Colorado House 2026 Legislative Day 101

The House will come to order. Today the Pledge of Allegiance will be said by my niece, Jacqueline Strand.

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.

Basinecker.

Bradfield Bradley Brooks Brown

Caldwell

Camacho

Carter Clifford.

DeGraff.

Duran. English. Espinoza. Foray. Foray.

Flannell. Froelich. Garcia. Garcia-Sander. Gilchrist.

Goldstein. Gonzalez. Hamrick. Hamrick, Hartsook, Jackson, Johnson, Joseph, Representative Joseph, Kelty, Leader,

Lindsey. Luck. Lukens. Mabry. Marshall.

Martinez.

Mauro. McCormick. Wynn. Pascal. Phillips. Richardson. Ricks.

Routenel. Ryden. Sirota. Slaw.

Stuart R. Story. Sucla. Taggart. Titone. Oh my gosh.

Valdez

Velasco Weinberg Wilford Winter Woodrow Woog Zokai and Madam Speaker here with 58 present seven excused. We do have a quorum.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move the journal of Thursday, April 23rd, 2026 be approved as corrected by the chief clerk. Members, you have heard the motion

and AML Bacon. Come a little bit. I don't know why. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Today, I would like to, I have a guest in the gallery, my, what is it, my second favorite vice president of the Aurora Public Schools. I want to give a heartfelt thank you to Stephanie Mason or a force of inspiring community leader here in Aurora through her vision and dedication in founding the Mason Museum and Learning Center. Stephanie has created a space that reflects the vibrant diversity, culture, and lived experience that makes our community so special. Her work goes beyond art. It builds bridges, fosters understanding, and invites people from all backgrounds to connect. Her leadership reminds me of the power of community and is rooted in inclusion, creativity, and purpose. We're incredibly grateful to call her our neighbor and to witness the meaningful impact she continues to make. In celebration of Stephanie and her important work highlighting black culture in our community, we invite you to join us tomorrow at Paris Elementary from 1130 to 330 for the Black Pride and Joy Museum. Once again, I want to make sure you guys understand what Sister Mason has done. Um, sister Mason and I were on the school board together, uh, back in 2021 to 2022. And, um, we were facing what most of you are already been facing the closure of schools, but what we did and through her leadership, uh, we closed the school, but we repurposed it into a place for community. And one of the things that she has done is created a black history museum, um, within one of those spaces that we closed. So if you could give a round of applause for Ms Mason Thank you and welcome

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Good morning and happy Friday. I was going to sign up, but the sheet was gone, so just so you know.

I'll take it. Members, I wanted to recognize a crime that happened about almost five years ago. So one of my friends that I went to school with, his name was Luis Loma. He was killed in a hit-and-run. He was a bicyclist in Fort Collins, and the perpetrator...

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I went to school with Luis, and unfortunately, in October of 21, he was killed. He was killed in a hit-and-run, and the perpetrator fled the scene. They were able to identify some evidence in December, and I just want to recognize that after so long and so much time for the family that has been grieving, Luis was such a great guy. He was always happy and smiled and a great student to go to school with. They actually have a suspect in custody now, and so I believe that he has been charged with a failed term at the scene, a Class 3 felony, insurance fraud, a Class 5 felony. He was issued a cash-only bond, but I just wanted to recognize Luis and the family, who after for so long has fought hard to get justice. we are in the brinks of potentially getting the justice for Luis. And so I just want to recognize the family, my friends, and people back home who knew Luis. Let justice prevail. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, this is a reminder that we are in open enrollment now through May 11th. If you have any questions regarding your benefits or open enrollment, please feel free to reach out to Shannon Briggs in accounting. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Reminder, this Monday is auctioneer day. So if you have any items to donate, we would highly appreciate it. Our esteemed chair of the Hare Caucus, Whit Barone, has promised to donate an exclusive picture. I've also heard about beef and wine being donated. So we'll have some flags as well. But if you want to contribute to the cause, it goes to our nonpartisan staff who have been doing amazing this year with a lot of extra overtime. So please make sure to bring something. And let me know if you want to help be a spotter or some kind of volunteer and auctioneer day to get more into the action.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thought she was talking about me when she was talking about the hair caucus. But anyway, we're going to see if we can get Mr. Schiebel up there with us on Monday as well. Thank you.

We would like to introduce Concerned Women for America. Concerned Women for America of Colorado is a grassroots public policy and research organization committed to giving women a voice in their communities while defending family, life, education, and religious liberty through prayer and action chapters.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. With them today are two Young Women for America fellows visiting and representing the next generation of concerned women leaders. Welcome.

Thank you Madam Speaker Good morning when we both down here you know what it means Time for Capitol Choir We have a couple of birthdays to celebrate Capitol Choir Thank you Madam Speaker Good morning When we both down here you know what it means Time for Capitol Choir We have a couple of birthdays to celebrate Capitol Choir Representative Brown and Representative McCormick For the second time, we're Brown. Please come down. The birthday couple, apparently. Yes, come down, let's sing. We've only got a couple more birthdays that we might be celebrating over session, so let's take advantage of the opportunity. One, two, three. Happy birthday to you. Cha-cha-cha. Happy birthday to you. Cha-cha-cha. Happy birthday, dear women and women. Cha-cha-cha. Happy birthday to you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move to lay over Senate Bill 43 until Monday. Thank you.

Senate Bill 95 by Senator Weissman, also representatives Froehlich and Wilford, concerning measures to support victim survivors of certain crimes that do not include changes to substantive criminal offenses.

Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 95 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

concerning increasing pollinator habitats through the conservation of native plant materials on lands in the state. Madam Majority Leader.

and final passage. The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1132

Yes.

No, ma'am.

House Bill 1130 by Representative Storian Jackson, also Senators Cutter and Judah, concerning baby diaper changing stations and restrooms accessible to the public.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1130 on third reading and final passage.

Madam Speaker, thank you. So this has been a bill that I've had the opportunity, not pleasure, opportunity to speak on a couple of times. And just going to not necessarily reiterate for all of you, not going to necessarily talk about the specifics of what I had discussed previously. I'll take a little bit of a different track. Still, though, this is not a bill that I can support. If nothing else, it's a mandate, yet another mandate on businesses, yet another decision that we're making here that forces businesses to do something that perhaps they don't want to do. I think we ought to probably hold up a little bit on those decisions and slow down. There have been instances, and I'm going to dance around the edges of kind of what my arguments were on seconds, but there have been instances where businesses have had to make some difficult choices. They've had to make some difficult decisions and remediation and things that they had to do for their own public, for their own clients to ensure that they were safe. And this is something that I believe we ought to still let businesses decide for themselves. There is a once free market that we had in this state that we can press businesses that aren't doing what we want into doing what we want through simply diverting dollars. That's our most powerful voice that we have as a consumer. If I'm part of a dad's group and we're taking our kids somewhere and there is not a public restroom and I decide that that's an inconvenience, if we don't have a diaper changing table and that's an inconvenience to me, well then I would imagine that as a group we're probably going to take our business somewhere else. Market choice. It's not up to us to tell businesses that they have to do something in a certain way. Let the free market decide, the once free market at least. nothing more powerful than the consumer dollar when being able to influence business decisions if you don like the food at a restaurant you don go back to that restaurant if you don like the service probably don go back there Divert your dollars divert your consumer dollars to the places that are doing things that reflect what you feel like you need There have been instances throughout Colorado that businesses have said, you know what, having these tables aren't necessarily right for us for varied reasons, which I've spoke to. why go back through and tell them that you have to do it? Let the free market decide. We need to stop regulating. We need to stop mandating specially unfunded mandates on businesses, and I would ask for a no.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. When this bill came to committee, it was a bill that covered both public and private bathrooms. And in committee, the public bathrooms were removed because of the high cost to the state. A bit of an irony when you consider that the state is a multi-billion dollar entity and the businesses that we are inflicting this on aren't. there was not an exception for small businesses at the time and an amendment was put on in committee to try and accept exempt them it was a stop gap it was meant for future conversation to figure out a solution for our small businesses it remains in the building in the bill but there's been a definition that has been added that I believe working in tandem basically makes it such that small businesses really aren't exempted because I'm not really sure of a building even in my small rural community that is managed by small business and has an occupancy total of less than 25 people that also has a public restroom available. But putting that aside, there are a number of considerations that I just would like to put out in my own way that have been stated repeatedly. One, it's not just a $150 diaper changing station. When the state was represented, the individual explained how much would likely be required to move pipes or studs because obviously you can't just put something up. It has to be secured properly. It has to be in the location that is usable. And that can cost a lot of money for folks. We've heard about the maintenance issues and the fact that certain individuals are not using this for babies. They're using it for drugs. We heard yesterday from a colleague whose niece, I believe, was killed shortly before her first birthday because of trace elements of the drug types that are found on these baby-changing stations. We also heard that the libraries that have had to remediate this, that it cost them tens of thousands of dollars to remediate a bathroom because you have provided a table for this purpose. you have the basic maintenance costs of cleanliness, but you also have maintenance costs because people can use them for children they can use them for bags for all sorts of things and so there has to be regular checks There are numerous articles written by tort attorneys ER doctors pediatricians who note the dangers of these stations and encourage the use of other things. imagine that someone before you came in and put some heavy load on these and it weakened the structure and then you come in and you lay your child on and it falls and that child has now fell and injured itself on a tile floor who's responsible for that how frequently our business is going to have to change these out which leads to the next question if you're a business and you see this mandate and you say these liabilities these new costs of checking in every 20 minutes or so make sure it's clean, make sure it's still stable fixing it however often that's just too much and you're not otherwise responsible or required to have a public bathroom how many of the facilities how many of the stores and shops that we all frequent will just shut their bathrooms to all of their customers. I have a two-year-old. I understand in very near term what it is to need to change your child. After doing the research I've done on this particular bill, I'll tell you I will never use a baby changing station again in a public place. But to force the public, to force the private when not forcing the public, to not recognize all of the costs associated with this, and not to realize that there are other ways that moms and dads have been changing their babies for years, decades, I dare say. because the representative from El Paso is not here today, I will channel him for one moment and say, this is truly an example of the nanny state, and I'd encourage a no vote.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I couldn't agree with my colleague. any more, if it were even possible. I just want you, before you push your button today, to understand what this means for the businesses in your district. This is for every business in your district. And you had to face them and tell them that you understood these but pushed whatever button you pushed at the end of this vote. It's not $200 a station. it ended up being around $1,500 to $2,000 per station. We have businesses that are barely making it by as it is. We have business owners who go without. They pull zero paycheck. Their first two to three years, they pull no money out of their business. And now that you're saying, well, that's not enough. We want to take even more money out of your pocket in the thousands of dollars. How do you explain that to your small businesses? I had a small business and I can tell you that would have devastated my business For the first one to three years we make no money I didn pull a single and in fact I put my money into it so I made sure that my employees had the best pay possible It increases insurance. Insurance in Colorado is already at the max. This will increase insurance for businesses. It will increase liability, especially if a baby is harmed or possibly even killed. Put yourself in that business owner's mindset, knowing that something could happen to a child in your business because you were forced to do it. I'll tell you what it does decrease. It decreases civil liberty, and it decreases their free market rights. My opinion, this is an absolutely egregious bill. It's a dictator bill. It's a dictatorship bill. You might even say it goes to the point of the level of a king's demand. We say no kings, but sometimes bills like this act like a king, demanding of its people, you will do this. We don't care about your free rights. It's a demand on the businesses that they just cannot afford. It's anti-free market. It's a poster child for anti-free market. We already have 206,000 regulations we push and mandate onto businesses already. What's one more? We're sixth in the nation. Let's go for fifth. Heck, let's go for first. That's what it seems like anymore. I don't blame businesses for going to other states friendlier states that are welcoming and happy to have them in their state who don't tax them to death who don't regulate them to death and I just want to apologize today to every business owner in the state of Colorado if this passes I'm asking for a no vote

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you to my colleagues who have already spoken. I know this seems like we're blowing something up that shouldn't be maybe so blown up, but the businesses are hurting. This is not going to affect large corporations in our state. This is hurting the mom-and-pop general stores gas stations, the rural coffee shops, the small businesses that are struggling. I know you guys are getting the same emails. Are you just not listening to them? We're the sixth most regulated state, and for those that can only do cowboy math, that means 44 states are better than us. Businesses drive the economy. If we continue to drive them out of Colorado, what's left? And I told you that 98 businesses as of 2019 have left our state. They have left. And with that, they have taken billions of dollars in revenue that should be spent here. With that, they have taken employees with them that buy houses in Colorado, that shop in our stores, that eat in our restaurants, that drive the economy. Maybe we don't get the basic foundation, and that's why we continue to be in a fiscal crisis year after year, and we need a special session year after year. I don't understand what we're not understanding. The... Apartment Association came and testified and said we don't have enough space. This will increase costs without increasing accessibility. The state architect said this will cost millions of dollars. So we exempted them. We're like, cool, we'll exempt you. We're just going to go after the private sector. We'll take state buildings out. We're just going to go after the private sector. We exempt others, ourselves, in this building where the taxpayers come. You can't change your babies here. put them on the nasty floor that we talk about, but go to the rural coffee shop and mandate on them to put a diaper changing station in there. Don't talk to them. Don't ask the small mom and pop shop, hey, I don't want to change my baby on the floor. Could you possibly think about putting in a diaper changing? Because no, we don't do that. We just regulate. 600 bills, we continue to regulate, or we wouldn't be the sixth most regulated state. If we just had a conversation with the local mom and pop, coffee shop like the representative from Jeffco did, like I did. And they're not going to say no. I'm not going to do it. They're going to work with you. But we don't allow that conversation. We say, nope, we know better than you. We know better than the businesses in Colorado. We don't because they're leaving our state. They're sick of what's happening here. They're tired of it. and with that they're going to take if I'm a small business owner, close your restrooms because you don't know what's coming next just close your restrooms just close them because you don't know what's going to be mandated next year you don't let the free market work in here if coffee shop A has a diaper changing station then guess what more parents and moms are going to have prayer groups, prayer time they're going to go to that coffee shop they're not going to go to coffee shop B where they can't change their kid But we won't let the free market work in the state of Colorado. Because we know what's best. We know what's best for the businesses. Clearly not, because they're leaving. They're leaving by the droves. They're going to better states that welcome small business opportunity. Because of little bills like this that say, hey, we're going to exempt state buildings because it costs too much money, while mandating that same cost onto the small businesses and selling it as a $149.99 mandate, which is not what they told us. The state architect said it would cost $2,000 a unit to install these stations because it does need dry rod repair and anchoring. So we continue to wonder. Next year we'll be up here talking about a hundred more businesses that have left because of bills like this and we'll scratch our heads and wonder why and I'll bring this back up. Say no to this bill.

Thank you Madam Speaker. I will not speak for very long but I did want to stand again because I do feel like it's important to you and I won't be super fired up about stuff. I don't know that that would necessarily help the intent that I have with this bill and I And to that point with intent, I did want to recognize the sponsors and recognize that I appreciate the good-hearted intent that I do believe that they have with this bill. I do understand that, and I do appreciate that. That said I do have a lot of concerns and I hope that as we vote on this that we consider the concerns many of which have already been brought up I will speak to a construction concern as a person who very likely may be installing baby changing stations if this passes because it is part of something that I would do in my businesses and have this done,

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, let's be clear and truthful. Small businesses are exempted from this bill. This bill applies to businesses with revenue of over $3.5 million. Not sure if people read the amendment or not, but that's what this bill, these are the businesses that this bill impacts. and it also affords flexibility for businesses to decide on their own how they want to implement this. There is no mandate for renovations. That's not in the bill. There's flexibility in how these businesses will implement this, and I ask for a yes vote.

Representative Luck, this is your second time to speak. You have four minutes and 38 seconds remaining.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1130 on third reading final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Mabry, how do you vote?

Representative Mabry votes yes.

Camacho, Espinosa, Ricks, and Woodrow. Please close the machine. With 35I, 28, no one to excuse, House Bill 1130 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Representative Mabry, co-sponsors. Please close the machine.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 136 on third reading and final passage.

Representative Mabry votes yes.

Yes, ma'am.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1287. House Bill 1287 by Representatives Basinecker and Brooks, also Senators Kolker and Judah, concerning the continuation of certain regulatory functions of the Division of Real Estate and in connection therewith, implementing the recommendations contained in the 2025 Sunset Report by the Department of Regulatory Agencies.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1287 on third reading final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Minority Leader Caldwell, how do you vote?

