don't adopt this amendment, a judge is always going to have to make this determination as to whether or not the jury and the defendant are in the same room or whether they're separated. And that creates now two different standards of justice of how we're interpreting this. Plus, the idea of the defendant being remote only came about during COVID. And that was only because of the idea of social distancing and trying to keep people safe to allow our criminal trials to continue. Otherwise, we had only adopted rules concerning special witnesses that were testifying, but not the defendant, him or herself. And that's where everything is different here. It does change. I mean, if the fate of a person hangs in the jury, they should be able to be in the room. The last point I will make here is this is also a provision specifically laid out in the Declaration of Independence. that our founders were complaining about having trials in which the defendant was not in the same room as the jury. Now, they didn't have remote technology then. I mean, that's a big factor. But the fact that that was one complaint was the defendant needs to be in the same room as the jury, specifically laid out 250 years ago, still relevant today, and we're still debating it. So I'd like to be a yes on the bill. but it requires adopting this amendment first. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, we move Senate Bill 2660 and the House Health and Human Services Committee report. To the committee report.

and also a liability clarification, and we ask for an aye vote.

All opposed, no.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, we come to this building to champion legislation for different reasons, whether it is to strengthen consumer protections, address personal lived experiences, or respond to the needs of people of our districts. For this bill, the ELISA's Youth Concussion and Mental Health Protection Act, the why is rooted in the unthinkable, the loss of a child. Under current law, known as the Jake Snakenberg Youth Concussion Act, coaches are required to take concussion recognition training to identify signs of injury and know when to remove a child from play. Senate Bill 2660 builds upon that foundation by requiring a biennial mental health education course for youth sports coaches, While some youth organizations already prioritize this, many do not, we want to ensure that every coach who often serves as a vital mentor and role model is equipped to identify signs of struggle in our children. As a long-distance runner and a long-distance running coach, I've seen firsthand the unique position coaches hold. We aren't just teaching form or strategy. We're often the first line of support for a student athlete's well-being. This bill also requires that when an athlete is pulled for a suspected concussion, coaches must notify parents and advise them to seek medical and behavioral health guidance regarding the physical, cognitive, and psychological symptoms that can follow such an injury. These measures elevate our coaching standards and, most importantly, work to keep our children safe, and we ask for an aye vote on Senate Bill 2660.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senate Bill 60 is a practical, low-cost update to framework Colorado has already invested in. We have existing concussion education requirements. We have existing return to play protocols. This bill adds the one component that is currently missing. the mental health piece. National youth sports associations have found that when coaches receive brief mental health training, athletes are more likely to disclose emotional distress and seek help earlier, reducing the likelihood of crisis level interventions down the line. This is a better outcome for athletes, for families, and frankly for the systems that bear the cost when those crises go unaddressed. This bill is straightforward, it's evidence-based, and it builds on where Colorado has already done. We ask for a yes vote on Senate Bill 2660.

Aye.

Representative Hamrick.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to clarify a few things. So first of all, the amendments that we brought both in committee and in appropriations and today were recommended by, in close collaboration with the counties, with the Office of Respondent Parent Council, all and with OCR, those are all to make sure that we have safeguards, that this does not end up as an issue, a parental rights issue. The exact opposite has been happening in the last year since RMP happened, and I heard a few comments that this is, that we are thinking about one child or that we are not thinking about the whole picture. It's the exact opposite. We have seen since the RMP decision that a child's right to remain safe, a kid's right to be safe in their placement is being taken away. And so all this does is make sure that we restore that precedent that was part of Colorado for 40 years, 40 years. This is just safeguarding that right of a child to say I do not feel safe That is imperative in our system And as someone who is intimately involved with child welfare and has a reputation of working with all stakeholders there are no unintended consequences of this bill. I want to read an example of what one of the many things that have happened since R&P's decision has been made, and if we don't fix this, we'll continue. The department filed a petition on a three-year-old child that included information that the toddler ingested THC and was hospitalized due to the risk of death from organ failure. Further safety concerns were identified in the home, including a gun on the table within reach of the toddler. In an initial shelter hearing, the department moved to dismiss the petition, meaning moved to keep the child in the home. The court expressed concern at dismissing given the information shared in the petition and asked for the position of the guardian at litem, the attorney who represents the child. The GAL expressed concern about dismissal and not providing the family with services and oversight. The court asked the department for more information about the case and where the child was currently. The department refused to provide further information only stating that the child was safe. The court expressed frustration but had to grant the dismissal pursuant to the holding in RMP. So that three-year-old child who was in danger stayed in that position because the judge did not feel like they could make a decision because of RMP. We are trying to fix that for this child and many, many more. This is a simple fix. It is incredibly important and it protects the child and has nothing to do with parental rights. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to ask the bill sponsors with respect to what... Sorry, I have a question with respect to the amendments that were just passed. The question that I have, if I'm understanding the process that has now been created under the amendments that were adopted in a prop's and the amendments that are adopted on the floor. Now what happens is the county moves to dismiss the petition, finding that no longer does this need to be adjudicated. The child, through their representative, raises their hand and says, actually, there's a reasonable basis for this to be adjudicated. So long as there's a reasonable basis, the language reads that the court must proceed with a hearing. However, we just adopted an amendment that, if I understood correctly, the county can counter that request and show by a reasonable basis that there isn't a reason to proceed, at which point the court must side with the county. So I'm wondering how the bill sponsors are seeing this going to be played out, because presumably it would be malpractice for a county to say that there is no reasonable basis to proceed forward. Therefore, we're asking for the court to dismiss this and then not hold to that, so to speak, right? Presumably the counties aren't just dismissing these neglect cases when they have no basis to do so. And so there's always going to be this tension where the youth is going to raise their hand and say, I have a reasonable basis for this to proceed. The county raises their hand and says, I have a reasonable basis for this not to proceed. And based off of the language that was just adopted, the court is kind of stuck in a must and must and so they're going to have to decide which party to side with and I'm just wondering how the bill sponsors see that playing out in the real world as

Rep Luck.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1227. All those in favor say aye.

All those opposed to saying no. House Bill 1227 passes.

Rep. Ryden. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1298 and the Appropriations Committee Report and the Health and Human Services Committee Report. To the Health and Human Services Committee Report. Just had a technical amendment that we adopted for this bill. No concerns.

Aye.

Rep. Ryden. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appropriations report just shows that there will be federal pass-through dollars, so we ask for a yes vote.

Aye.

Rep. Ryden. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L002 to the bill.

Rep. Raiden. Thank you. Sorry for all the hassle. This amendment, it just narrows the language of who these background checks can actually apply to. It's another technical amendment. our counties caught this and we were able to make the adjustment today so we asked for a yes vote. Is there any further discussion on L2? Seeing none of the

problem we have is the FBI they need statute authority to run background checks required for kids in foster care so this would be for those providing of of the actual placement, so maybe the host family, this could be people providing services in the home to that kiddo. And interesting, there was a bit of an oopsie when the Office of Early Childhood was recreated. The authority was accidentally repealed. So the solution is kind of this bill which puts the statute authority back, allowing that, then it'll allow us to access the Title IV-E funding. That's the pass-through money that we talked about through the Appropriations Committee report. We just want to make sure that kids are safe and that the placement options are safe. So we ask for a yes vote on this bill.

Is there further discussion on House Bill 1298? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of House Bill 1298. All those in favor say aye.

All those opposed, no. House Bill 1298 passes.

Representative English. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Amendment L-001 to... Okay. Take that back. I move House Bill 1245. Thank you.

Now I would like to move Amendment L-001 to House Bill 1245. Thank you.

Representative Kelty. Thank you, Madam Chair. Everyone, this amendment is a very clean and simple amendment. Yesterday, we went through this bill on second reading, and it came to light that there were a couple areas that needed to be filled. A few cracks that we didn't want anyone to fall through. And I went through with Amel Bacon and she, this actually is exactly what she wanted. I said absolutely, 100%. She went over it with one of the legal individuals that, I'm not sure I can name them, but anyway, so everything is copacetic with this bill and it cleans it up, makes it stronger, and I ask for a yes vote.

Seeing AML Bacon. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the sponsors. I just wanted to speak to the amendment and recognize why we see this language. If you recall, when it was on seconds last, We wanted to tie the behavior more to a criminal behavior. Knowingly in law just means you're making a conscious decision to do anything. It doesn't necessarily mean to steal. And then the other piece, abandonment, striking that, material non-performance is a contract law issue. What happens there is you look at the contract, you determine if the terms were met. That's not necessarily something that happens in criminal court. And so if they have a criminal mind to steal, stop, not finish the project, that's what this amendment does. And I'd like to thank the sponsors.

Further discussion? Representative English? Oh, no. We just asked for a yes vote on this amendment.