Minority Leader Caldwell votes yes. Representative Mabry, how do you vote?

Representative Mabry votes yes. Please close the machine. With 49I-14-0 and 2 excused, House Bill 1287 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine.

I have an announcement. Representatives Brown, Sirota, and Taggart will be excused at such time as is necessary for the Joint Budget Committee meeting.

Seeing no objection, the bills listed by the Majority Leader will be made special orders today, April 24th at 10.01 a.m.

Members, the motion before us pursuant to House Rule 14 is to limit debate on House Bill 1335 to two hours. This is a non-debatable motion pursuant to House Rule 15E and does require a majority of all members elected to pass. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Mabry, how do you vote?

Representative Mabry votes yes.

No, ma'am. Minority Leader Caldwell votes no. Please close the machine. With 39 I, 24 no, and 2 excused, the motion is adopted.

The motion before us is pursuant to House Rule 14, limiting debate on House Bill 1276 to two hours. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Mabry, how do you vote?

Representative Mabry votes yes. Representative Caldwell, how do you vote?

Minority Leader Caldwell votes no. Please, Rep. English. please close the machine with 39 I 24 no and 2 excused the motion is adopted

The motion before us, pursuant to House Rule 14, is to limit debate on House Bill 1281 to two hours. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Mabry, how do you vote?

Representative Mabry votes yes. Minority Leader Caldwell, how do you vote?

Minority Leader Caldwell votes no. Please close the machine With 37 aye, 26 no, and 2 excused The motion is adopted

Members, you have heard the motion Seeing no objection, AML Bacon will take the chair Thank you. Thank you.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1225. House Bill 1225 by Representative Smith and Wilford, also Senator Ball, concerning requirements to foster distributed energy resources in the state.

It is a multi-page amendment, I believe, on April 23rd. Representative Smith.

Thank you, AML Bacon. I would like to move Amendment 014 to Amendment 013 and ask that it properly be displayed.

Thank you. Basically, all this amendment says is if a public utility shall not implement this subsection 7, if the public utility determines that doing so will result in higher utility rates for consumers or instability to the grid. And I urge an aye vote. Representative.

Is there any further discussion on L14? Seeing none, the question before is its passage. All those in favor, please say aye. All those opposed, please say no. No. L14 is lost. to the committee. Actually, we are back to Amendment L13. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is its passage. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say no. L13 is passed. To the committee report, seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the passage of the Energy and Environment committee report. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say no.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of House Bill 1225. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say no. House Bill 1225 is passed. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1347.

Okay.

Okay, I'm just going to wait so we can all catch our breath to the committee report. Who would like to speak to that?

Okay, L4 is displayed. Representative Gilchrist. Thank you, AMO Bacon. So L004 amends the Health

Is there any further discussion on L4? Seeing none, the question before us is its passage. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say no. L4 is passed.

Seeing none, the question before us is its passage. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say no. The committee report is passed.

Okay. Okay. The amendment is properly displayed.

Is there any further discussion on L5? Seeing none, the question before is its passage. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say no. L5 is passed. To the bill. Sure.

Representative Gilchrist. Thank you, Madam Chair. We are here today to ask for support for House Bill 1347, a critical step forward in how we care for children and youth in foster care. I also would like to thank my co-prime for his partnership in this work and his partnership, particularly given the nature of this bill and how relevant it is to the work of the JBC and the work of the Appropriations Committee. Children enter the foster care system through no fault of their own. Yet too many of them leave that system without the financial stability they need to successfully transition into adulthood. That's not just unfortunate. it's something we have the power and the responsibility to change. This bill builds on the success of last year's bipartisan effort, House Bill 1271, which ended the practice of using child survivor benefits to pay for the cost of their foster care. That bill was an important step. This one continues that progress. Following its passage, we convened and facilitated a working group to tackle the new challenge, how to properly handle federal SSI disability benefits for youth in foster care. This group included 40 individuals from counties big and small relevant agencies advocates and most importantly youth formally in care The result of that collaboration is what you see here today in this bill

House Bill 1335 by Representatives Garcia and Nguyen, also Senator Wallace, concerning access to abortion medication services on Colorado College campuses.

I believe there's a committee report as well. Representative Nguyen. Madam Chair,

And we ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move L and ask that it properly be displayed Okay Thank you L7 is properly displayed rect I introduced this amendment in Education Committee, and what it does is it allows an institution to opt out regardless if it's a religious institution or not. All they have to do is just submit a written notification to the Department of Higher Education, and they can opt out. The reasons for that is I think that there's a wide range of philosophical and logical arguments that have nothing to do with religious doctrine. For example, the fiscal note. So the fiscal note, if you look at the fiscal note put together, it says that the pill will range in cost from $580 to $800, and it just depends on the number of prescriptions sought. In addition to that, so, I mean, I'm a business owner. I know that in order to have stock, you have to pay for that stock first. And so who's going to pay for this? I think that this is an unfunded mandate. In addition to purchasing the abortion pill, you also have to train staff, you have to upgrade your technology, and then you also have to increase your insurance. And then in addition to that, you know, what if your medication expires? That's a loss. At the end of the day, who is going to pay for this? Because we can, I mean, colleges are businesses. They're businesses, and they're not going to absorb that cost. The people who are going to absorb that cost are going to be the students with their tuition, or it's going to be the taxpayers because we passed a law that says now taxpayers have to pay for people's abortions. In addition to that, there's already access off of campus. I know that this bill was brought forth because it was all about access, but I just learned a few weeks ago that you can actually, well, I actually just learned about the abortion pill a few weeks ago, but I just learned that you can get this online. I can't think of anything that is easier access than that than going online, doing some telehealth, and then having it shipped directly to your door. You can also get it at different community clinics, private providers, and pharmacies. And then I believe that students will choose a college based on not only the degree that that college offers, but also the culture. So many students don't just pick a school for the degree. They also consider the values and the culture it represents, including where it stands on issues like abortion. And that doesn't always have to do with religious values. So for this, I think that, you know, we talk a lot about choices for students, but I think that we should also give colleges choices as well. And institutions, especially private ones, should have the freedom to decide what choices that they will and won't offer. And students can freely choose the environment that fits best for them. And so I ask for an aye vote on this amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I also rise in support of this amendment. If we're going to carve out all kinds of discrimination, let's carve out religious exemptions because that's still in CATA too. I don't understand the unfunded mandate on private institutions. Just a quick research study. 2,800 to 3,000 abortion pill users per year in Colorado. are among women ages 20 to 24. Not all of them are college students, but 10% of abortions are under the age of 20. That's roughly a couple thousand in college at $580 to $800 per pill. That is going to increase costs. And let's talk about, are we going to have doctors on the scene for the abortion pill? There are serious consequences to the abortion pill. And we're not even making sure these women are pregnant. And there's complications with that, too. So is there going to be an OB on staff? Are these women just supposed to bleed out in their college dorms?

Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you for bringing it on back. Private institutions with religious basis should be exempted from this. People that want to send their children to private institutions with a religious basis shouldn't be funding feticide at college campuses. There's plenty of ways. You can freaking probably grubhub it at this point. You can probably grubhub the abortion pill on over with your Big Mac in the state of Colorado. So this is not an access problem. This is a vendor bringing it back because we're closing down facilities all across America because college kids don't want this on their college campuses. That's why most of these clinics are shutting down across the great United States because the people of Colorado and all across America are waking up, and they're going to go to these universities because they're tired of this. Vote yes on this amendment.

Sure, thank you. Honestly, a very reasonable amendment, especially if we want to be pro-choice, right? This allows for choice. That choice could be driven, the need or the desire for choice could be driven by any number of factors. Yeah, it could be driven by, say, the religious position of the particular institution. It could be driven by the size of the school and whether or not they feel that because of the size, i.e. a smaller school, that perhaps it's not the most appropriate for a mandate. or perhaps it's also, it could be related to the size, but the funding, the available funding. Because again, I think we just talked about it at the beginning of this amendment, the expense of these individual appeals. We talked about mandates earlier today already. It's a common theme that we talk about here. and yet this is another state mandate telling institutions you must comply, you must bend the knee. Giving the institutions, though, a choice about whether it's the right thing for their school, I don't know how you could effectively argue that. I get that you want to make it available, you want to make sure that the schools that do choose, that you've got this program here, but jamming this down the throats of the schools and telling them to pay for it and telling them that they've got to carry this when perhaps they have some difficulty doing so, where they just have a different way of looking at it and decide that they don want to Let just please give some choice That what this amendment does Not unreasonable at all And I would ask for an aye vote

Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, and I am, I stand up here and support this amendment as well. As a body of people who decide, you know, who spread the word choice, choice, choice, everywhere you go, everything's choice. It should be choice. Well, it seems like we keep taking those choices away, not just from businesses, from families, but now from schools and higher education. Who else knows how to run their campuses better than them? If we are truly a state of choice, if we are truly a people of choice, then we need to allow these campuses to be able to choose for themselves, for what's best for their students, what's best for their school, what's best for their campus. and those who are investing in those campuses, the parents of the kids who are going to these schools. I stand up here in absolute support of this. If we do truly believe in choice, by God, let's let them choose and stop dictating to them what you want them to choose for them. It's ridiculous, and I'm asking for a yes vote on this amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want, first and foremost, the costs about this is actually to the patients still. There is no cost, per se, that the state is bringing in. Obviously, an argument was made that it's $500. That is true. $500 is the average cost for that medication, but providers are going to be able to pay that either out of pocket or through insurance. And to another point about the religious exemption, we want to emphasize that this only applies to universities private institutions and community colleges there is still religious exemption in this and we ask for a no vote on this amendment

thank you madam chair california was the first state to enact this and looking at how much it costs for them so california became the first state to require public universities provide medical abortions due to a law that they passed and as a result so the implementation of this mandate it cost California 10.2 million dollars and about 23 percent of CSU students and 12 percent of UC students are enrolled in Medi-Cal in 2024 to 2025 California required 5,700, or I'm sorry, whoa, 5,794,586 for public university and medical abortion funding providing 646 medical abortions coming out of the $8,969 that was for abortion. So to say that this is not going to cost either students or taxpayers, I think is incredibly difficult to believe, because there is a cost associated to it. Again, as a small business owner, when you have to, you know, stock something, stock, you know, the pill that even on the fiscal note, it says that it ranges from $580 to $800. That's going to cost money. Where are they going to to initially get those funds, even if they sell it, who is going to pay for that? So it's either going to be insurance that is state insurance that going to increase going to impact the taxpayers or it is going to be the students who are going to end up eating that cost So I think that there is a cost to this and I really question that there is no cost. So I do urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. There certainly is a cost. The college pharmacy would have to pay for the medication before they could dispense it. And since this is a medication that has an expiration date, they would have to, whether used or not, they would have to, after expiration, replenish that. And also, since this is a medication that comes with perhaps very severe side effects other than what it's intended to do, the staff would have to have plenty of training in order to administer this medication. So, yes, every college would have an unfunded mandate with this medication in their pharmacy.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, colleagues. I subbed in on this committee. I don't usually sit on education. Really wish I hadn't been there that night. But we heard an awful lot from folks that were supportive of the bill and those that were opposed. And I think this amendment becomes very important when I got to share with you what was said by one of the supporters when we were asking about limited resources in the state and perhaps our college students were amongst the most privileged that is this where you need to be focusing your efforts? There was a little bit of back and forth, but the representative of a nonprofit looked at us in the committee and said that this bill would allow them to target large groups of young people. And we should not be mandating across the board that our universities, especially our private universities, set up the opportunity for their students and their young women to be targeted. So this amendment, if passed, will at least allow some universities and colleges to make a decision to protect the youth that are in their care, that they are there to educate. But allowing them to be targeted to force them to mandate that all allow their youth to be targeted, as some supporters of this bill determined it, is just wrong. So pass this amendment and let's make at least an effort to allow some choices to be made to protect our youth.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So we're in a fiscal crisis, and I was just looking up. Hi, Rep. Hi. Religious universities are excluded.

Well, my members told me that, so I'm going to correct myself. about 14 million has been cut from need-based aid especially private proprietary colleges so my question is if those have been cut if funding for need aid for kids that really need to go to college has been cut why are we now mandating something that going to cost about $50,000 for colleges to even start up on their campuses? And why, if it cost California, ready? Initial statewide estimate to California was $10.3 million to equip all public universities. Why are we doing this if you can just go to Walgreens and get this medicine? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all for already a robust discussion

between California's policy and Colorado's policy is California mandated that the universities and the state paid for everybody's access to the abortion pill. We are not doing that. This bill does not require the state to cover that cost. It does not require the universities to cover the cost. In other states like Massachusetts and New York, where they have the same policy that we are trying to pass, the implementation costs were between $500 and $1,000 to actually get it going. So with regards to the fiscal note, that's actually why the California example is not quite accurate to compare to Colorado. We stake held with the higher ed community, and aside from the religious exemption that was just discussed, there was no desire of being exempted from this policy. We'd like a no vote on this because it is important and imperative that as a state, we do what we can to make sure that people's constitutional rights, which is access to abortion, are realized when they need it and when they choose it. So with that, I ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for that clarification. But we're acting like we live in the middle of the boonies. There's a Walgreens on every other corner. There's a CVS. Well, we're not shutting them down because we're the sixth most regulated state, but beside the point. We're acting like the universities aren't going to take on that cost and then disperse that cost to the students in their tuition. And a mom that's going to pay for four kids to go to school, I will not send my kids to a school that's going to have this on their campus. I will not share in the cost of this. So thank you to all the religious universities out there. That's where my kids will be going. Thank you.

Rep. Garcia-Sandard. Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess that's as low as it goes. So I am coming from public school experience, hypersensitive to unfunded mandates. And I realized that the conversation that was just had with my good prima from Adams in Jefferson County, she talked about where the funding from California, where that money came from. And California actually had a $10.3 million fund that was composed entirely of privately raised money rather than state funds, which it helps when you're talking about unfunded mandates to have that not coming from state funding. However, what's of concern is... that each campus received approximately $200,000 in one-time funding to cover the costs of implementing the program. And the use of those funds were used to pay for equipment, such as ultrasound machines, training for staff, telehealth services, facility upgrades, and security improvements. And so those ongoing costs, again, those were initial startup costs, but the ongoing costs could continue to accrue, such as maintenance for ultrasound machines, ongoing training for staff, ongoing telehealth services, any facility upgrades, security. So with that said, I move L016 and ask that it be displayed properly. One moment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So what this amendment does is if an institution finds that they can't cover those approximately $200,000 in equipment, training for staff, telehealth services, facility upgrades, security improvements. If they just don't have the funding because this is an unfunded mandate, then they could opt out or they would be exempt from the requirements. So that's what this amendment would do is just exempt the university or the school institution of higher education from being mandated to provide abortion medication because really this is an unfunded mandate if they don't already have facilities, ultrasound machines, training for staff, telehealth services, facility upgrades, and security improvements. So I encourage and I vote on this very simple amendment.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Happy Friday and thank you. I'm sorry. All I heard was good morning, Madam Chair. It's okay.