Thank you, ma'am, Chair. And Colorado HB 261245, take two. I was just saying. That's my contractor. So, members, Colorado homeowners deserve protection from bad actors who exploit trust. Vulnerability and financial hardships. This bill, the theft by contractor bill, is a necessary and timely step towards protecting consumers, especially senior citizens and families of limited economic means, from contractor fraud. Across our state, scammers pose as trusted contractors are targeting Colorado homeowners, especially some of our most vulnerable residents. Seniors living on fixed incomes and hardworking families struggle to make ends meet are being approached with urgent and low-cost, unbelievably low-cost, repair offers like roof damage, foundation issues, plumbing emergencies, or storm-related repairs. These individuals are pressured into paying large upfront deposits with promises that work will begin immediately. Instead, the so-called contractor disappears before or partially through the project, leaving the homeowner without repairs and without money they can least afford to lose, sometimes leaving the home in such unsafe conditions from tearing it up to appear to do work. This is not an isolated problem. Law enforcement agencies across Colorado report receiving calls constantly from victims of contractor theft. However, under current law, many of these cases are treated as civil disputes rather than criminal acts. As a result, police are often unable to intervene effectively, leaving victims to pursue costly and complicated civil litigation, an unrealistic option, especially for many seniors and low-income families who have already lost thousands of dollars. This bill seeks to change that by clearly defining current penalties taking out of the confusion seen today for theft by contractor. This bill adds meaningful enforcement tools, teeth, to ensure that law enforcement can act and investigate when fraudulent contractors intentionally, intentionally take money without performing the promised work. This legislation will empower police and prosecutors to hold bad actors accountable and deter future scams. Importantly, this bill is not anti-contractor. In fact, it strongly supports the many honest, hardworking contractors who serve Colorado communities with integrity. Contractor fraud damages more than individual homeowners. It erodes public trust in the entire industry. When homeowners become fearful of being scammed, legitimate businesses suffer. Small businesses suffer. By holding fraudulent contractors accountable, 1245 will help restore confidence in hiring licensed, reputable professionals for home repairs. Protecting vulnerable residents supporting ethical businesses and strengthening consumer protections are goals we can all stand behind This bill is a balanced and necessary measure to ensure Coloradans are not left defenseless against contractor theft For these reasons, I ask for a very strong yes.

Representative Kelty. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I also want to point out that this does not create any new crimes. It just updates and clarifies existing law. Thank you, and we ask for an aye vote.

Representative Mabry. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I'm here to urge a no vote on House Bill 1245. All of us agree that when there is a dispute between a homeowner and a contractor, there should be a remedy. I would wager to guess that most of us would agree that that should be a contract dispute. And fraud laws already exist. It is already a crime to commit fraud. We should be honest that a significant portion of Colorado's construction workforce is made up of immigrants, contractors, subcontractors, independent tradespeople, the people who work on our homes, who retile our kitchens and bathrooms, a large share of them are immigrants. Some are citizens, but some are here on worth authorization. authorization. Some are even undocumented. And what this bill does is it creates a risk of criminalization of a work dispute. Imagine a scenario where you are a contractor and you tile somebody's kitchen and they do not pay you. They have committed wage theft and you bring it up and say, hey, I was supposed to be paid for this. This bill gives them increased leverage to threaten criminal prosecution over a contract dispute. It turns a billing dispute into a criminal charge. And in 2026, criminal threat charge, even one that are not proven and that is eventually dropped, pings databases. It triggers ICE attention and can set deportation processes in motion. Under this bill, a disagreement with a contractor and a homeowner over whether an advance payment was spent on the right thing can end up with somebody facing criminal prosecution. That is a contract dispute. We already have the mechanisms to hold people accountable when they do not live up to their end of the bargain. And the tool on the other side of that should not be jail time or deportation. And that should trouble every one of us. Somebody who is acting in bad faith We all seen it Homeowner who changes the scope of a project midway and refuses to pay A developer who invents defects to avoid making final payment A client who simply decides after the materials are brought and the crew is mobilized that they would rather keep their money. Under current law, these are civil fights. Under this bill, a homeowner now has an additional tool to hold criminal prosecution over somebody's head. That is not hypothetical. That is what the bill does. I honestly, as the chair of the Judiciary Committee, do not understand why this bill didn't go to the Judiciary Committee because it implies, it implicates a criminal process. So again, we already have remedies for this problem. We have contractor trust fund statutes. We have mechanic lease laws. Some of the strongest in the country. We have breach of contract. We have civil theft, which already allows for travel damages. We have consumer protection statutes. A homeowner who has been genuinely defrauded by a contractor has a full arsenal of tools without this bill. This bill doesn't add a necessary remedy. It adds a criminal escalation pathway in a country where a criminal charge can be the first domino in a deportation case in an industry that is dominated by immigrant workers. Please vote no on this bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, clearly we're not the bill routers, but we're assuming that it was routed to business because we're talking about contractors, which happens to fall under business. Members, this is not creating a new crime. It is not. having a conversation with AML Bacon, the amendment that was proposed cleaned up the issues that was stated initially, which shows that we as the bill sponsors were open to having conversations to make it make sense. But what I do know is if grandma emptied out her bank account for $30,000 and paid a contractor and didn't get the services that she paid for, how can she now pay for litigation? And this is simply saying if there's a feeling that there's fraud or a thought that there's fraud, that due process can happen and there can be an investigation. This is not criminalizing anyone or anyone and causing homeowners to be able to hold something over anyone's head. Because first of all, if the contractors do it right the first time and do what they were paid to do, we wouldn't have this particular issue. But this is, in fact, an issue. And me and my co-prime have said numerous times who this is really affecting, which is our most vulnerable, our senior neighbors. And so not creating a new crime, simply clarifying theft to contractors and what that looks like and being able to have an investigation done is not a big ask. There are many things that come across this desk in this building. And something like this is not even a big ask. It's not a heavy lift. And again, I just want to point out the fact that no one from the business community, not one contractor signed up in a position of opposition and not one contractor. came and testified against this bill. And so with that, members, we just ask for a yes vote. Thank you.