So, members, we had a great discussion on this fiscal issues in the Education Committee. Normally, we have these discussions in the Finance Committee, but we had them in Education. And I want to read one little thing on the fiscal note on page two. It says, institutions of higher education, higher education institutions and colleges will have increased costs to provide abortion medication, clinical training, data system updates, paid for by institutional fees. It states in the note that they will have increased costs. That's a given in the fiscal statement itself. Yet the summary on the front page says there's zero. You've heard multiple points of where it costs in California, which is what this bill is modeled after, the cost. California had money set aside. It was stated in the Education Committee that they wish they had $6 million to put to this or have the institutions do things. So then the question comes down is how do we pay for that? Well, we know the state doesn't have the money because we just wrangled through that with a $1.5 billion budget shortfall. We cut higher education. So what is left now? What other options are available though to pay for these things You increase tuition you increase fees or you increase overall costs Any way you look at it the key word is it going to be increased it going to go up So either as a student you pay more for the school, you pay more for the services, you pay more for your insurance, you're going to pay more no matter what because the state has no money to send to the higher institution to cover this. On average, the average that every system in California is much bigger. If you average this across everything in the University of California system and the California State University system, it averages around $8,900 per student. That included increased fees, increased tuition, increased costs. All of this is what was passed on to the student. Right now we have a massive fiscal crisis and our cost of living and everything else going on. And we're going to now add to that and the students when we say you need more education, we're going to add these additional fees to it. This amendment is saying let's exempt them if that's going to be the case. Clearly in the fiscal note, it says they will have that increased cost. It's not, oh, they might have, maybe. It says they will have. That cost is going to be borne by the students, ultimately by the consumers, because the universities do not have that money. I urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I, too, stand up here in defense and support of this amendment. It's very typical that we hear all the time, oh, it's not going to raise any costs. Oh, no, just don't look at that. It's not going to raise any costs. No. When we hear and see this all the time in so many bills, including the one that this amendment is for, and then the ugly head arises, lo and behold, the costs are huge. And then it's too late. We already put a burden on our universities and our schools in the state. And yet here we go again. They complain that the tuitions are too high. Well, I wonder why. It's because of bills exactly like this. This amendment is very much needed. If a school cannot afford it, they cannot afford it. You can't take blood from a stone. And then when it is too late, then you just glaze it over. Oh, don't look at this, the people of Colorado. Don't look at that. Let's concentrate and look at something else. It's egregious. it's dishonest to say the costs are not going to go up. Honesty seems to be very low lately, and it's a shame. If a school can't afford it, the school can't afford it. If you care about the fiscal nature of a school and the fiscal nature and the ability for a student to be able to go to a school, you'll be a yes on this amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I really take quite a bit of objection to the statement made by the sponsors that this doesn't have a cost. It does. And college institutions are institutions that the state supports. they don get all their money from the students tuition they get a lot from the state So in one way or another money is going to the institution would have to be paid by that institution, and I don't think it is on an ad-need basis. I think when a young lady walks into a clinic and says, you know, this is what I want, this is what I think I need, and the clinic director says, well, now you'll just have to wait about 36, 48 hours while I talk to our distributor and see if we can't get a rush delivery of this medication. And oh, you would be the first. So we have to do some training and get some equipment here first before ethically we could prescribe this medication. So there are many things to think about before a college takes this on, and many colleges are not able to do that. So I really urge a yes vote on this amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I want to thank the sponsors for a robust discussion so far. I want to just clarify the last comment that we heard that campuses or colleges can't afford this. And I will say that through the stakeholding, that was not actually the case. They did not say, no, we don't want to do this. They did not say we're not going to be able to afford this. They understand that this is actually necessary to provide the holistic type of care on their campuses. The health centers are funded through many different ways and a lot of this is through out-of-pocket and a lot of this is through private insurance and it's through the student health insurance that students buy into. The way that our

Aye.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I move L017 to the committee of the whole and ask for it to be properly displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am bringing you this amendment today because, you know, let's talk about choice. Private institutions should be absolutely in control of their own campuses and services. That the whole point of being a private institution Yet through the bill they not exempt and they should be They not government actors and this is an absolute complete intrusion on their organizational autonomy Public institutions are state-run. So yeah, you can have a say in the public institutions. But private institutions are private for a reason. They're privately funded, they are not state extensions, and this is an uncalled for mandate. Most private institutions, they're small schools. Not only can they not afford it, but most lack the infrastructure to accommodate it. Plus a lack of expertise that resides on these private institutions gives it increased safety challenges. in liability. What if something happens? Who gets sued in that one? The private institution. You're putting schools and these private institutions at risk, a financial risk that they can't afford to begin with, and then to put them under any type of legal scrutiny? We should not be doing that. why do we keep trying to mandate on individuals, on schools, on entities within the state of Colorado when we know, we know they can't handle it, we know they can't afford it, but yet it's still done. These private institutes want nothing to do with the state, and I don't blame them. they want to be left alone to be able to run their schools the way they see fit because they are the experts in that but yet the state of Colorado just can't leave them alone I'm asking for a yes vote on this amendment because it matters to those who believe in freedom of choice let these institutions especially the private institutions choose for themselves Stop using that word, throwing it all around, choice, choice, choice. But then you mandate the very next sentence. Let's let our private institutions run their schools how they feel it needs to be done. Let the parents who send their schools to these private institutions, because they believe they are running their own schools, how they believe it needs to be done. I'm asking for a yes vote on this amendment, because if you truly believe in choice, choose this amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Private schools did not ask to be carved out of this, and we have actually received feedback from private schools as well through the stakeholder process, so we ask for a no vote on this amendment. Thank you. Is there any further

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd just like to remind the body that this medication is not illegal. There is nothing that prevents any pharmacy, any student health center, any private, public, etc. health provider from providing this. The sponsors insist that there's no cost to this, yet they feel a need to mandate something that has no cost and they can do already. Let's think about that through the rest of the discussion, because there's got to And perhaps it's the reason that witnesses brought up in committee that doing so allows them to target our youth.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I do want to remind everyone, the cost isn't just the cost of the medication itself. There's a greater cost in the liability of these schools if something were to go wrong. Please keep that in mind when you're voting on this amendment. The cost could be great. The cost could actually shut down these schools. The choice for these schools to be able to make the cost choice for themselves, to lessen their liability, should be up to them, not up to us. I'm asking for a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to cautious us to not make unfounded arguments like that. I also want to address that private higher ed institutions must obtain a state authorization or licensure to operate already, which mandates compliance with minimum standards regarding financial stability, faculty qualifications, curriculum quality, student record maintenance, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. The state regulates these institutions as well. It is not far-reaching to make sure that they are also upholding the Constitution. Thank you.

Rep. Kelty, the amendment is in relation to? It's about the amendment, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Fever, chills, headache. And then so the cost to the schools is something more to happen. heavy bleeding, severe cramping uterine rupture the cost to the schools and the liability is great these private schools cannot afford this let's give them the choice to opt out they're private for a reason they don't want anything to do with the state and we shouldn't be mandating on them knowing they want nothing to do with the state the cost can be great I'm asking for a yes vote for private school institutions across the state of Colorado. Thank you.

Aye.

No.

Yes, she did.

One moment. L13 is properly displayed, Rep Bradfield.

Rep. Bradley.

Rhett Flanell.

Rep. Wynn.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of L13. All those in favor say aye.

Those opposed, no.

The noes have it. L13 fails. To the committee report, is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of the committee report. All those in favor say aye.

Those opposed no.

The ayes have it. The committee report passes. To the bill, Rep Wynn.

Rep. Garcia.

Rip Bradley.

L18 is properly displayed. Rip Bradley. Okay, thank you, Madam Chair. This is to make sure that Only females can get this because, not false rhetoric on the mic,

Representative Bradley.

It's totally to the amendment.

Rep. Kelty.

Rep Brown.

Is there any further discussion on L18? Okay. Rep. Garcia.

Rep Kelty

us is the passage of L18. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed no. The no's have it. L18 fails. To the bill, is there any further discussion? Rhett Broaddams. Thank you, Chair.

Humans get to procreate with God, but they do not give life. God gives life. And no matter how much evil we bring to this floor to try to destroy that life, that does not change the fact that God is the one who creates life. And the best we can do is kill it. And we continue to do that over and over and over in this room. And the fact that Planned Parenthood is losing so much money.

in the floor. The fact that an organization that rhymes with Ram Ramon Hood has the ability to keep closing down all over the United States, closing down in this state, and AlphaGen is moving away from abortion. Statistically, they are fighting against it and the lower Gen Z. This is why we have bills like this because we're losing our hold on death. We're losing our control over destroying babies. So this is why we run this kind of legislation. This is still evil. This is still the highest of immorality. This is still the destructive forces that tear down complete societies and is doing so in this society. And I can guarantee you right now, whether you agree with this or not, God is the one who backs up the life of these babies because he's the one who gave it to them. And he will hold us accountable. He will judge you for this and you will not get away from this. You will stand before God for this. All I can do is warn you. AML Bacon.

I wasn't going to come up here and speak today, but I think a couple things have changed my opinion on that. So I represent West Fort Collins, West and North Fort Collins, home to Colorado State University. we welcome thousands of young learners, young adults, and all sorts of folks into our community each year to come and learn at CSU. It's part of why I'm so proud to represent my district, because we have an anchor of higher education that really does serve as, I think, a beacon for the state in terms of what we're able to offer in education for our young learners and young adults. We have folks who come from all over the world to attend CSU. And they do that for a number of reasons. Not the least of which I would like to say is what they experience when they come to Fort Collins. And that is that we are a community that is open to everybody, that embraces a diversity of belief, but also believes that you should have the choice when it comes to issues like this. and choice is so important. It also means that we have folks who are coming to our college campuses who aren't familiar with where they can go to get medication should they need it in an instance where they find themselves in need of one of the medications the sponsor is trying to be able to provide. They might not be familiar with our town. I can tell you the first place they're probably going to go, which is the health clinic right there on the corner, College Avenue. And they're going to expect to be able to seek the kind of health care that they're looking to have. Now, what I would say to my constituents is what happens inside of that setting is your choice. But you should have the choice. I think most importantly is who won't be in that room. I won't be in that room. You won't be in that room. And there's a large number of us who don't believe that any politician should be in that room with you. It should be a decision between you and your health care provider. this is not the role and place of government to be in that room deciding in a moment that is so so deeply meaningful and important to that individual what you should do next so i salute the sponsors for taking us out of that conversation elected officials should not be in the middle of that conversation and i'll tell you another thing pastors should not be in the middle of that conversation either. And I say that as someone who used to be an evangelical Lutheran church in America pastor. There's a broad spectrum of belief on this issue, and I recognize that, and I am not interested in a theological debate. I don't often bring up what I used to do here, because what I do here is very different than the responsibility I had to my congregation. but there are some commonalities. There are folks who genuinely care when you come into their office, if you are a pastor, and want you to make the best decision for you. And that doesn't come with shame or admonition for what you believe is true or what you have done to find yourself in that moment. Too many folks have been harmed by that line of reasoning Too many folks have walked away not just from organized religion but from their family and friends because they don have the support they need in that critical moment It was never my understanding as clergy that that was my job to make you feel ashamed of who you were, to make you feel ashamed of what you have maybe chosen for yourself, to make you feel ashamed of what you might do next. And if I have anything to say, it is this. There are congregations out there who do not operate that way. Most importantly, there are elected officials out there who do not hold that to be true. That is my job here. That is your job here. Choice and getting government out of that hospital room or that medical clinic so that people can make an informed decision based on human biology and not long-seated religious trauma. I urge a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I ask that L... Well, I request that L00... I move L008 and ask that it properly be displayed.

Thank you. right to make decisions about reproductive health care, which includes but is not limited to, quote, a pregnant individual has a fundamental right to continue a pregnancy and give birth or to have an abortion and to make decisions about how to exercise that right. Because that right is broader than abortion alone, campus policies should reflect the full range of options, continuing the pregnancy, adoption, parental support, counseling, not just one outcome. My colleague from the other side of the aisle from Denver said previously, the ability to make a choice includes all knowledge. And my other colleague, of course, from the other side of the aisle said, from Fort Collins said, who says choice is so important when you have a choice? So I think we need to take that into account. We need informed, autonomous decisions for students, ensuring that students' health centers can present adoptions, parental resources, counseling options, all of that, I think is incredibly important. We want to talk about pro-choice. Let's give people choices. Let's take into account the diversity of student beliefs and values. The legislative declaration includes students with different identities and backgrounds. That diversity includes a wide spectrum of moral, cultural, and religious views on pregnancy and abortion. One of the organizers actually in committee from Cold Ball, she said that she got pregnant in college and she's so happy that she had her baby. Why aren we giving women all of the options This isn a decision that should be taken lightly Let prioritize a student well Long academic and emotional outcomes are better when students feel they have time, they have all of the information presented, and they feel supported. So as a result, I urge a yes vote. I think that aside from just one option, Students should be given knowledge Students should be given choices And as a result I urge a yes vote, thank you

Madam Chair, I request a title ruling The committee will go into a brief recess Thank you. The committee will come back to order. I have ruled that L-8 does not fit in the title. To the bill.

L11 is properly displayed, Rep Brooks.

Rep. Kelty. Thank you, Madam Chair, and surprise, surprise, I am also up here in agreeance with this amendment. You know, the word of the day. Again, I said choice. So if we're going to promote choice, so be it. But then we should promote all the choices. And if you're going to give fair and equitable marketing, then that should also include that of adoption and other options for a mother to do to be able to give for their child if they find themselves, if they are pregnant, not just infancy. And you say that there's, again, no cost, but even in the marketing for a school, there's a cost. And that's aside from the liability, that's aside from the loss of enrollment that some of these schools are going to have because of these things that they're going to be mandated to do. And now this. Adoption is also a choice. If we're going to provide information, we should provide it all. We should make it fair and equitable, and then let that person decide for themselves. Let them make the choice. If you only promote one thing, sometimes all the other options are not thought of. so let's give women all the information they need to make the proper choice for themselves but if you're not if you're not going to give that marketing then we need to allow the schools to not have to pay for that there's more costs involved and it's being swept under the rug and I'm asking for a yes vote on this amendment

Rep. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. And like our colleagues before me, I also agree that this amendment is a good balancing. While we may disagree on the bill itself, I think this amendment does a good balance. In one, you can't allow state funds. We heard an amazing comment that the state government should not be in the clinic room with the patient and the doctor. So why would we allow state funds then to be used for advertising on a campus where we're having then the government and in connection the campus, the education institution, promoting in a sense and getting involved in health care? That should be kept with the patient and the provider. I also like the second part that, you know, in the state, if we're going to say that all the colleges have to have this if they have a pharmacy, we don't want to chase people out of the state. And it was mentioned, people are choosing businesses based on party affiliation. There are people who choose where to go or not go if they offer animal products or vegan products. People choose where they go based on their beliefs, their ideologies. let's not chase students out because they feel like a something that goes against their morals or their faith is being advertised with their money or their parents money this is a balance if the Institute can find other ways sure but it shouldn't be off of the off of the taxpayer money and it shouldn't be offered off of the students or the parents who are paying to go as well this is a good balance let's keep government out of the patient's decisions by not forcing this you know out there and let's keep you know people who want to come to college in colorado and not force like they have to go out too because their money might be going to these flyers this is a good balance between everything and if they find other ways to fund it but just don't use the money from the parents the students or the state government i urge a yes vote rep win

Rep. Johnson.