Is there any further discussion on House Bill 1245? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of House Bill 1245 as amended. All those in favor say aye.

All those opposed, no. House Bill 1245 as amended is passed.

You have heard the motion. Seeing no objection, the committee will rise and report.

The House will come back to order. Mr. Schiebel, please read the report of the Committee of the Whole.

You have heard the motion members there are amendments at the desk I'll ask you to take your seats as we'll be voting. Mr. Schiebel, please read the Mabry Amendment to the report of the Committee of the Whole.

Representative Mabry.

Please proceed.

Representative Camacho.

Further discussion? Rep Kelty, would you like to be last

And Rep Kelty, you can speak twice on the amendment, so it's your choice. Okay. Reps Espinosa, Reps O'Kai, who would like to go first? Reps O'Kai.

and I urge a guest vote on this amendment Representative Espinosa Thank you Mr Speaker Pro Tem It a pleasure to serve with you It a pleasure to serve with you I also rise as the progressive Denver representative to articulate from a judicial standpoint why I have concerns with this bill

AML Bacon.

Representative Kelty.

Representative English.

Minority Leader Caldwell.

Representative English, this is your second time speaking. You have eight minutes and 49 seconds remaining eight minutes and 49 seconds members I just want to be clear this will

Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the adoption of the Mabry Amendment. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine, and members, please proceed to vote. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes yes.

Yes.

Representative Routenel, how do you vote?

Representative Routenel votes yes.

Representative Clifford is excused. Please close the machine.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the Hartzell Amendment to the report of the Committee of the Whole. Representative Hartzell, move to amend the report of the Committee of the Whole to reverse the action taken by the Committee in adopting the following Carter Amendment, L11, to Senate Bill 95, to show that said amendment lost and that Senate Bill 95 passed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for Tim and happy snow day. Happy snow day to you, sir. Thanks, sir. I move the Hartzell Amendment to Senate Bill 95, which will properly be displayed.