Is there any further discussion on L11? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of L11. All those in favor say aye. Aye Those opposed no No The no have it L11 fails Repluck

doctor have any direct contact with a woman before giving her these abortion drugs, drugs that carry considerable risk, especially for women with eCoptic pregnancies. What's more, since 2016, the FDA has warned that roughly 1 in 25 women will end up in the emergency room after taking these drugs. So, we'll leave that there for now. I move amendment L019 and ask that it be displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As you all know, kids go off to college as young adults and the world of possibilities is open to them, and yet they still often have linkages back to their most recent life of being a minor in the care of adults. And they often look to their professors and to the adults on their college campuses as surrogate parents or aunts and uncles or just authority figures who can help guide them. In this particular context, you're dealing often with women who are scared, scared at what is happening to their body, scared at what is happening in their relationship with their significant other, scared at what could potentially be impacting on their future. If it is a situation involving sexual assault, you have all sorts of other dynamics that are at play there. And so you have a young woman who comes into this health clinic seeking aid from someone who prescribes this pill. and then something happens. More than likely, she's going to go back to that health clinic, wanting to keep the circle of people who know what is happening small. She's probably going to want to talk to that same provider about what took place. And so it's important that that particular provider have the necessary training to be able to respond in the event that there are complications or that particular risks are being seen. And so the first part of this amendment just simply says that any of these institutions that have these health centers, that have these employees who are able to dispense this medication or prescribe it, that those individuals take an annual training on the administration of these medications and any potential risks and complications associated with taking them. The second piece of this is just a check-in requirement. We do this a lot in outpatient care, where if you have some sort of procedure done, then somebody will call you within 24 to 48 hours. The most common chemical abortion pill regimen is two pills. The first pill is often administered in a clinic, and then within a 24- or 48-hour period thereafter, the second pill is administered. The first pill is designed to kill the child. The second pill is designed to clear the vagina. Sorry, the uterus. Sorry, I can't say it. No, it's part of it. It designed to clear out the child and placenta and all of the things And so the second part of this amendment says that the health center employees need to check in on this student within 24 hours of when the medication was prescribed or dispensed and at least one time within the next seven days. Just check in on her. Make sure that she is doing okay. Now I want to address a couple of things that have been said about the safety of this. Again, we don't have time to go into all of the evidence, but let's just note that there was a comprehensive U.S. study done not that long ago that analyzed insurance claims data between the period of 2017 and 2023. They reviewed 865,727 Mifeprestone abortion claims. The study identified a serious adverse event rate of 10.93%. 10% of those claims resulted in a serious adverse event. but notably excluded this particular study, notably excluded a majority of emergency room visits in order to avoid anyone arguing that they had overstated the risks. This rate of nearly 11% ensures a conservative, accurate estimate of harm. The emergency room visits included in the report are only those directly related to the chemical abortion. based on the diagnosis and procedure codes in the insurance records and are counted only if treatment for a serious complication related to the chemical abortion took place. Which means that the study excluded pregnancy-related, non-serious, or unrelated ER visits. They excluded pregnancy-related, non-serious, or unrelated to chemical abortion ER visits. things like nausea with vomiting, unspecified lower abdominal pain, anxiety, shortness of breath. They also excluded mild and moderate adverse events. They excluded non-life-threatening mental health codes. They excluded women being treated for miscarriage. And they excluded non-serious bleeding. So only taking into account those insurance claims data from that six-year period, they found that 11% of those women had serious adverse consequences. As institutions who take on a care like what is proposed in this bill, there should be that added follow-up. There should be that knowledge that this is not simply just taking a pill and moving on with your life. I will note that another piece of study data, they looked at a period of time prior to the shift from in-person visits and dispensing being a requirement to it no longer being a requirement. And they found that there was a statistically significant difference of 1.35 percentage points in terms of harm when it was no longer required that the woman visit a medical provider and have them dispense it to her in person Which again goes to support this amendment that at the very least we should be having some follow calls If we're not going to mandate that the full amount of both pills are administered in person and regularly checked in on, that at the least we can have a couple of phone calls given to her. in light of time I know that there are others who want to speak I'll leave it there but I will say that there is significant body of evidence and if we were still tracking this at the FDA I suspect it would be even greater than just in the insurance claim data that we can access to show that these pills are not benign they do have adverse real world consequences and when you send kids, when you send your 18 year old off to another state especially, but even those here. We need to make sure that we have some proper protections so that somebody is looking out for them when their parents and maybe their community, they could be in this health center in the first week of school, not knowing anyone, and find themselves seriously bleeding out. It's a good idea for us to make sure that the health center personnel are trained and that they are doing what is necessary to check in on these young women.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a great amendment. I'm a little jealous that I didn't bring this amendment. And to the representative from Denver, too bad he's not in here right now because he said that there weren't any serious adverse events. But this study is from April 28, 2025. And what I find very interesting is that this study, the representative from Penrose just summarized it really well includes 865,000 women and that's 28 times as many that were included in all FDA cited clinical trials combined and you wonder why why if it was that easy to put together that many women who were just listed as taking the chemical abortion pill but what they also cited that the representative from Penrose did not say is that they stated in their study of 865,000 women that mifepristone should be administered only in a clinic, medical office, or hospital by or under the supervision of a physician able to assess the gestational age of an embryo and to diagnose ectopic pregnancies, all of which were originally required by the FDA. In the bill, on page 3, it says, the abortion medication means the prescription drug or combination of prescription drugs used to terminate the pregnancy of an individual known or reasonably believed to be pregnant. So we don't even know if their pregnancy has made it into the uterus or still in the fallopian tubes, and if that's the case, it can cause an ectopic pregnancy and women die from that. Every year, many women die from ectopic pregnancies. Physicians must be able to provide surgical intervention in cases of incomplete abortion or severe bleeding and have made plans to provide such case care through others and be able to assure patient access to medical facilities equipped to provide blood transfusions and resuscitation if necessary. If we're talking about the representative from Fort Collins, so many kids come out here from out of state and they don't know where to go and who to go see and we're going to provide this on campus. Well, then we better make sure they know where the hospitals are because one in 10 women will experience this after taking the abortion pill. So if we're going to provide access, we need to make sure we're following up on their care. Healthcare providers should be required once again to report to the FDA and manufacturers of mifepristone all serious adverse effects resulting from the use of mifepristone Mifepristone should only be prescribed to a woman who is confirmed by a physician to be in the first seven weeks of pregnancy as originally required by the FDA And yet, here again, the bill says, known or reasonably believed to be pregnant. So we're going against what the original manufacturing of the drug was intended to do in the first place. We're not following up to make sure these young ladies know what's going on. They're here from another country. They're here from another state. They don't know the geographic location of the nearest emergency room. But it's okay. Just here's some pills. Take them in your dorm room. It might be like taking an Advil. You'll be all right. But one in ten of 900,000 people have had severe complications resulting in sepsis, sepsis for everyone is when there's death to your organs and body parts, infection, which means you need an antibiotic to stop said infection in your body, hemorrhaging is when you're bleeding without stopping, or another serious or life-threatening adverse event within 45 days. That's one in 10 out of 900,000 women. Our research shows unequivocally that mifepristone abortion is currently practiced in the U.S. is considerably more dangerous to women that is represented on the FDA-approved drug label. FDA should immediately reinstate its earlier, stronger patient safety protocols to ensure physician responsibility for women who take mifepristone under their care. And these ladies aren't even under the care. They're not even under the care. The health care facility at the institution is handing out a drug with serious side effects to 1 in 10 women out of a 900,000 person study and they're not even following up. They're not even saying go to your MD if all of these things happen. And the representative from Denver said informed consent, we need to educate people. We don't even give informed consent on vaccines. We don't even get, I have four children. I've taken them to the pediatrician. I don't get a card that says, hey, after we give your kid MMR, these are the things that can happen. they're not given informed consent let's educate absolutely this is not a discussion about abortion in colorado but if we're talking about access and informed consent let's educate the women they're going to have access to these drugs and let's not talk about that the side effects are just like taking an ibuprofen that's not what the research says the research says out of 900,000 women one in ten will have serious life-altering side effects not making it up here it is come read it. I'll put a copy on all of your desks so you can read it. This is a great amendment. It's not excluding access. It's just saying if you're going to make the state institutions carry this, if you're going to make them call it out to a pharmacy, the very least you can do is check on the patient. And I would add that they need to check on them 45 days after. If these people are coming from different states that don't have these open abortion laws, that we at least need to make sure women are safe. At the very least, women are safe. That we're checking in and making sure they're not septic, they don't have an infection, and it's a fever of 100. Most body temperature is 98.6. It's a fever, a serious adverse effect from an abortion pill is a fever of 100.4 for over 24 hours. So the... The least we can do is make sure we're checking in on these women to make sure they're not having adverse reactions to the abortion pill. I rise in strong support of this amendment and urge a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. There was one other point that I wanted to make that I forgot. Last week there was a group up here that I met with, and it happened to be on the day that this bill was heard in committee. And one of the people in this group was a pastor who had been contacted recently, actually. The pastor lives in northern Colorado and had been contacted by a family who was concerned about their daughter because she had taken these particular drugs and had delivered a child in her room. when the child came out the child was fully formed because that happens very quickly and the young girl didn't realize that that was the case that that that she didn't understand i guess what was happening and the fact that that was possible and so when she saw that child in full form having been delivered, she became suicidal. And so this pastor was brought in to provide counseling and support, which is another reason because those weren't in the data points, as I mentioned, that was listed out in the nearly 11% of adverse consequences. Mental health consequences were left out of those particular statistics. And so another good reason to follow up, to check in, to make these calls, is to ensure that these young ladies are not in that mental health state where they could take their own lives. And so again, I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I have actually some severe concerns about this amendment only because I am positive that this was not actually developed with health care professionals and those who actually run these clinics. And to bring an amendment like this and require and force a procedure and a process, that to me seems like it is way, way hugely governmental overreach. I think one thing that this amendment assumes is that our health care centers aren't professional trained health care centers. Our health care centers already know how to treat people that go into their centers. They are trained. They are not secondary centers or they're not run by somebody who's not an actual MD. Our health centers just happen to be on campus. the discussion that we had about the study we've been hearing about I want to just first share that this report done by this group that I will not name is a report that has not been peer-reviewed This report is produced by an anti-abortion think tank. It stands in direct contradiction to 25 years of unbiased evidence research on the safety and efficacy of methepristone Abortion is safe. Abortion is safer than giving birth. when you are arguing against a safe procedure that people can choose to use if they want to you are condemning women you're condemning people to 12 times higher rate of death through pregnancy and labor to claim using a non-peer-reviewed report that this is not safe is misleading. I asked for a no vote on this. Amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, we are almost there on this. I want to just bring us back to why we're even having this debate, why this bill is even necessary. There are thousands of college students, of young adults, that have been asking for support, that have been asking to have access to abortion on campus. In fact, 75% of students, as they're making a choice of where to go to school, they are looking for a university that provides access to abortion. We are heeding the call. we are making sure that the constitutional right that was voted by an overwhelming amount of coloradans is accessible to everyone who chooses to have it no one and nowhere in this bill is anyone requiring or forcing anyone to choose one thing or another we are simply making this option accessible. Universities and colleges are incredible places where people are preparing for the rest of their lives. They are deciding what they want to dedicate their lives to for the rest of their lives. Do they want to be in medicine? Do they want to go into teaching? But then when we are prohibiting and restricting the ability for somebody to make a choice that will also truly impact the rest of their lives we are cutting short the ability to make a choice that will also truly impact the rest of their lives We are cutting short the entire purpose of a higher education When you hide, when you prevent and you restrict access to abortion, you are promoting and you are pushing and you are acquiring a person to have to give birth. How is that fair? That is a choice that every individual should make and when they make their choice they should have access to what's necessary to make their choice whether it's to have a child or not. It is not our place to force individuals into having children. It is our place as the government to make sure that all options are available. And that includes ensuring that medication abortion is available on campus for those who are on campus and for those who choose that path. Members, this bill is simple. The only thing that this bill does is that it extends a constitutional right. There is zero opposition from higher education. There is zero opposition from the healthcare centers on campuses. We worked closely with them to make sure that this bill was written in a way that it could be implemented and implemented effectively and fairly. Voting yes for this is voting to uphold Colorado's constitution and the will of the voters. voting yes for this means that you also believe in the potential and the ability and the and the and the brains and the knowledge of young adults on campus to make the decisions that they should that are right for themselves a yes vote on this bill representative garcia you have one minute

I can understand the moral arguments. I don't agree with them, but I can understand them. I can understand the concerns that requiring this type of medication to be held on campus would possibly create additional costs, but the reality of the way that our health centers operate makes that argument invalid. Colorado is a place where we believe in choice. Colorado is a place where we believe in young people. Colorado is a place where we believe in the potential of our higher education and we need to make sure that students have the options of reproductive health care.

House Bill 1276 by Representatives Velasco and Garcia concerning measures to protect the safety of individuals who are immigrants in Colorado.

Velasco. Thank you, Madam

1276, the Judiciary Report, the Finance Report, and the Appropriations Report.

Appropriations.

added an amendment to add an appropriation. And we ask for an aye vote. Any further discussion on the appropriations

Representative Velasco. Thank you Madam Chair. In the Finance Committee we reduced our expenditures, removed costs from the Department of Public Safety related to multi-jurisdictional investigations and we are a chance to vote. Any further

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L012 to the Judiciary Committee Report and as that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. L012, it's just a technical fix to add back the employee liability for intentional violations and make sure that it matches the employee liability that passed in Senate Bill 276 from last year, and we ask for a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We did a series of updates and adjustments to the Judiciary Report based on the testimony that we heard and based on concerns from law enforcement and others, and we ask for an aye vote.

Representative Slaw.

I move L17 to the committee report and ask that it be displayed

Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment removes part of this bill that deals with unsealed subpoenas. That is not something we want to keep in there.

Sorry, I need to stand closer to the microphone. I've been told that before. This amendment removes the unsealed subpoena part of this bill, and we feel that that is an important part to be amended. We want to make sure that law enforcement and agencies have the opportunity to do the work that they're supposed to do without information being put out that doesn't need to be put out ahead of time. Thank you.

Representative Velasco. Thank you, Madam Chair. We ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L013 to House Bill 1276 and ask that it be properly displayed.

for our representative that just brought the amendment before this amendment also deals with the subpoena part of the bill it clarifies that the department of public

Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise in opposition of this amendment. We cannot cap a fee that is being used to ensure that our neighbors are safe. If we do that without knowing what the need is and how much of this fee is needed to ensure the health and safety of Coloradans, we end up not meeting the intent of this bill. We will end up in a situation where there are bad actors that need to be held accountable. There are actions taken against children that we cannot correct. And let me remind us exactly the type of behavior that this fee is meant to address. What we have heard in Judiciary Committee over the course of multiple hearings is the disastrous conditions of these detention centers. and we have been called upon repeatedly to take whatever action we can. Now, there are certain actions that we simply are not able to take, and for that we did pass a resolution earlier this session calling on the federal government to take steps to ensure that immigration enforcement is not done with cruelty and is not, quite frankly, violating constitutional rights and demonstrating a racist intent. But what we do have authority over is what is happening within facilities in Colorado. and so I want to share with you a call that I received earlier this session from somebody within these facilities so this was a teenage girl who was separated from her parents and who was separated from her younger siblings And I will just share that listening to this person voice as they have had to grow up and become the caregiver for their siblings within an environment where she did not know if they were safe, her mental health had declined. And we're talking about little kids that have had birthdays within these centers without having their day in court, many of whom were improperly taken from their homes or off of the street without knowing who was even taking them or where they were going. Let me share this story of some Coloradans that were sent to a facility in the dead of night. For many weeks, my client has been concerned about a growth on her chest that has caused pain for many weeks. She has made complaints to staff and ICE repeatedly, but has been denied a visit to an outside doctor. She has specifically made requests for a CT scan to identify the lump and the source of her pain. On Thursday, a doctor told her that he had put in a request for a CT scan, but higher-ups in either ICE or CoreCivic overrode the request, so no scan was conducted. Medical records show she had been demanding help since February, at which time she said her pain had already worsened for eight weeks. A doctor said the lump in her chest was merely a bone. Mid-morning, my client began experiencing excruciating pain, which she rated an 11 out of 10. She described the pain as being stabbed through the back to the stomach. At about 11 a.m., she began pleading with officials for painkillers and medical attention. After two hours of asking for help, she was taken to an off-site emergency room. While there, she received lab work and finally a CT scan. The CT scan confirmed that the lump was not a bone, but it did not reveal what the lump was. The scan also showed she had fluid around the heart. The ER doctor recommended an ultrasound to determine what was causing the pain, but this was denied. My client was told she had to go back to the detention center and was not given the ultrasound. We do not know if the lump is cancerous. all we know is that the pain is increasing and the incidents are becoming worse and worse, and she is not receiving proper diagnosis that could lead to proper treatment. After 10 months in detention, my client remains in pain. We are concerned that the systematic denial of medical attention may result in her death. Her children are extremely worried about their mother, who is now their only guardian. Her 5-year-old child has been denied the right to go to a dentist for 13 cavities. Her 16-year-old son was told to take Tylenol when he suffered from appendicitis. All of the children are suffering from depression. This is not an unusual story out of these centers. Kids have been left in isolation. They do not get proper food. They do not receive medical treatment. The lights are on in the middle of the night. They do not get proper sleep. They do not see dental care. We talked about the number of deaths that we have seen in these centers, but we also to note the number of individuals who have serious medical concerns that are not being addressed. And when we cap a fee, we are not allowing our agencies to do their job, to inspect these centers, to make sure that Coloradans are safe. I understand that we have a difference of opinion around immigration enforcement, but what I thought we all agreed on was that every person in this country has constitutional rights. And those rights are being blatantly violated in front of our eyes. And if we do not take every action to ensure that our state has the resources to make sure that our residents are safe, what are we doing? I urge a no vote. Further discussion on L22.

Thank you, Chair. Just to make sure that we're on the same page, because I heard a funny statement just a second ago that says that we are on the same page that everybody in this country has the same constitutional rights. We're not on the same page with that. We do not agree with that. And here's a funny thing. Neither does the Constitution. The Constitution is the Constitution of the United States. And if you are a legal citizen within the United States, you have constitutional rights. If you are not a legal citizen in the United States, you do not have constitutional rights. You don't have the same right to due process. You don't have the same right to do a lot of things. And so, no, we strongly disagree. Because why? We constitutionalists Our side are constitutionalists We actually like that document agree that it is written for the citizens of the United States and so does the document It also agrees with that

Representative Richardson. No, we got more. Thank you, Madam Chair, colleagues. As I rolled through the bill, there's a couple of issues that did pop out at me that probably weren't noticed by judiciary finance or appropriations because they don't live in the world of housing, transportation, and local government. But if you could turn to page 11 and on to 12, starts in line 25, the department, which in this bill is defined as the Department of Public Safety, can adopt rules. And then they talk to what those rules may be. It rolls on to page 12 and down to line 11. I'll skip over A, which talks about pregnant individuals and dietary restrictions. But B comes down to environmental impact studies. Now, at the federal level, there's a very strong definition of what an environmental impact study is. It's well-defined. And environmental impact studies are part of the planning process. They occur long before permitting actually takes place. Within the state, that definition is a little more hazy. It's a term that's thrown around, but it's really not defined. It's not defined in this bill, but again, environmental impact studies are something that happens in conjunction with planning, development, and permitting. They don't take place after a facility is constructed. Now, there may be some violations that occur, but they're not driven or determined by environmental impact studies. So for that reason, I move L019 to HB 1276, which we've been discussing, and ask that it be displayed.

Thank you. The amendment itself reads very simply and inserts some language that this paragraph B that talks to environmental impact studies takes effect for facilities that are developed on or after July 1st of this year. Environmental impact studies are not done on existing facilities and existing projects. Now, existing facilities and projects may have impacts on the environment, but again, they are not determined by what is commonly referred to as environmental impact studies. So I think this tightens up the language because surely the sponsors did not intend to put in a paragraph that would allow the Department of Public Safety to just almost arbitrarily demand a study to yank the license or close a facility. But I do think they absolutely are in the right space if they ensuring that a facility when built has the proper studies done ahead of time to ensure that any environmental impacts can be properly mitigated So I would urge a yes vote on this amendment.

Thank you. That term is intended to kind of place this back in the planning development permitting phase of a project. That kind of envelops that whole pre-construction time frame. once a facility is built or permit even permitted you're beyond the point where environmental impact studies are completed that's that planning and development stage is where it would more properly take place further discussion representative brome thank you manager yeah i want to come over here and clarify that it goes back to the point where when you get approved for a new a new development it has to go through either if it's out in the county the county commissioners have to review the the the proposal it's it's called the PUD and that would be included in the PUD before it even gets built so it happens before the facility is even built so it makes sure that it has the environmental impact it needs to have so it's not being built first then it gets found and and then they spend more money to fix it. It gets all done beforehand.

Yes, thank you. I apologize, Madam Chair. I came up here a little late. Yes, so this is part of the whole process when it comes down to development. It's a very important process for the reason that we've got to make sure every development, every building that's being built is done correctly beforehand. Not just for safety reasons, but also economic and financial reasons why it should be done. Because then these developers and these builders know what they're getting into when they start putting out bids for these new developments, for these new buildings. They already know what the plan is and they can move forward with that plan according to what the either the county commissioners or the city council approved in the PUD. And to be honest, the word develop is common phrase. It's the most common phrase to be used in these meetings, these city council meetings, these county commissioner meetings. That is a term that everybody knows and it should be used. we start changing terms now there might be some confusion in these meetings and now there now there going to be two terms used when when going over a PUD and we don we don want to create that confusion There really no ill intent to try to trick anybody with this word It's common language in a PUD, pre-building, pre-development discussions in council and county commission meetings. I hope I can clear that out here for the bill sponsors.

Sure, thank you. I appreciate the discussion on the previous amendment for the amount of time that the previous amendment was displayed. And while I believe that there is a little work being done on that, I would like to go ahead and move 020 to House Bill 1276 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Yes, thank you, Chair. I do want to kind of go through because the one year or three months, there is a little bit of language that gets repeated through the actual bill that I want to bring everybody's attention to. It's on page 11, actually. So how the bill is written is that the examination must be made, that's the end of page 10, inspections and examinations must be made annually, right, after the inception of the bill. And additional, at the top of page 11, and additional unannounced inspections and examinations must be conducted after the annual inspection. Unannounced inspections and examinations must be made at least one time every three months. So that is the piece that this amendment speaks to directly is the must be made one time every three months. Page 11, line 4. Basically, so I know we had the discussion around the cap, right? And I believe that this really kind of feeds into that overarching discussion as well. That, you know, I don't know that we want to give the impression that what we're doing here is trying to create this endless cycle of generating or perhaps hoping to generate penalties in order to pay for more inspections and having that cycle be so frequent seems to be very onerous, right, that after the initial period, again, the way that this is written, after the initial period, the initial annual inspection, that inspections must be made every three months thereafter or actually then may be made more frequently. I do want to point out that that language may be made more frequently, is not being stricken, is not, I'm getting the head shake, they don't like it, is not being stricken. So this would say that you could still go in annually or may still be more frequently than annually. It just doesn't dictate that it has to be every three months or more frequently than every three months. Okay. I would ask for an eye, even though I got the head shake over here.

on this amendment this is why I believe it's so important so I believe it is that the Colorado Department of CDPHE would be the ones that's doing the inspections? Is that the same organization that does the inspections on the restaurants? That's Dora? Well, I'm going to use Dora as an example because they're supposed to do them once a year, and sometimes we have restaurants that haven't been done for five years. So how are we going to be sure that we're going to be able to get people that are going to come there every three months? when we're already watching another organization where it's up to five years where they can get the inspection?

Representative Barone. Thank you, Madam Chair. I come in support of this amendment because I know we're talking about health and safety here, but also there's health and safety checks with the fire departments that go on with industrial and commercial buildings. They only happen once a year. And that's also safety. It's also checks. And in the city of Fort Leapton, it's once a year. Come to my dad's shop. Come check everything, all the fire extinguishers, everything that goes on in the building, electrical. And that's good enough because every year, maybe they find one emergency light that is not working properly when the power goes out. We fix it. Good to go. I believe this is really going to help. And then to add to that, it may happen more often. When we start mandating it's going to happen or they have to do it more often, may is perfectly fine. Now, according to the pricing CDPHE is going to have to put on this, That's what's going to concern me is that I understand the bill sponsors have already explained that the facilities will be paying for these fees for the inspections. And I heard one of the bill sponsors say that it's not coming out of the taxpayers. The facilities are paying for it. Who pays for these federal facilities? Federal government. We pay federal government taxes. So vice versa. Taxpayers are paying for this So it goes it a big chain but at the end the taxpayers are paying for this So IRGS vote on this to try to save the taxpayers a little bit more money

I thought you saw my hand. Permission to be obstinate? I wake up that way, never mind. Declined. I appreciate the point that was made about more frequent, except this doesn't preclude the ability to still make those more frequently. What it does is it strikes the mandatory every three months, but still leaves in the maybe made more frequently. And I would anticipate that the maybe made more frequently is done based on need, not necessarily a prescriptive nature to say you have to go in there this often. Representative Garcia.

Representative Brooks. So bottom line, I think I say yes, you say no. I think that's where we're at.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's an honor to serve with you. It's an honor to serve with you. Colleagues, I came down here because I heard some very embarrassing statements that are embarrassing to this entire body. And I would have hoped one of our colleagues on the other side would have come down and corrected. But when we hear the statement constitutional rights are only for U.S. citizens and we're constitutionalists, that demonstrates an ignorance beyond belief. the 5th and 14th amendment refer to persons and when they were both enacted and as the Supreme Court has interpreted consistently for more than 200 years for the 5th amendment and for more than 100 years for the 14th amendment persons met everyone there was a reason Guantanamo Bay was established had the unlawful combatants been brought to Guam, the American Samoa, or Florida, all the due process protections of the U.S. Constitution would apply. So they tried to find a loophole. An exception. But if there's an exception, there must be a rule. So what is the rule? The rule is constitutional fundamental rights apply to all persons present within the jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction of the United States. And this bill goes directly to the 14th Amendment, to those protections. Our constitutionalists seem to think one of the most notorious cases in Supreme Court history is still valid. Dred Scott led to the Civil War that there would be certain people that could never have U citizenship or ever have constitutional rights But your side lost that war, and the immigrants do have constitutional rights.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L023 to 1276 and ask that it be displayed. Thank you. Give us a minute.

This amendment is a refined version of what we discussed a few moments ago that clarifies that environmental impact statements would become effective on essentially newly established facilities. But this new language captures potential repurposing of existing facilities during that kind of redevelopment, repurposing process. So I would ask that it be approved.

Further discussion on L23? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of L23. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. L23 has passed. To the bill. Seeing no further discussion, Representative Barone.