Members, the sirens are coming to get us. I appreciate the defense that has been argued, the Constitution, how everything goes. I appreciate watching the lawyers It kind of fun watching judiciary in action again But today we do have the technology we have the ability for defendants especially victims to be on that zoom When you're a victim of a specific crime and you would be traumatized over and over again, that is not judicial course of action. That is punishment. We will urge an aye vote on this amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. So, members, I just wanted to give some clarity as to what the bill was without the amendment. So, Senate Bill 95, as currently drafted, without the amendment that was added on second reading, aligns, and I repeat, aligns with standards for remote testimony for children under similar circumstances. The children remote testimony statute has been tested in courts and withstands scrutiny. Altering the language will create unknown risk because it will no longer align with the case law. We need to keep the language as it is so we are best positioned to handle any appeal and any challenge that may come our way. So making the change makes it more likely for this to be challenged on constitutionality are not less likely and therefore could continue to put more survivors at risk. You know, members, I've been up here many times as a survivor. You know my story in the eight years that I have been here. So I'm not going to repeat it, but what I am going to say is very rarely as survivors do we get an opportunity to have our truth heard, whether that be here in this well, whether that be in court, whether it be anywhere, because it is so difficult for someone to believe us. Today I'm asking and I'm pleading with you as a survivor to please dig deep into your hearts. Put yourself in my shoes. You would want your voice to be heard. You'd want your side to be heard without fear of intimidation from your abuser, period. I ask you for a yes vote on this.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. It's exactly the level of emotion and trauma that we heard the victims were asking to not have to endure by adoption of this bill. I totally agree with that. The bill at its core and at its premise is to allow those victims to testify outside the presence of the defendant. This amendment does nothing to change that. The victim will testify outside the presence of the defendant. Now, I know many people, since we passed the amendment, have heard from their district attorneys. But let me just tell you, as someone who's worked in the criminal justice system and been a judge, here's how this will go if we leave this jury, if we don't hold to the amendment that we passed. In every case, we've now extended the criminal prosecution and therefore the time that those victims are subject to questions of how things are going to fall out. Because in every case now, there will be a fight between the prosecutor and the defense over whether the jury can go into the room and watch the victim. And in every case, then the victim's going to have to decide if the judge decides to put the jury in with that victim, does that create the trauma that we exactly trying to avoid by this bill And or as the defense will be arguing does that mean that I going to be denied my Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and or my due process right by having the jury watch the victims in person, not the defendant, and then be traumatized and be subject to the emotional testimony of that victim to influence them, I would say, on appeal, the defendant will argue, with prejudice because you're putting them in the position of seeing all of the trauma that the victim is experiencing. And I think just in terms of the practicality, 90% of the time I believe the judges will side with the defendant and say that we should not put the jury in there because of the emotional impact and because the victim's trauma will be greater to have more people in the room with them than less, which is the whole reason we're allowing for the CCTV to have in the first place, right? Minimizing the victim's trauma. Allowing them to testify outside the presence of the defendant. But what's going to happen in those 10% of the cases where judges say, okay, prosecutor, you're right. In this circumstance, we'll let you testify, let the witness testify with the jury present. In those 10% of cases, I would submit, because there is no case law, despite what anybody's told you, there is no case law in this jury question, there's going to be an immediate appeal. And what I heard from the victims is that many of them were traumatized because the proceedings kept going on, and then they got reversed. And in this circumstance, I will guarantee you with pretty high certainty that the defendant's rights are going to be paramount in that circumstance when the courts weigh the determination, and they're going to reverse the conviction that happened because the jury was in that room. And so I am not speaking against victims. I am speaking for victims in supporting this amendment because ultimately we want to reduce the harm to those victims and the trauma that they're facing and not put them through a process that we're doing because we have to have equivalency between the child and the adults. In the child process, the reason we had that provision in there, I would surmise, is because the case that this was all based upon involved a child. But in a child case, the evaluation the judge makes is already so much greater than what's going to happen when you're talking about an adult defendant and another victim. So there is a rational, legal reason to separate these cases with an adult defendant from the cases that we've already allowed the jury to be in the room for with the children. I'm urging you, for the sake of the victims, understanding how the criminal process will play out, and not letting one victim be traumatized by their conviction being overturned because we didn't take this step today. Please support this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to ask you to vote no on this. I want to give you a little background. I want to give you a background on this bill and why I, who hate hostile amendments, stood up on this bill. This bill was in committee. It came through. Judiciary, I looked at the bill out of respect for the sponsors. I indicated the issues that I had with the bill. My request was allow the bill out, but talk to me about the issues that I have so we can work through that. The answer I got regarding my issues was no. fine. That is the sponsor's prerogative and I'm okay with that. But then I had to make a choice. I had to make a decision about my own personal rules and what I believe is best for this bill and the population of the state of Colorado. I want to point out I have respect for the sponsors. I don't want that to be confused. I don't want any type of confusion regarding my respect for the sponsors and the people who have already spoke. I want that to be understood. But you've got to understand, no one's going to give you a medal for standing up in this room and speaking on behalf of defendants. They are not. And if you don't believe me, check your phones, because within the last two hours, I guarantee you, the lobby has blown it up. They have blown it up, and they have told you everything but the truth about this bill. I've been told that I'm anti-victim. The things that they have been explaining to you are not true. So let me tell you what I asked for. I already understand that a victim does not have to be in the same room as a defendant. Boom. Yeah. I said okay. That's fine. Special need victim, you don't have to be in the same room as a defendant. But the bill goes farther than that. So the bill says that you don't have to be in the same room as the jury if you're a defendant. So I voiced that displeasure. I asked the sponsors to change that one little piece. Because how are you going to be judged by 12 people who aren't even in the same room as you? How? How is that okay? How? You guys cannot see yourselves as defendants is the problem. But I can. I can see myself as a defendant every day. And so when I come down here, and I don't like coming down here, and I keep saying that, and y'all keep making me come down here. I don't like coming down here. But I see myself as a defendant. I've tried more cases than 90% of the people in this building. I know what a jury trial looks like, and I'm being told that I don't know what I'm talking about. I am being told I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm being told that I hate victims. You're not going to get a medal for standing with me. You won't. You won't. As a matter of fact, I'm probably going to be denigrated in a minute. But I tell you what, even though I hate coming down here even though I hate adding amendments even though I hate this process I standing up and I telling you I telling you as a defendant I want this process to be fair period Vote no on that amendment