of this country but unfortunately they're not at the moment now going back to some of the comments being said that some people are being held for more than 12 hours at these facilities, there are reasons why they're being held more than 12 hours for these facilities. Not necessarily negative reasons either. Some people are going through the process of being investigated while they're in custody because, quite frankly, yes, they broke the law. They're here illegally. Now that they're going to stay illegal is another thing. They might not stay illegal. There are some people that are being investigated while in custody to see if they should be deported if they will be deported if there a reason why they should stay in this country and go through the legal process So yes, there are some occasions where maybe some of these people that are being held for over 12 hours are being investigated for crimes they have committed in the country just to make sure that we actually are deporting the right person. Now, while being in custody, yes, they should have basic human rights being taken care of while in this country. But to say that it's criminal to hold them while they're being investigated for either a positive thing or a negative thing is not right. There could be an occasion where there's an immigrant that got held at this facility and is pleading his case as to why he's still in the country. why she or he is still in the country. It's being investigated. Maybe there's a path for that person that that person did not think of where you know what, you can possibly apply to be a legal resident. Let's look into it. But you can't just let them go. They still committed a crime. They can't just let them go and then, okay, we'll catch up with you in a couple months and tell you what the cause of the investigation we did on you. There could be a possibility where, hey, you know what? We were wrong. We found that you committed a crime, but they already let them go. Now they've got to go out and find them again. So there are those contingencies. There are those plans that there's possibilities that a lot of these immigrants have a path. could have a path. And you all know that I am a firm advocate for legal immigration. You all know that. I want to reiterate that time and time again. I urge a no vote on this bill that I believe is not necessary. There are still safeguards. And those bad actors in these facilities, those bad actors in immigration, customs enforcement, they will be dealt with. They should be dealt with. I agree with that. But to put them all in the same pool, I believe is not necessary. There are bad actors everywhere. Everywhere. Let's support our immigration and customs enforcement agents and weed out the bad ones. But giving that support, giving that backing to these agents, gives them the moral ability to be able to do their jobs correctly the way they should be done. I urge you no vote. Representative Richardson. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to everybody that spoke on both sides of this. It obviously is an issue that brings out a lot of passion. While I was working over at the desk, I saw that Amendment 20 had failed and I understand I understand the argument that depending on the severity of what you're seeing, that more frequent inspections can make sense. But I think it also makes sense to ensure that facilities aren't so inundated with inspections that the same errors are being found over and over again without the ability to be corrected. I think providing a little bit of a safe harbor is wise. is wise so i move l21 to 1276 and ask that it be displayed that is a proper motion l21 is displayed representative richardson uh thank you madam chair and sponsors uh this uh amendment again following 20 which would have put perhaps long delays between inspections i know that was rejected and i understand the reasoning but this allows a cure period for the facility to actually comply with errors that are found and i know we will we will hear that there are at times potentially outrageous things that are found that have to be taken care of immediately and I do have faith that the people that run these facilities will comply as quickly as possible but I think for some many issues that may come up there is going to take some time to do it it's if it's a change in the facilities construction or it requires some remodeling or that sort of thing you're gonna have to get a contract out you're gonna have to get a contractor and And there's going to have to be some time and opportunity to correct some of these issues. So this amendment would provide a 60-day time frame to comply with and correct anything that's found on an inspection. Representative Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to ask for a no vote on this. 60 days to cure or to fix human rights violations is far too long. 60 days to change a child sleeping on the floor to a bed is far too long. 60 days to make sure that a sick pregnant woman has access to a doctor is far too long. I ask for a no vote. Representative Barone. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it's been a little dramatic on that, but at the same time, 60 days is fair for the facilities to be able. We're not talking about beds. We're not talking about all this. We're talking about cures that, you know, all other industries already have. Cure periods all other industries already have. like I said there are facilities here that really do take care of the people that are staying there we do want the best for them but there are some things that might fall through the cracks small things so I believe that this is a good amendment to be able to go along with what we do with restaurants, what we do with all other industries give them a cure period to be able to fix it doesn necessarily mean they going to take all 60 days I urge an aye vote Further discussion on L Seeing none the question before us is all those in favor of L-21 say aye. All those opposed say no. L-21 is lost. To the bill. Representative Sucla. Thank you, Madam Chair. So my question is, as we were talking about these facilities, I was trying to find where one was on the western slope and then I did some research. So is there just one facility in the state of Colorado? Representative Garcia. Representative Velasco. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. So there is just one facility in Aurora that's called GEO where they detain people. But we have these other facilities across the state where they're only supposed to be holding people for up to 12 hours. And that's because of the permit that they receive. Their occupancy permit that they get from local government dictates that these are not holding facilities. So if they are en route or there are circumstances, they're able to hold people. But they're supposed to be holding people for 12 hours or less. And what we're seeing is that they're not following those regulations. But the inspections and the things that we are prescribing would only apply to GEO. Representative Zucla. So is there any then on the western slope? Representative Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair. At this point, you do have some holding rooms on the western slope. We are also seeing a new center that's about to open any day now coming up. And then there's also more interest in opening even more centers here in Colorado. So at this point, yes, we have one center, we have many rooms, and soon there will be more. Any further discussion on House Bill 1276? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of House Bill 1276 as amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. No. The bill passes. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of House Bill 1281. House Bill 1281 by Representatives Carter and Espinosa, also Senators Weissman and Hendrickson, concerning the alignment of criminal offenses that involve the death of another person. And for everyone's knowledge, the amount of time dedicated to this bill will be two hours, starting right now. Representative Carter. To the amendment, or to the... To the amendment? We need to move the bill. To the bill. To the bill. I move HB 26-1281. And to the judiciary report. Okay. So this is the bill we heard in judiciary. Basically, it was concerning the alignment of criminal offenses that involved the death of another individual. What this bill was trying to do, it was trying to make statutory classifications of extreme. Are we going directly to the... Representative Espinoza. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let's start with the Judiciary Report. I just want to indicate, in the Judiciary Committee report, what we did was essentially move Senate Bill 72 into House Bill 1281 Because both bills are dealing with vehicular deaths we felt it was important to take the provisions that the Senate had already passed with regard to definitions in criminally negligent homicide, use of a mobile electronic device, and vehicular homicide, criminally negligent homicide while operating a motor vehicle with the license revoked, habitual offenders, frequency and type of violations, and driving under the influence additional crimes that were being enhanced. What our bill does, and the reason this was important to incorporate the Senate provisions into our bill, is it adds an additional crime enhancement on vehicular homicide and provides better information to the district attorneys so that they won't be relying so much, at least what we heard, on criminal negligent homicide in these circumstances. And so we did also add, you'll see that in our bill, but that's why Judiciary added basically Senate Bill 72 into our bill. We'd ask for an aye vote on Judiciary Committee. That's a proper motion to the Judiciary Report. Representative Carter. We asked for an aye vote. On the aye vote. Okay. All those in favor of passing Judiciary Report, please say aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed to say no. The judiciary report passes. Representative Carter. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I indicated originally, this bill's purpose was to align Colorado, making statutory classifications to extreme and different homicides consistent with case law and national standards. We also, as my co-prime was indicating, we've created a new crime of aggravated vehicle homicide with increased penalties that codify the crime of negligent homicide. That is what she was referring to when we took those amendments to incorporate House Bill 72. So one of the key things that needs to be understood, we are not just aligning the statutory homicide. We are also increasing the lower level. So while we may be aligning the top level on the F1s and the F2s, we are increasing the ability for district attorneys to use that tool at the bottom. What this bill changes specifically is regarding extreme indifferent homicide. It's currently a class one felony right now, and it's punishable by mandatory life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. This is the exact same class of felony sentence as premeditated after deliberation homicide. However, Colorado and national case law say that the culpable mental state of extreme indifference should be or is less than after deliberation. but more than knowingly, which is second-degree murder, which is a class II felony. Now, the bill classifies extreme indifference homicide as the class II, but with the higher sentencing range of knowingly second-degree murder. The bill places this classification and punishment for this offense where it legally belongs and logically. However, the bill recognizes there are certain aggravated circumstances surrounding extreme indifference offenses that necessarily raise the level of culpability and should therefore raise the classifications, a sentencing level to a class one felony and life without parole. Regarding the aggravated vehicular homicide portion, currently, vehicular homicide is a class three felony if a person is impaired or uses drugs, and a class four felony if the person is just driving recklessly Our bill creates a new mandatory sentencing crime of aggravated vehicular homicide which clear and recognizable aggravating factors exist prior driving conditions, commission of offense while attempting to elude a peace officer, while in flight from commission of another felony, and driving at a high rate of speed. This new crime is categorized as a crime of violence, which means that there is a mandatory sentence to the Department of Corrections in the aggravated range for the offense. The primary charge for victim homicide in our bill is creating that crime of violence, and the most serious cases we'll get between 10 and 32 years in prison. And finally, the criminally negligent homicide, or criminally negligent victim homicide, sorry, this is currently a traffic one misdemeanor. So careless driving that results in death right now is a class one misdemeanor. This bill creates a tool where in which the DA can use the criminally negligent vehicular homicide statute. This allows for a crime and criminally negligent homicide to be charged when there is a traffic violation. And this is a tool that we are giving to the DAs as part of this bill. The additional offense maintains that careless behavior resulting in death can remain a misdemeanor, but codifies criminally negligent actions while operating a motor vehicle rise to that level of a class 5 felony. Representative Espinoza. Thank you, members. And I'm excited to be talking about this bill today because I get to put on my former law professor hat and walk you through why this is important and why the attempts from the district attorneys to say that we are radically changing the law is not true. I want to start with first-degree murder's definitions because I think there's a lot of confusion, and there's been some statements that if we eliminate extreme indifference homicide as a first-degree felony, we're eliminating the ability to convict someone if more than one individual is seriously harmed or if we just kill one person. That is not true at all because under the following definitions I'm going to give you, If you engage in these conducts, one person dying, which is horrific and should never be what we want to have happen in society. But when deaths occur, the history of the law has been we have to look at both the thought and mental state, what's called the mens rea, and the act, the actus rea, to determine the level of what an individual should be punished at. And we're going to have a lot of discussions today about the kinds of acts that we're concerned about, which will be realigning from a first-degree felony charge to an F2 felony charge with still enhanced punishments. So we just want to set the record straight at the outset. We're not trying to change the culpability. If someone acts with the mental state to engage in and results in a death to an individual, they should be punished at the highest level. That doesn't change under our bill, And there's two methods to get there. But if someone doesn't act with that level of mental state, the question becomes, what do we as a society assign that death to? And I'm not saying we should ever excuse the death of an individual. This is the most serious crime that has existed historically for punishment by society for all time and in memoria. But there is a recognition that deaths happen for different reasons, And that is why we have everything from careless driving, which can be a misdemeanor, all the way up to the circumstances, mostly that we'll be talking about today, I believe, those circumstances where people either knowingly or intentionally commit a crime resulting in death. First-degree homicide is after deliberation and with the intent to cause the death of another person, a person other than himself, and causes the death of that person or another person. And I thought it was very important to start with that definition under the first-degree murder definition. So if you're convicted of killing yourself or another person, you have a chance as a prosecutor to charge that without having to prove that you intended to kill that other person. So the prosecutors have said we've taken that away completely. That always exists, and what we see, and we've provided a lot of data on this information to you, and I hope if you have questions, you'll come and talk to us and we can explain this. But the data we're saying is the prosecutors always have that option, and in the majority of the cases where they charge extreme indifference murder, they are also charging first-degree murder because they know they have that charge available if a person is killed. It doesn't have to be the intended target. But what happens most often in those circumstances is if it's not the intended target, I'll say the criminal defense attorneys get up, explain the circumstances, and sometimes the juries then will give second-degree murder of them knowingly engaging in that and not finding the premeditated deliberation that's required for the first-degree conviction. first degree murder also is by perjury or subordination of perjury the person procures a conviction and an execution of any innocent person so if someone is you know act has a third party acting on their behalf they can still be convicted of that first degree murder and put in prison for life it also includes circumstances evidencing an attitude of universal malice this is what we're talking about in an extreme indifference manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life generally. The actor knowingly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to a person or persons other than himself and thereby causes the death of another. What's interesting is, back in the day, there was a time when we just had common law in how we addressed our statutes. We, and as many states, adopted the model penal code, which gives us four levels of mental states. That is to act intentionally which holds you to the highest level of culpability. The second specific intent is to act knowingly. The third is to act recklessly, and the fourth is to act negligently. And based on those specific intents when you commit a crime, there is lesser punishment because the culpability is deemed to be less in society based on where that is. When we adopted our model penal code provision, we did keep this definition of extreme indifference in our code. At that time, we also had capital punishment for first-degree felony murder. So to a certain extent, this was already a lesser penalty to have life without parole when we had the death penalty. So many first-degree convictions that were after deliberation were given the death penalty. There was also a provision previously in our law called felony murder, So if you were the innocent actor, you were a semi-innocent actor, you're the driver of a vehicle car, you didn't go into the building to commit the robbery, somebody, your partners agreed that they weren't going to take weapons into the robbery, they took weapons into the robbery and killed someone you could be convicted not for killing that individual but being part of that crime and go to prison with life without parole Several years ago we readjusted that crime to recognize that if you were not the person that actually killed someone you should not be held to the same liability as a person who did actually kill someone. And we still held that person responsible by making a second-degree felony charge for what you might know or hear of as felony murder. so there's this history that's going through we have the highest level of mental state when you premeditate, you know your victim you plan your victim, you do actions that even if you don't know your victims but you're planning and premeditating to cause such death as to really require the first degree penalty the next one that's interesting is if you commit unlawful distribution or sale of a controlled substance to a person under the age of 18 years on school grounds, and the death of such a person is caused. So we already have in our first-degree murder statute a recognition that there can be aged eliminations. That is, if you do something to people in school under 18, that's a more serious crime, and we're going to hold you to first-degree murder. There's also, and this is where we have the companion in our bill, the death of a child who has not attained 12 years of age, and the person committing the offense is one in a position of trust with respect to the victim. So for first-degree murder for a child under age right now, that person has to be a position of trust. What we are saying for extreme indifference, you no longer have to have that position of trust. You can still be found guilty of the first-degree murder. So again, we are enhancing the penalty with regard to that level of charge, and that's the reason we chose 12 years of age. Murder in the second degree has that second level of intent that's required that a person knowingly causes the death of a person or acting either alone or with another person, he or she commits or attempts to commit felony arson, robbery, burglary, kidnapping, sexual assault in the first or second degree or a class three felony for sexual assault on a child or a felony crime of escape and in the course of in furtherance of a crime that he or she is committing or attempting to commit or of immediate flight therefrom. The death of a person other than one of the participants is caused by any participant. So what I'm saying is the law already recognizes that not all deaths are equivalent. And if you're committing these crimes and someone dies, you're charged with second-degree murder. Most often, the prosecution will charge you with both a first-degree murder, especially if more than one person is injured, and a second-degree murder charge, and the jury then gets to decide which one you're guilty of. And when they charge with the first-degree murder, they can charge with either that first-degree after deliberation or extreme indifference, or they can charge with both, which is very interesting according to the case law because the Supreme Court of Colorado has said you cannot intend to be reckless. So they had some problems with extreme indifference as the highest level of mental state, and their case law said, but because the legislature hasn't eliminated this, and originally they struck down the provision, so the legislature came back and tried to amend the statute. The court struck it down again and said, look, you're still not addressing the issue of where does the mental state fall within this? We believe that extreme indifference, acting with universal malice and extreme recklessness, falls between first murder intent and knowledge The court has said we believe that there are circumstances that can go either way in first degree or second degree With all of that history in case law we spent the summer working and we had a team with the DAs and the prosecutors trying to come to the perfect solution to bring to you in this body. We got pretty far, and then the district attorneys dropped out of the negotiation. I think we're this close. They will argue that we are not and that there's huge differences and that somehow we're taking away every tool that we have with regard to this extreme indifference. We already have provided you as well lots of data with regard to how many times this crime is actually charged and how many times it's charged only on its own. And it is very, very rare. What we have learned is that most often the district attorneys are using this, especially in my own judicial district of the second judicial district, as a plea bargaining tool. And they are then plea bargaining those crimes below second-degree murder often to a determinate number of years and promising the defendants that they will be getting a certain number of years if they plead guilty. And a defendant, if you're facing the question of, do I go to trial to try and prove my innocence or to prove that my act wasn't universally malice and face life in prison versus getting a sentence that I know what it is. From the data, it looks like many of them take the plea bargain and then justice is served in the sense that some level of punishment is assigned to those crimes. What we are trying to do in this statute, though, is align that punishment to the level of harm that has happened

There's one hour and 34 minutes remaining. Representative Bradley.

Representative Kelty.

AML Bacon.

class 2 felony as a crime of violence and if you know our code if the crime you're convicted of is categorized as a crime of violence it is an enhancer on your sentence okay and the term right now is 16 to 48 years. The change with attempted, so it could be right-sized with serving less time than someone who actually murdered someone, it is now a class three felony and it still includes the crimes of violence, which means you served 10 to 32 years. And that's for one charge. For every charge you have of attempted extreme indifference, you still must serve that time consecutively, not concurrently, So they're still in jail if more than two people were even that they're charged and convicted for for attempted for up to 64 years. The last thing this bill did was it actually brought something in regarding vehicular homicide. So there another half to this bill And this is something that we have heard actually from our victims groups who have advocated where our vehicular homicide crimes are now They kind of live in that carelessness space But we brought it up to space to be more commiserate with the harm as we have heard from people here And so I hope that you all had a chance to read the entire bill. And I hope here, as we advocate for this law, that we do the hard work of the legislature, which is to ensure that we create a code that fits nationally and with our own terms. Because we do not believe that someone who commits a homicide should serve less time than someone who does not. We also believe in that value set. so once upon a time when our criminal systems changed some of us have said eye to an eye eye for an eye but over the course of our history in this country we have changed that and it was often led ironically by people of faith we no longer have a people penal system we have a corrections system And we changed that because to some extent we believe that if the state was going to invest in keeping people remanded, then they should also be rehabilitated. And so rehabilitation does not mean not taking accountability. It does not mean taking responsibility for your actions. But it does mean that the time that you have been remanded or sent away, you can correct your behavior and your mindset, and especially at the cost of the state, where it's six figures to keep someone in jail every year of their lives. and again there is no cost before someone says it to compare it to someone who has lost their loved one there is no price you can put on that and to be clear that is not what I'm saying and I hope we are not comparing that and so objectively speaking between our courts and those who deliberate here we have all said this section of code needs to be right-sized so that it aligns to the principles of our underlying criminal code, that your mindset matches your outcomes. And especially those that commit a homicide need to be spending more time in jail than those who do not. And we cannot create disparate systems, particularly since we pay for it under a premise of corrections and rehabilitation. Thank you for the time.

there's one hour and three minutes remaining representative bradley thank you mr chair and thank you to the representative from denver for coming up i always appreciate listening and i i do appreciate the bill sponsors i've gotten to know them pretty well over the last two years and understand their intent and where they're coming from and there are parts of this bill that that i like i i don agree that a driver that is shooting in a drive should get less time than a passenger in the same vehicle I don agree with sentencing when there places in sentencing that don make sense I don agree with that I have real issues with that. And maybe that goes county to county. You know, when I was debating this in my head, I was coming up with different situations where I could see myself supporting and then other situations where I can't. And what it really comes down to is this one. When we come up here and we say, you know, we write bills for one person. We heard the diaper changing was from one constituent. We talk about one, one, one all the time. And that's where I'm having the biggest problem. Under current law, if someone shows extreme indifference to human life and kills someone, that is first degree murder. That means the highest level of accountability our justice system can impose. This bill now says no. If you kill only one person, we're going to treat that as something else, something less. And it does, because we've ad-libbed. Think about that. We are standing here as elected officials debating whether taking one human life deserves the highest level of justice or a reduced charge. And I heard and I wrote notes, mindset to action, to decide the crime, first degree and not. But these are not accidents. This is not a mistake. This is firing a gun into a crowd. This is driving 100 miles per hour through our neighborhoods. This is shooting into a home. This is acting with total disregard for whether someone lives or dies. That is not a mistake. That is not an accident. That is first degree murder. And today this body is being asked to say if only one person dies, it's not the worst kind of murder. Tell that to the victim's family. We don't have to imagine what this looks like. We've seen it right here in Colorado. There's a rally right now going on for victims. We've seen shootings in our communities, Aurora, Denver, Colorado Springs, Boulder, where reckless violent behavior turns deadly in an instant. We've seen DUI drivers with multiple prior offenses get behind the wheel and kill innocent people. We've seen criminals with long wrap sheets escalate their behavior because the system keeps telling them there will always be another chance. And now we're adding to the message. Supporters of this bill will say this is about proportionality. But let me ask you, what is proportional about telling a grieving mother that her child's death doesn't meet the threshold for the most serious charge because no one else died? I have buried a child. That is not something you tell a grieving mother. What is proportional about saying one's life is somehow less worthy of justice than multiple lives. Justice is not a sliding scale based on a body count. And let's talk about the broader pattern here in Colorado. We have reduced penalties for theft, reduced consequences for drug crimes, bail policies that put repeat offenders back on the streets, and now we are redefining murder statutes. At what point do we stop and ask, who are we protecting? Because it's not the victims, it's not the families who have to live with the consequences of violent crime, it's not the communities dealing with rising fear and instability. We keep hearing that Colorado is out of step with other states. Again, a rally for victims on the west steps. Good. Maybe we are out of step because we actually took violent crime seriously. Maybe we're out of step because we believe that extreme indifference to human life deserves the strongest possible consequence. Why is the goal to always to lower ourselves to the weakest standard? Why is the answer always to reduce penalties? And let's be honest about deterrence. The people committing these crimes may not be reading statute books. I would say they not but they absolutely understand consequences When the system consistently lowers penalties delays justice and reduces accountability it sends a message You can push the line and the line will move This is exactly what the bill does It moves the line on murder Now I've heard the argument that this will save the state money. Think about that. We are weighing budget savings against the value of human life. We are saying it's just too expensive to hold the most dangerous offenders fully accountable. That is not justice. That is policy failure. And I want to speak directly to the people of Colorado. If someone acts with complete disregard for human life, if they make a choice that results in someone's death, you expect your justice system to respond with the highest level of seriousness. Not a downgrade, not a reclassification, not a technical adjustment. You expect accountability. This bill moves us in the wrong direction. It weakens the clarity of our laws, it reduces the severity of consequences, and it sends a dangerous signal at a time when public safety should be our top priority. We should be strengthening our laws. We should be standing with victims. We should be making it absolutely clear that in Colorado, human life is valued and protected. Instead, this bill does the opposite. Victim advocates were devastatingly clear about this in committee. Courtney Sutton from COVA said the bill would produce outcomes where penalties vary based on factors entirely unrelated to the offender's conduct. She gave examples that every Colorado parent understands instantly. An 11-year-old killed in a school shooting would fit first-degree murder under this bill, while a 13-year-old classmate killed on the same exact facts would not. That resonates with me as a mom to a 12-year-old and a mom to a 15, 17, and 19-year-old. A responding officer killed would fit first-degree murder, but a teacher in that classroom would not. These are not minor differences. That is the bill's operating policy. And that is why the line, only one person, became so important at the hearing. Prosecutor Nate Marsh testified that he had to tell the widow of Lieutenant Colonel Matt Anderson that the bill lowered penalties for the murder of only one person. He repeated it because the absurdity needed to land. Lieutenant Colonel Anderson was not only one person. He was a husband, a father, a war hero, and a Colorado life that mattered. When a law starts sounding morally false the moment you explain it to the victim's family, that is usually a sign the law is wrong. And I'll tell you it lands differently when you hear it as a mother of four boys. When I think about my sons growing up, going to school, driving with their friends, sitting in a movie theater, living their everyday lives, I cannot accept a law that treats their lives as weighing differently based on circumstance they can't control. I cannot accept a system where whether one of my boys is treated as enough depends on who else was standing nearby or how many others were hurt. This body should not write into law the implication that if two people had died, we would take it more seriously. If the victim had been younger, we would take this more seriously. If one more body had been shattered by seriously bodily injury, we would take this more seriously. As a mother, I reject the idea that any child's life is measured against another's, or that any parent should hear that their child somehow counted less. Do not support the suggestion that one person's life matters more than another. The message to the public must be far simpler and far stronger. If you set out to kill Coloradans and engage in conduct that accomplishes your decided intent, Colorado will treat that act as first-degree murder. for my boys and for every family in the state one life is not only enough it is too many and with that I move amendment L018 to House Bill 1281 and ask for it to be displayed That is a proper motion. L18 has been displayed to the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment is simple. It removes all ifs, ands, or buts. You kill one person, you get first-degree murder. One life is enough. One murdered Coloradan is enough. One dead child of any age is enough. Trust me, I can speak to that personally. One dead father at a gas station is enough. One teacher, one nurse, one neighbor, one teenager in the backseat of a car, one is enough. And I do not believe the law should suggest otherwise. The problem with this bill is not that it has no enhancers for the worst forms of extreme indifference murder. The problem is that it makes those enhancers carry too much moral and legal weight while treating the same exact deadly conduct as second-degree murder when the murderer's roll of the dice comes out differently. Look at the bill's structure. the murderer must beyond a reasonable doubt be killing not because they intend to kill a specific person but because they are happy to kill any person at all or all people no matter how many in their path if by pure happenstance they kill more than one person life without parole if they happen to kill one person and cause serious bodily injury to two or more people with a deadly weapon life without parole. If the murderer kills a child under 12, life without parole. If he kills an off-duty first responder, life without parole. But if the same shots fired into a house, into a car, into a crowd, into a school, kills just an adult or a child who is at least 12, who is not a first responder, the bill creates a new second-degree murder path. A chance at parole, that person, that child, will never have. That means the legal outcome turns not on what the offender chose to do, but on what happened to be in the wrong place. At the wrong time, how old the victim was, how many people the offender managed to kill. Let's bring back sanity and common sense into the Golden Dome. Let's treat victims with the utmost protection. Let's say yes to this amendment. Thank you. Representative Flannell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Under this bill, two children can be killed under the very same circumstances, and the punishment can be completely different based on a birthday. If the victims are 11, the law still requires life in prison without parole. If the victim is 12, the sentences become 24 to 48 years. with the possibility of parole. One year of age becomes the difference between a guarantee that the offender will never get out and a term of years that in practice may be much more shorter than it looks on paper. So I want you to ask yourself, what changed in that scenario? Not the mental state of the criminal, not the danger to the public, not the pain of the family, only the age of the victim, and yet the punishment collapses. Do we want our sentencing structure to turn our birthdays or whether the offender managed to kill more people people are on the seriousness of the conduct and the risk of human life. Some of you may say the sentences outlined in this bill are still significant, but we all know sentences don't play out exactly as they appear in statute. We have earned time. We have statutory credits that reduce sentences. For most nonviolent offenders, that means they only serve roughly 30% of the sentence you see on paper. For violent crimes like the second-degree murder, people still do not serve the full term either. They spend roughly 60% of their time in prison before they are eligible for parole because they received between 15% and 25% off immediately in good time credits and can earn up to an additional 30% off for good behavior. So when this bill changes a life without parole sentence to a range of 24 to 48 years, that does not mean 24 to 48 years actually served. In practice, a 24-year sentence can make someone eligible for parole at around 18 years, and a 48-year sentence can make them eligible at around 36 years. When you replace a life without parole sentence with a term of years, you are not just changing a number in a statute book. You are creating the possibility that someone convicted of an extreme indifference killing will return to the community. You're also making it far more likely that families will have to return to the parole board to argue for keeping the killer in prison, whether under current law, they will never have to face that process at all. A sentence that guarantees an offender will never be released is not the same as a sentence that starts a countdown the day they enter prison. Those are different promises to victims. There are different levels of protection for the public. We also hear that this isn't about alignment and consistency. We are told that Colorado is stricter than other states and that we should move towards the national norm. But nothing in our law says that we must match the lowest common denominator. Our responsibility is to the people of Colorado, not to the national average. If our current law reflects a choice to treat extreme indifference with the utmost seriousness, it may be a strength to be preserved. And consider the message this sends to families. Imagine trying to explain this to parents whose children were killed in the same way. One family is told, by law, the person who killed your child will never leave prison. The other is told, under the new law, the person who killed your child may be released someday. The only difference is a birthday. Extreme indifference is not a momentary lapse or ordinary mistake. It is the decision to engage in conduct that creates a grave risk of death and to proceed anyway, to fire into a crowd, to drive like other people's lives are disposable, to act as if it simply does not matter who gets hurt. When the level of disregard results in a death, our law should be at its strongest. I want to talk about a testimony that I heard in committee from Tim Lopez, Brandy Duvall's uncle. Brandy was just 14 years old when she waited at the school bus in her red Chicago Bulls jersey, a color that several young gang members decided was not hers to wear. They kidnapped her, raped her, tortured her over several hours, committing unspeakable acts of violence while forcing her to beg for her life. One stabbed her 17 times before leaving her to die alone at the bottom of Lookout Mountain. In advocating for youthful offenders during the hearing the inhumane crimes they committed were described as quote youthful mistakes With respect these are not youthful mistakes Mr. Lopez testified that this bill is insulting and re-victimizing, and he is right. It's not just the months of trials, dozens of hearings, opportunity after opportunity for Brandy's murders to get the second chances she'll never have. Mr. Lopez explained what many victims' families know all too well. Every sentence reduction and every new release mechanism is not just a policy paper. It is another notification letter, another hearing, another day in court, another reopening of trauma. I do not quote him because every factual detail of his case maps perfectly onto this bill. I quote him because he expressed the long institutional memory of victims who have watched Colorado repeatedly reopen finality. Brandy's family has watched decade after decade as death sentences turned into life without parole, and life without parole turned into life with parole, and offenders were released and committed new violent crimes. Supporters will say this bill still punishes some people harshly, perhaps, but victims do not experience law at the level of abstract years. They experience it at the level of what the state says their loved one's murder meant, And this bill says that for a large class of universal malice murder, one death is not enough to keep the crime in the first degree category. I do not believe that builds trust in the law. I believe it breaks trust in the law. If we want a criminal code that communities trust, we must do two things at once. Punish proportionality and speak truthfully about harm. This bill does neither in the most dangerous public violence cases. Colorado can debate parole policy, youth sentencing policy, and charging transparency in other places. But for this crime, the humane course is to stand with victims and affirm that when one means to kill, when one prepares to kill, and when beyond a reasonable doubt universal malice is proven, we must hold them fully accountable. When we are dealing with extreme indifference to human life, I believe our first obligation is to public safety and to the families who will carry these losses forever. For that, I urge everyone to accept this amendment. Representative Carter. There's 45 minutes remaining. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Representative Bradfield Representative Bradfield Colleagues, I'm sorry, Representative Bradfield, there's 40 minutes remaining. Please proceed. Okay, thank you. I'm not here to answer your question, but I am here to say that I do support the amendment. But I'm here to talk as to why I support the amendment. Okay. According to a handout I'm looking at, there are 23 district attorneys in this state. 23 people that rarely agree on one thing. But they do here. They do, and they unanimously oppose this bill. I don't know what their thought process is, but I can tell you when I read this handout, I have a feeling I think I understand. There's an offense called first-degree murder, and it's after deliberation. And I'm going to just use that because it seems to be the most significant one. death is caused after deliberation and with intent to kill. That means whoever is doing this crime thought about it, planned it, and executed. It's purposeful, it's targeted at a particular person, and it's been planned. This is the most morally blameworthy category, and this is a class one felony and the punishment is life without parole. There is another lower level first degree, a murder by extreme indifference. It also has the same punishment, life without parole. But let's go down to second degree. Second degree, Two, person knowingly caused the death of a person. No, after deliberation, no universal malice. Knowingly killing, meaning the person is aware of their conduct. For example, beating a person may cause the death in the abstract, but there is no reflective, deliberate judgment to kill. It's serious, it's deadly, but not deliberative or demonstrating an extreme disregard for the value of human life generally. Punishment. Punishable by 16 to 48 years with good time, minus good time, earned time, and subject to early special needs parole. Okay. Now, come over here. According to this bill, there is a prioritization of victims. Where do each one of you fit in this priority list? we would all like to think we are at the top but obviously we're not I would like to think my life is as valuable as anyone in this room or in this building. but according to this I believe this is a horrible loss of life an on duty police officer is shot that is of course egregious how about a teacher How about a veterinarian? How about the delivery person that shows up at your front door? How about a truck driver? How about a waiter or a waitress? How about the man who drives the garbage truck? How about the people who come to mow your yard? How about your CPA? How about your boss? How about the owner of your company? Yeah, I got you. Not a one of those people have any more value than you do, than I do, than the police officer does. This bill prioritizes the value of victims. Please vote no. There's 34 minutes remaining. Representative Bradley.

Representative Espinoza.

Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of Amendment L18. All those in favor, say aye.

All those opposed say no. The no's have it. Amendment L18 fails. To the bill, Representative Woog.

That is a proper motion. L15 has been displayed, and there's 32 minutes remaining.

Representative Woog, let's stick to the amendment.

Is there any further discussion on Amendment L-15, Representative Espinoza?

Is there any further discussion on Amendment L15? Seeing none, the question before this is the passage of Amendment L15. All those in favor say aye.

The no's have it. Amendment L15 fails. To the bill, Representative Kelty.

That is a proper motion. L-8 has been displayed, and there's 27 minutes left to the amendment. Representative Kelty.

Is there any further discussion on MNL 8? Seeing Representative Carter.

Representative Kelty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. What this amendment is doing is taking Section 4, page 5, Section 4 out, and basically going back to what it is, first-degree murder.

Representative Carter. I ask for a no vote. This amendment appears to be an attempt to completely change criminal jurisprudence where we take out criminal attempt, so I'd ask for a no vote.

All those in favor say aye.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to, I move L16 to 1281 and ask that it properly be displayed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this deals with people who have a history of domestic violence. As a lot of you know, seeing domestic violence in my family, I know what it does to people and to the victims. And so I want to make sure that we stress and emphasize the protection of domestic violence victims. We know that a lot of these shootings have the perpetrators have a history of domestic violence. We see them usually targeting either intimate partners or families. We are now at the 10-year anniversary of House Bill 161066, in which the General Assembly recognized that habitual domestic violence offenders should face felony charges. If the same person who has a domestic violence record decides to enter a crowded 16th Street Mall, for example, and allows a firearm but only kills one person, This bill would treat that person's life as less deserving of a harsh sentence, would treat the person's family as deserving of having to go to a parole hearing instead. This amendment recognizes that if we're going to differentiate between would-be mass murderers' bullet trajectory, we should also recognize their history of domestic violence and meriting a harsher sentence and I ask for an aye vote.

Representative Carter. I'm going to ask for a no vote. This is, in reading, exactly what you seem to be taking out. It includes language that we've already addressed and other portions of the statute, I believe, regarding the criminal and illegal homicide, but I also believe it's duplicative, so I'm asking for a no vote at this time. Representative Espinoza. Thank you. Again, we did not have a chance to look at these amendments in advance, so we are kind of working on the fly here. This addresses an amendment. This amendment is attempting to add domestic violence to this crime. During committee, I specifically asked the representatives from COVA who were talking about adding domestic violence to this crime, and the reason that COVA is opposed to this bill is because they claim that we're not going to allow for murder in the first degree for domestic violence victims. The reality is extreme indifference homicide has never been charged in a domestic violence case because you always can prove that the individual who committed this crime intended to kill their victim. They will always be found guilty of first-degree murder because there is an intent and you can almost always demonstrate after deliberation. So we would ask you not to vote for this amendment and recognize that we did consider this issue of domestic violence, but the testimony and the evidence is that domestic violence is never charged as an extreme indifference crime, and therefore adding it as an enhancement is contrary to what the law is. And what we were trying to do in this bill is use those circumstances that have been used in the law and obtain convictions in the enhancements for the F1 felony, to not take tools away from the prosecutor. But we also don't want to be adding additional factors that are not relevant to that extreme indifference. Because I will tell you, the fact pattern for any killing where domestic violence exists is that this is personal, this is specific, this is intended. This will be first-degree murder. And so that's the whole point of what we're trying to say here. There are circumstances where an individual is and will be convicted of first-degree murder. And I will tell you, I don't know if I'll have another chance, but I will tell you that we have statistics that demonstrate that this charge, when it is charged, is most often charged with first-degree murder, and most often the jury will find the individual guilty of the first-degree murder. That is, the facts lend itself to it. In circumstances where it's been charged and they've not found first-degree murder, they haven't necessarily found extreme indifference murder either. They've often found, because this charge has been used most often as that stopgap in vehicular homicide, they found vehicular homicide as the charge, which under our current sentencing statutes means people can go without serving any time in the Department of Corrections. We wanted to fix that. this amendment does not address the concerns we'd ask for a no vote

Thank you, Mr. Chair. On to the bill. This is a question of policy. Even if you think there are real problems around charging patterns, even if you think there are hard youth sentencing questions, and even if you think Colorado should revisit some part of its homicide code, it does not follow that House Bill 26-1281 is the right vehicle or the right answer. This is the kind of bill that requires extraordinary care because it rewrites the architecture of public violence murder. Supporters repeatedly paint Colorado as an outliner in the sentencing of extreme indifference murders, yet champion our outliner role on what the majority of states often view as overly lenient reforms. So why are we outliers on this? maybe but even if so since when do Coloradans follow rather than lead stakeholders who join me in opposition to this bill are right to point out that a true 50 state comparison is more complex than comparing names of offenses states vary on sentencing ranges enhancements parole eligibility attempted murder doctrine and how depraved heart concepts like first-degree murder are embedded in the context of overall criminal laws unique to each state again unique to each state. A simplified map is not enough to justify dropping a broad class of current first-degree murders into second-degree murder. That is not fair to our victims and their families. There is also a practical point. This bill contains some vehicle homicide ideas that even neutral witnesses thought were worth continuing exploration, but that is not a reason to piggyback a major murder downgrade onto the same measure. The executive branch suggested some vehicular provisions had merit while still opposing the bill overall. If there are pieces with merit, separate them. Improve them. Pass them on their own. Do not use a few potentially useful provisions to carry a risky rewrite of extreme indifference murder across the board. If lawmakers generally believe there are issues to address, let's address those in narrower ways. We are a single subject topic in Colorado. Let's use that. A successor to the Colorado Criminal and Juvenile Justice Commission is the appropriate venue for thoroughly considering a policy of this complexity and importance, what we should not do is make the most irreversible change first and ask the public to trust us. Don't trust the government. That is what we, and that we will make, you know, corrections later. In murder law, later is too late. Again, in murder law, later is too late. My position is not that the law can never be improved. My position at this bill is a blunt instrument pointed at the wrong target. Separate the vehicular issues. Debate youth policy honestly, but do not downgrade Colorado's response to the worst harm that can be visited upon on an unsuspecting public. I am urging a no vote and I'm urging us to separate this issue. I also want to make sure that when we're looking at this we break it down. I move L007 to House Bill 1281 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Representative Johnson. Thank you. And understanding that we're talking about a high complex thing. So this amendment addresses the significant public safety issues that were raised by law enforcement victims and district attorneys As I mentioned before I introduced this amendment there are a lot of things that people are saying are good but a lot of concerns in such a high complex bill In some, this amendment seeks to remove any effort to reduce the offense level or add alternative elements for the crimes of murder one and extreme indifference and attempted murder one and extreme indifference. Those crimes are already a class 1 and class 2 felony, respectively. Section 2 of the bill unnecessarily adds additional qualifiers to hold an individual accountable for first-degree murder, extreme indifference. Section 3 of the bill reduces extreme indifference murder from a class 1 felony to a class 2 felony, reducing accountability for the most serious criminal conduct possible, and reducing the sentence upon conviction from life without the possibility of parole to a term of years. Section 4 of the bill reduces the penalty level for attempted extreme indifference murder from a Class 2 felony to a Class 3 felony. All three sections are harmful to public safety and should be stricken. This amendment accomplishes that, and I would urge a yes vote.