and I had just come back from the Red Room of Doom, came over here, and I saw on the top of the amendment Carter, and I understood what the language did. And I want to share what my perspective was at the time because I do want to separate this from any of our intentions or motives. I feel like, you know, temperature is a little up. I trust the bill sponsors and I trust the amendment sponsor. And so I wanted to reiterate the conversation we had in committee. Because I was one who spoke about this and why I stood for it, not understanding the context of who brought it and when. ultimately when we were in committee I too said on the microphone there was an amendment brought in committee that had to do with training for law enforcement and I did not like how that went down and then when it came to some of the outstanding questions and can we move forward I too said

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. I want you all to understand that this is not a victim-centered amendment. It's not. We need to vote for this amendment to strip the amendment that was put on during the cow. And I want to address some of the things that I heard about process. You can run any amendment you want on any bill. Go for it. Knock yourself out. but the impact of running an amendment on a bill, a bill about survivors of sex assault, human trafficking, domestic violence, and stalking, without saying a word to the very people who are running the bill, it's wrong. Especially when you know that one of the bill sponsors is a sex assault survivor. It's silencing us. And this isn't the first time that a hostile amendment's been run on this bill in a house without a word. Without a word. It's the second time. And so, yes, I've had a very visceral reaction, a very physical reaction today, and that reaction should be data. Because it what survivors feel every day when we ignored when we overridden or we silenced by people who think that they know better than us Yes you can come to me after committee and we can work to address your concerns but if your concerns cannot be addressed, I have the right to say no. I have the right to not give my consent, but you also have the obligation to tell me what you're doing. As a colleague, that is what I expect. I guess I want to know, what is it going to take for people in this building and people out in the world to believe survivors? When we tell you about the horrible things that have happened to us, what will it take before we trust survivors and their words? because I know personally and I know that many of the other survivors that were involved in crafting this bill in bill language feel like we have been shouting out into the void sharing our stories over and over and over again asking for anyone somebody just to hear us and to believe us and do something about it and when you've lived through sexual violence you become acutely aware of every moment when the system either catches you or lets you fall. So few of these cases ever get to trial. So few cases. So yes, victims are traumatized because we have told our stories over and over again. And if it's not safe for them to be in the same room as the defendant, then the judge gets to make a decision as to whether or not they should be able to give testimony, an explanation of what happened to them via CCTV. And you know what? The jury should be able to weigh the impact on a victim. They should be able to weigh it. And if it's emotional, then thank God somebody finally feels what it's like to be a survivor and the emotion that comes with it. And the judge, again, the judge makes the decision, including the parameters on a list of what should be included and how it will play out. for one part of the trial. This is a small part of the trial. The bill as drafted aligns with the standards for remote testimony for children under certain circumstances. The children's remote testimony statute has been tested in the courts and withstood scrutiny. Altering the language will create unknown risk because it will no longer align with case law. We need to keep the language in the bill as it was introduced so that we are best positioned to handle any appeal or challenge that may come. The Attorney General's Office worked with us on this language and signed off on it. And there was no registered opposition to the bill. Not the Defense Bar, not the ACLU. Nothing. In fact, those same groups, along with the survivors that helped craft this bill, are in opposition to what was done during the COW. The experience of a survivor in the justice system is horrific. And this amendment that was added to the COW undermines a victim's testimony, which is counter to the goal of the bill. We would ask you to vote yes on this amendment. Thank you.