Representative Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to be clear. It appears that we are removing the murder in the first degree statute 18-3102. I just want to be clear. That's what your amendment is attempting to do.

Representative Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to ask for a no vote on this amendment while I understand the attempt to remove murder in the first degree and criminal attempt I don't believe that's in line with jurisprudence at this point so I'm going to ask for a no vote

All those in favor say aye

All those opposed say no.

Representative Hartzook. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We've had a lot of discussion this afternoon. We've had colleagues up here on both sides talking about for and against. When it comes down to the specifics of the law and the courts and the district attorneys and why different DAs bring different charges, I can't answer that. I'm not even going to try. However current Colorado statute does not require that more than one person be killed or endangered for extreme indifference conviction From my perspective, why is that important? It matters because the law, the way it's sitting right now, captures the indiscriminate nightclub shootings. Road raid shootings, drive-by shootings of houses, crowds, peoples, malls. Is it, the policy question before us, is it more determined if you pre-plan something and then kill someone, or you drive by and shoot and maybe you only kill one person? or you don't kill anybody, but you might have killed 30. Or maybe you attack a house of worship, a synagogue, a church, but you don't kill a bunch of people, you kill one. I would argue that the perpetrator has an extreme indifference to the people that are in that building. or in that house or in that mall. Just because they were unable to kill them because they were driving by too quickly or couldn't get somebody square in their sights does not eliminate that extreme indifference, that callousness, that disregard for life. Is that okay? Is it okay when we ask ourselves here that we should disregard just because you don't pre-plan, that we should change how things sit. I understand that they're trying to make a balance, and I see some things that they're trying to achieve here. And it has been noted that there are some things that are viable. But when it comes down to it, unless you want to run to be a district attorney, their job is to decide how they want to apply that prosecution, when they want to apply that, who they want to charge it with because of what they represent, what goes on in their district. Our job here is do we provide them the tools or do we take tools away from them? My position is a no on this bill is that we should not take tools away from district attorneys. just because some choose to use it one way, some choose to use it in a different way, that is up to them to decide and be accountable for not only to their constituents but to the courts, the judges, the jury, because that's their job when it comes to the prosecution. So the question, should we really declare that drive-by shootings and things that just because they don't result in a pre-planned death of somebody, should that be any less indifferent? There's been discussions both here today in committee, in conference rooms, about redemption versus death. Should someone be eligible for redemption, should someone be eligible for parole if they did something at a time? young age that resulted in the violent death of somebody, but it was very callous in the way they did it. You've heard the examples of throwing the rocks off the freeway bridge and the decapitation of the victim. That indifference, that callousness, does that mean that person, because they were teenagers, are they eligible for redemption? Are they eligible for parole? or should we be serving justice? Where do we draw the line at justice and truth, redemption? Where does that come into play? When do we decide that at what age are you not eligible for redemption?

Not much time left, but I did want to get up here and just say one thing. If you look at the chart that we gave you, many of your jurisdictions do not ever charge felony murder, extreme indifference F1 murder. And of the 501 homicides in the period between July of 22 and June of 25, 501 homicides were committed. Only 128 were charged as extreme indifference. Of that, only eight were convicted of extreme indifference. This is not an earth-shattering change that we're asking. And in many of those circumstances, the same DAs...

The same DAs you're doing are pleading down those charges. They understand there's differences.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. What I want to say in the last minute, in the last 30 seconds, is make sure you understand we are right-sizing, or an attempt to right-size the extreme indifference with murder after deliberation. But what you really need to understand, and what is very important, and what we keep harping on is, this is a compromise, criminally negligent homicide. there is a bottom step that has been created because we wanted to make sure while we were right-sizing the top part we also had the right-size the bottom part and we have created a new felony so if anyone says that they have not been given the tools look at the bill and read the bill and understand there is now a new felony for criminally

Mr. Sheebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 120. Senate Bill 120 by Senators Marchman and Wallace, also Representatives Zocaya and Bradley, concerning law enforcement procedures related to missing persons Representative Bradley Thank you Madam Chair I going to talk really No I just kidding

Representative Bradley, before you continue...

Yes.

We can do a Tennessee pace.

I was just taking some time so my co-prime could get in the building. Yes, indeed.

Sure enough, but you have to actually move Senate Bill 120.

Yes. To the bill. Representative Zokai.

Representative Zocay.

Representative Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, sponsors. This is something that is very close and personal with many, and it was an honor to sponsor Missing Persons Day. I know there's a lot of factors at play here. I know law enforcement, you know, being at the table and having worked with law enforcement regarding this bill, like our chiefs, I would like to move, I do move L-008 to Senate Bill 120 and ask that it be properly displayed.

And what this does is move it from the six-hour to the eight-hour, just asking for more time, understanding when you're dealing with college students, if they go on a hike, they decide to go, you know, partying, if they want to do things and not being responsive to phone calls or looking. Some of our law enforcement is asking that instead of the six hour, move it to eight just to make the accountability of resources, time, knowing this is a priority and we need to take care of them. But just a little more time is what they're asking. I would urge a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to the representative for bringing this forward. And I appreciate that in talking to the police chiefs. This is a very small percentage of students that go missing. there was only 11 in 2024 only 14 alerts of this kind last year we're not talking about a broad base of students we have 88 colleges and universities in colorado and 11 kids time is of the essence when my son was in his accident it was an hour before i found out and i will tell you if i had to wait more than that i can't imagine not getting to the hospital within an hour of his accident i can't imagine waiting three days and then finding out that he was in the bottom of a ravine and that the police would not file a missing person. This is good, um, This is good policy, and I think going from six hours to eight hours, time is of the essence, and so we are going to respectfully ask for a no vote on this amendment. Thank you. Is there any discussion on L-8? Seeing none, the question before us is its passage.

Madam Speaker, your Committee of the Whole begs leave to report as under consideration of the following attached bills, being the second reading that makes the following recommendations are on. House Bills 1225 is amended, 1276 is amended, 1281 is amended, 1335 is amended, and 1347 is amended, passed on second reading, order and gross in place on the calendar for third reading and final passage. Senate Bill 120 passed on second reading, ordered revised and placed on the calendar for third reading and final passage.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the Winter Amendment to the Committee of the Whole report, House Bill 1225. Representative Winter, move to amend the report of the Committee of the Whole to reverse the action taken by the Committee and not adopting the following Winter Amendment, L14 to House Bill 1225. To show that said amendment passed, that House Bill 1225 is amended passed.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'd like to move the Winter Amendment to the report of the Committee of the Whole and ask that it be displayed.

Thank you Madam Speaker Basically this amendment was to an amendment and we just wanted to make sure that basically what the amendment says is a public utility should not implement the subsection 7 if the public utility determines that doing so will result in a higher utility rates for consumers or instability to the grid and I urge an aye vote Representative Wilford

Mr. Schiebel, please read the Johnson Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report. House Bill 1276. Representative Johnson moved to amend the report of the Committee of the Whole to rest the action taken by the Committee in not adopting the following Johnson Amendment, L22 to House Bill 1276. To show that said amendment passed, that House Bill 1276 is amended, passed.

Representative Johnson, I'll have you move that again. It's the Johnson Amendment, not the Johnson Report.

Sure, it did.

I want to make sure we're making it clear to Colorado that this fee in place is a fee because it has a cap and it can't be inflated, misused, or misallocated. That we really do want to make sure that we are being fiscally responsible with the dollars that are being held and those that are paying the fee.

Representative Garcia. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, just having a cap on a fee does not mean that it's not a tax. You have caps on taxes as well. So that argument doesn't actually make sense to me. But regarding this particular amendment I ask for a no vote because this fee is a fee for service There will never be an additional fee that is not charged if the service is not conducted That in itself serves as the checks and balance and the cap. You do not charge a fee unless the service is conducted. And that is this will take that away and it will put a limit to the services that CDPHE can provide in the oversight of these centers. Why would we want to put a cap on oversight of centers that have been reportedly and continuously violating people's human rights, sacrificing their health care, prohibiting them access to medical care and to their attorneys? Please vote no.

With 19-I, 40-no, and 6-excuse, the amendment is lost. Mr. Schiebel, please read the Bradley Amendment to the Committee of the Whole report, House Bill 1281. Representative Bradley moved to amend the part of the Committee of the Whole to rest the action taken by the committee and not adopting the following Caldwell Amendment, L18 to House Bill 1281, to show that said amendment passed that House Bill 1281 is amended passed. Representative Bradley.

Representative Espinoza. Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I noted in the discussion, what is being asked here is to basically strip your colleague's bill and take it back to existing law. And under any circumstances, I don't believe that's what we should be doing on a cow amendment. And I would ask for courtesy to allow our bill to proceed as it was and answer this larger question. And contrary to what was just said, we are not eliminating first-degree extreme indifference murder. It still exists in certain specified circumstances. And circumstances, most of which were just discussed, still apply and would still lead to first-degree extreme indifference murder charges. But I really want to hone in on one fact that our colleague just raised. That is that mental states are very difficult for juries to decide. One part of the debate that we didn't talk about was why, in part, we are doing this change. It's because by giving the jurors the specific enhancements, they will know how to increase the penalty or that if they vote for those enhanced charges, that their penalty is greater. What we heard in testimony was that the jury often thinks currently if the district attorneys charge both first-degree felony murder, that is, murder in the first degree. I want to make sure I don't say the word felony murder because that's a different concept, which is a second-degree felony, by the way, not a first-degree felony. If the district attorney charges both felony murder in the first degree after deliberation and they charge extreme indifference murder, Jurors come back afterwards to defense counsel and say, I didn't realize I was giving the same sentence for that crime, and I was voting for extreme indifference because it wasn't as deliberate as the first-degree murder charge. so part of what we are doing in this statute is aligning and letting the jury know if you engage in this conduct without being the district's attorneys being able to prove that you deliberated about it but you did do something as horrific as what we've heard then you can still be convicted of first degree felony murder or first degree murder first first degree murder however we're also now will there be instructions that will let people, the jury especially, know if those enhancements don't go, then there's clearly a distinction and there is now a clear lesser offense that the jury will convict the individual of What I didn get to say in the time that we have was a full number of cases that have been pled down or reduced substantially way below first-degree murder or second-degree murder to manslaughter and vehicular homicides. Those are the charges most often that the district attorneys themselves plea the extreme indifference murder charges down to. 75% of the cases, they are acting and using this tool and then pleading those cases to a determinate sentence with the defendants who led to the death. And why are they doing that? Not because they're disregarding the life that was lost. None of us is disregarding that. But there is a time when the mental state for the conduct don't match. and our statutes and law, even the juries find, often don't lead to what the prosecutor charges. Prosecutors can charge the highest level, they can charge lesser included offenses, or they can charge offenses that are totally contradictory. Because the courts have said over and over again, extreme indifference murder is inconsistent with first degree murder. You cannot at the same time intend to kill someone after deliberation and recklessly and knowing with recklessness that you're harming someone with resulting in death. But those mental states are so far removed. We have narrowly tailored this bill to provide enhancements for those most frequent offenses. It will not be lost on the district attorneys. but it is critical to understand we also created vehicular homicide because that was the area where the prosecutors were using extreme indifference and the results of the jury show that because in the majority of the cases where extreme indifference has been charged the majority of those are convicted of vehicular homicide but what we have done is now increase the penalty for vehicular homicide if there are enhancements in that so people will actually go to the Department of Corrections and serve time This is a right-sizing of our law in concert with what the courts have said the mental state of the crime should be. We are not eliminating life without parole. We are just saying the circumstances for which we throw people away, life without parole, need to be in line with what the case law says. And there's a difference between first-degree murder and second-degree murder. don't go with this amendment which would eliminate all of the work that we've done please vote no on this amendment

Representative Stewart, how do you vote? No. Representative Stewart votes no. Representative Sucla, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Sucla votes yes. Minority Leader Caldwell, how do you vote? Yes, ma'am. Minority Leader Caldwell votes yes. Please close the machine. With 22 I, 37 no, and 6 excused, the amendment is lost.

Representative Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move the Gonzalez amendment to the report of the Committee of the Whole and ask that it be properly displayed.

So, again, I just want to emphasize the importance of DV to people who have been impacted by that, especially myself and other people in this room. So all this amendment, we heard some of the concerns from the sponsors. So DAs can and do charge extreme indifference murder for DV homicides. There is a case in particular dated from last year in March where in Rocky Ford, I believe, there was one deceased and one seriously injured and related to a domestic violence incident. Think of this classic scenario. DV abuser goes to a wife's work and shoots up a place to harm her. That is DV, but only kills one person that's not the wife. That's DV extreme indifference. And I can tell you that because my mom was followed by my dad at her work, which she started working in. Although he was not armed, he would still follow her. And so there is that potential risk for people who may be followed in other instances and environments. So with that, I would just ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would ask for a no vote on this. As I indicated, during testimony in committee, I specifically asked whether this is being charged in domestic violence cases of the prosecutors that were in the room. And one of them did indicate that he's never charged this, and he wouldn't charge this because domestic violence is a targeted crime. In addition, the way this amendment is drafted, it would take even misdemeanor offenses that do not rise to the level of serious harm. any conviction of a domestic violence by virtue of what in that area would elevate the crime. And we know that there are times when the ultimate individuals who might be victims are multiply charged as well, so we don't want to set the record based on that. If there have been previous circumstances of arrests for domestic violence, that could unknowingly bring people into the first-degree murder circumstance when there may be justifications, which would be lost potentially if extreme indifference is the charge rather than first degree and taking away from the jury's ability to actually look at facts. As I said before, in almost every circumstance involving domestic violence, you have a circumstance where the individual actually knows that person and is engaged in an intimate relationship with that person, and so there is absolute intentional first degree intent that would be charged in those circumstances. So we'd ask for a no amendment.

Yes.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move the second Johnson Amendment to the Committee of the Whole and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you. So what this amendment does is it strikes Section 2, Section 3, and Section 4 of this bill, which are harmful to public safety. This is also listening to the voices of our victims, law enforcement, and district attorneys. what these three sections, by removing these three sections, we are seeking to remove any effort to reduce the offense level or add alternative elements for the crimes of murder one, extreme indifference, and attempted murder one, extreme indifference. Those crimes are currently a class one and class two felony, respectfully, and I ask for a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. In my reading of this amendment during seconds, it appeared that this was one of the amendments that was attempting to rewrite jurisprudence and the actual not just extreme indifference statute, not just the murder after deliberation statute, but the entire criminal code. I would request to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that we be allowed to carry the bill that we brought forward, and I'm asking for a no vote.

No.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move the Woog amendment to the Committee of the Whole report and ask it to be displayed. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. so many first line workers are expected to react and intervene every hour of every day. They're always on the job. What this amendment does is removes the requirement First responders such as police, hospital personnel, or firefighters be on duty in order for their murder to merit life in prison. So I urge a yes vote. Representative Espinoza.

When we talk about this amendment, I raise something that's very difficult to hear, but not all people who serve in those capacities at all times are free from engaging in conduct that could result in death. Specifically, we know that at least one police officer in this state has been convicted of death, of committing a homicide, while he was not on duty. If we adopt this amendment, he would not be eligible if the kind of crime that he engaged in qualified for extreme indifference under our bill. So we'd ask you to vote no. To my colleague's point, any time an individual is acting in the capacity for which they are doing service and doing their job, they are covered by the terms of our bill in that they are at that time presumed to be, there no punching a clock in and out for law enforcement firefighters those individuals if they acting in the performance of their duties they would be exempt They would be brought into our bill as a person who would be qualifying for the higher level life without parole That's why we put them in here, recognizing that when they are acting in the line of duty to protect and serve or to work with our people in this nature, any injury to them. People engaging that contact, no, and should be held to a higher level because of the nature of that work. And so I would ask for no on this amendment because I think it might open the door to unintended consequences.

No.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes.

No, ma'am.

No, ma'am.

madam majority leader thank you madam speaker I move to lay over the balance of the calendar

until Monday April 27th madam majority leader madam speaker I move that the house stand in