Representative Hartzell. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. And thank you for all of that for everybody that's been up here. There's 23 district attorneys in this state. they are in support and concurring with what we are trying to do here on this cow amendment. That's why we're running this. I appreciate everybody who's come down here to speak with their comments, their viewpoints and all of that. I'm running the amendment because 23 district attorneys, including Democrat and Republicans, have requested this. I urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I apologize. I did not want to go after the amendment sponsor, but I felt I need to come down here real quick. I am not anti-victim. the amendment is not anti-victim the victim can still testify through closed circuit television nothing in the amendment says that that they cannot testify and the fact that i have to say this again tells you what i've been trying to explain to you this is about the defendant and the jury and making sure the defendant and the jury are in the same room. I'm sorry I have to keep saying that over and over again. I'm sorry no matter what I say, no one's going to listen to it. I want you to know I am not anti-victim, but if we are going to argue a position, can we at least argue the facts of the amendment? This is about the jury being in the same room as the defendant,

Seeing no further discussion, the question, Representative Froelich.

the question before the House is the adoption of the Heartsook Amendment. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

I think we're straightened away. Majority Leader Duran. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem.

Seeing no objection, we will proceed out of order for consideration of Senate amendments to House bills. Madam Majority Leader.

Those bills will be removed from the calendar as such. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of House Bill 1239.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem.

House Bill 1239 will be laid over until...

House Bill 1239 will be laid over until Monday. Madam Majority, Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of House Bill 1305.

Representative Lukens. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. With a bill that works to keep rural health care thrive, HICPF needed an amendment if we wanted this bill to survive. It prevents a service disruption, no need to do a deep dive. I move the House concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1305.

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

Representative Lindsey votes yes. Representative Furet, how do you vote?

Representative Furet votes yes. Representative de Graff, how do you vote?

Representative de Graff votes yes. Representative Rutenal, how do you vote?

Representative Rutenal votes yes. Please close the machine. With 62, I, 1, no, and 2, excuse, the motion to concur with Senate amendments is adopted.

Mr. Speaker Pro Tem, I move for the repassage of House Bill 1305 as amended.

Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine. Members, please proceed to vote. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes yes. Representative Hure, how do you vote?

Representative Hure votes yes. Representative DeGraff, how do you vote?

Representative DeGraff votes yes. Representative Routenel, how do you vote?

Representative Routenel votes yes. Ricks.

With 63, aye, zero, no, and two, excuse, House Bill 1305 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Please close the machine Thank you

House Bill 1357 by Representative Sirota and Tigard, also Senator Zimablan-Bridges, concerning phasing out the teacher recruitment, education, and preparation program and a connection they're worth making in reducing and appropriation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem.

Members, the motion before us is to not concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1357 to appoint a conference committee and to grant the conference committee permission to go beyond the scope of the differences between the chambers.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Representatives Sirota will serve as chair. Representative Brown and Representative Taggart are also appointed to the conference committee on 1357. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1363.

Representative Sarita.

I move that the House not concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1363 and request that the Conference Committee be formed and request that the Conference Committee be permitted to go beyond the scope of differences between the chambers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. They made some technical changes to the bill and we want to make sure that that actually is accurate and needs time to consider.

Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine. Members, please proceed to vote. Representative Lindsay.

Representative Lindsay votes yes. Representative Furet.

House Bill 1373 by Representatives Brown and Sirota, also Senators Amabaline-Kirkmaier, concerning reducing monthly subsidy reimbursement percentages for child welfare services, provider contracts, and a connection therewith, reducing appropriation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for Tim. I move to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1373.

In the Senate, they added a few contract requirements and notice requirements. There's no fiscal impact, and we feel we can agree to that. So we ask for an aye vote on concurrence.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker Pro Tem, I move for the repassage of House Bill 1373 as amended.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

House Bill 1380 by Representatives Brown and Tigard, also Senators Bridges and Kirkmeyer, concerning the repeal of the Office of the Judicial Discipline Ombudsman.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. I move that the House not concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1380 I request that a conference committee be formed and that that conference committee be prevented to go beyond the scope of the differences between the two chambers or what I believe we call the whole enchilada

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem and Mr. Chair. this is positioned as a technical cleanup but we don't believe here in the house it's just a technical cleanup and we want to have a discussion about this with our senate colleagues and I would ask for an aye vote

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

House Bill 1399 by Representatives Brown and Taggart, also Senators Mabel and Kirkmeyer, concerning the elimination of the annual transfer from the general fund to the multimodal transportation and mitigation options fund and in connection therewith reducing and appropriation.

Thank you. Mr. Speaker Pro Tem, I move that the House not concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1399. We request that the Conference Committee be formed and that we request that the Conference Committee be permitted to go beyond the scope of the differences between the two chambers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. The Senate disagreed with our approach in terms of the $10.5 million from the general fund each year. And so, again, we need to get back and talk about their approach versus our approach. I believe our approach was better.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

House Bill 1405 by Representatives Brown and Sirota, also Senators Mabla and Kirkmeyer, concerning transfers of money from certain cash funds to the general fund.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker pro tem. I move that the house not concur with Senate amendments to 1405. that a conference committee be formed, and I request that the conference committee be preferred to go beyond the scope of differences between the two chambers.

Thank you. Yes, I am, I have less humor. I think the differences were varied in terms of what the Senate did on this bill, but there are a number of amendments that are interplaying with the long bill, and so we need the opportunity to, in particular, work out those differences and ensure that they are aligned with the long bill.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

House Bill 1406 by Representatives Sirota and Taggart, also Senators Amabaline-Kirkmaier, concerning the repeal of certain provisions regarding the funding of capital construction and connection with reducing appropriation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. I move that the House concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1406.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. They just made a small technical amendment. There's no fiscal impact. And I ask for your aye vote.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker Pro Tem, I move for the repassage of House Bill 1406 as amended.

Yes.

Only if it comes with interpretive dance with Rep Brown. Yes.

No.

And no on the dance. Noted.

Representative Routanel votes yes

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Protem. I move that the House not concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1409, request that a conference committee be formed, and I request that the committee be permitted to go beyond the scope of the differences between the two chambers.

The Senate changed some of the local share language that we had in the bill, and so we would like to talk about it with our Senate colleagues.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. I move that the House not concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1410, request that a conference committee be formed, and that the conference committee be permitted to go beyond the scope of the differences between the chambers.

Well, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem, the Senate made a lot more amendments than the House did, and some of them weren't very good, so we're going to have to go discuss that.

Yes.

Yes.

House Bill 1411 by Representatives Brown and Srode, also Senators Maublin-Kirkmaier, concerning changes to health insurance benefits for certain low-income individuals who are not eligible for medical assistance due to their immigration status and the connection they're with making and reducing an appropriation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. I move that the House not concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1411 and request that a conference committee be formed and request that the conference committee be permitted to go beyond the scope of the differences between the two chambers.

Obviously, we had a very vigorous debate about this particular bill in the House. The Senate also had a vigorous debate. We have different versions of what the changes to this program should be ongoing, and so we request the ability to work with our Senate colleagues to try to come up with a path forward.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. I move that the House not concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1412. Request that a conference committee be formed and that the conference committee be permitted to go beyond the scope of the differences

Representative Taggart. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. The Senate added to this bill the word alleged before, oh, we did. Oh, we took it out. They put it back in. Sorry. They put it back in. Alleged overpayment. And I know I'm fine with that. But their second one tightens audit rules on the extrapolation formulas. And I believe we should just sit down and talk about their approach versus our approach. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker Pro Tem, I move to lay over the balance of the calendar until Monday, April 20th, 2026.

Wait, wait, wait.

Reports of Committee of Reference. Committee on Finance after consideration on the merits of the committee recommends the following House Bill 1335 be amended as followed and as so amended be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation. Committee on Finance after consideration of the merits of the committee recommends the following House Bill 1119 be postponed indefinitely. Signing of bills, resolutions and memorials. The speaker has signed. Signing of bills, resolutions and memorials will be printed in the journal. Introduction of resolutions. House concurrent resolution 1006 by Representatives Luck and Garcia Submitting to the registered electors of the state of Colorado an amendment to the Colorado Constitution concerning the protection of the separation of powers by requiring a governor's proclamation convening the General Assembly to respect the General Assembly's authority to legislate. House Concurrent Resolution 261006 will be assigned to the Committee on State, Civic, Veterans, and Military Affairs.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. I move that the House stand in adjournment until Monday, April 20th at 10 a.m.