House Finance [Apr 27, 2026]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I don't need to belabor any of the points just made by my very able co-prime sponsor, and this is a very simple and straightforward bill further clarifying what collections for another government and damage awards are.

I apologize for wearing a hat. I have a wound, a surgical wound on my head. Chair, Mr. Chair, members of the Finance Committee, my name is Patty McKernan, and I'm here to oppose Senate Bill 26042. I'm a native of Colorado, and due to a corporate relocation from a promotion, I was not here when the people overwhelmingly voted to pass the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, also known as TABOR. When I moved back to Colorado in 1998, I was delighted by the condition of my home state. As the years went by and newcomers came to my state, I would make sure they understood what TABOR meant to the health of the state. When the other states were buried in debt, Colorado was still strong because we protected the taxpayers' money and didn't overspend. However little by little we have elected representatives who only want to spend spend spend And when you couldn make the budget work in your favor what did you do You started using creative language calling taxes fees Now you want to reclassify certain revenue to skirt the intent of Tabor I'm not surprised you work very hard to skirt the intent of most everything that puts a damper on your spending. It's time that you understand that your spending is sending Colorado off the cliff. You should not try to balance your budget by stealing money from the taxpayers by using semantics. Colorado has slipped to the bottom of the barrel. Voters will not forget this

Thank you, Chair Woodrow and members of the Finance Committee, and thank you to sponsors Zokai and Sirota for bringing this bill. I actually rise enthusiastically in support of this bill. Again, we're not skirting TABOR compliance. We're simply refining what it actually means. I think this bell strikes a very talented balance of rather than the overcompliance with TABOR that we occasionally are seeing today. We are, again, classifying things in their appropriate and original taper intended places. So, again, I particularly appreciate the damages section. I don't know much about airplanes and fuel, and I'll admit to that. But there are pieces that are particularly important that I see. that I see. And in all of those cases, in all of the cases, whether I know a great deal of them about them or not, they are fitting back into the original intent of Tabor. So I appreciate this and would ask for an aye vote on this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L-8.

This is a technical fix. So we struck certain language that was repeated elsewhere in the bill, and then the place where it was repeated was struck in the Senate, so we have to add it back. So we hope you'll support us fixing this.

No other amendments, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee members. Good bill vote yes. We should not be artificially inflating our fiscal year spending with revenue that is supposed to be exempt. This is a good governance measure and hope to see it pass out of committee today.

But I'll vote no.

I wasn't planning on saying something, but since I'm very hypercritical on how we follow TABOR and don't in so many cases, when we got this bill that is, I think, a black bullseye on what we should be doing, that this is income exempt under TABOR and we should never have been counting it in the first place, I think we should make that very clear, and I wish the opposition witness had been here to hear that. our good friend and colleague, well not colleague, but watchdog from the Tabor Tax Foundation is not present today. And I think that speaks volumes because I was expecting to see her and ask her to explain how this doesn't fall under the constitutional amendment. This does. So I'm glad you recognized it and helped us out to find $65 million that counts against our cap that should never have been counting against our cap. Any other closing

the Appropriations Committee. Representative Zocchi. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Senate Bill 42 to the Appropriations Committee with a favorable

Camacho

DeGraff

Garcia

Gonzalez

Art Sook

Marshall

Stewart

Zokar

Tatone

here today on behalf of some very excited educators. Senate Bill 151 is an update to PARA given a set of circumstances that we find ourselves having in Denver Public Schools. As you know Denver Public Schools had its own separate division if you will of PARA and those who want to engage with that division and therefore be enrolled in PARA we need a statutory change And so what you find in Senate Bill 151 is just that We have a handful of charter school networks, and networks have multiple schools. One of those networks is called Denver School of Science and Technology. And given the way that Denver Public Schools kind of negotiated its, I guess, kind of like merger or integration into PARA, DSST originally was not included in the Denver Public Schools retirement system. The school was founded in 2004, and so we found it to be weirdly grandfathered. And so now the network is at a place where it needs to be included in the Denver public school section of PARA, and we need to do so by statute. The network probably has around a dozen schools, and they also now have schools in an additional school district, Aurora Public Schools, and so they're in a place where all the APS teachers are enrolled in PARA where the Denver-based teachers are not, and so we're looking for that parity. The other half of the bill actually turns the Denver Public Schools board member from ex officio into voting. And it's quite aptly placed given the timing. I'm not sure if anyone, I think maybe three of us really, really, really follow para. But at the end of the day, in 2010, when Denver Public Schools agreed to get on par with the school's division, basically in 2010, they said in 30 years, we're going to get to the same place in school divisions. And in all of this time, the Denver Public Schools whole retirement group did not have a vote. And now that they are a significant portion of the school's division or will get there, and given that around 7% of para is DPS alone, it's about time that they have the ability to vote. So ultimately, Senate Bill 151 is to allow this network into para and to change that voting seat. And with that, I will pass it over to my co-prime. Representative Luton.

So DSST negotiated to originally not be included in the Denver Public Schools retirement system when they were founded. DSST is probably – is the oldest of the networks in Denver. And so because everything to do with Paris codified, they have now come back to the table and asked to be included. So they were not excluded by policy. They negotiated to not to be in 20 years ago.

Thank you, members, and thank you to the DSST who came out today. I will say on behalf of Denver Public Schools, you know, our other networks have access to this. And as you heard, I think the portability component is really important, too, where teachers from this network are able to not only transition between the schools within their overall network between school districts, but in the event people want to come into DSST or go out, they will be able to take part in the same retirement system. And so, again, I want to thank all of you all. I love it when we have to do a statutory change for good old Denver. However, as you hear on behalf of our educators, we do believe this is a good bill. They will bring additional contributions and will be able to support some very good teachers. So with that, I urge and I vote.

No.

Yes.

No.

Gonzalez.

Hartsuk.

Marshall.

Stewart.

Tatel.

So I'm a little concerned that this is such a good program.

So if I was a 21-year-old playing World of Warcraft, and I'm assuming 12 to 16-year-olds are playing that too, and I'm required to pay this fee, what benefit is occurring to the person who's playing it who's 21 or 22 at all?

everyone who pays that is a driver but even in this case a minority of the kids playing are never going to be using the majority I would assume would never be using mental health services so again I think the case is a little apropos don't you or are you saying it's an exact analogy

thank you Mr. Chair I think that these programs are available to kids And so even if not every single one takes advantage of it it is to their benefit that these are available to them And given everything I went through in my opening, the kids that are being exploited by these platforms do have a great need for these programs to exist, so they are directly benefiting.

I think Rep. Camacho wanted to.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I just want to follow up on what my co-prime said. And these programs are targeted to ill effects of prolonged online gaming. If you are someone who is online gaming or a youth that is doing that and making these purchases, you're far more likely to need these services. So there is a much closer connection to the harm caused and what we're trying to accomplish with this bill.

Sure, thank you. Like my colleague, I'm seeing a little bit of a leap between saying that this fee is collected, which is ultimately going to be passed along to consumers, but then no direct connection necessarily to the kids receiving that. It's presumptive to say that there's going to be that connection there, and then it all comes down to the parent, parental involvement. I mean, why not go ahead and extend this to social media companies? Because the like button is the same thing. It is meant to drive engagement. It's meant to – that's the reason why that was engineered. So this is going after games, and you've got the cost that ultimately is going to be passed along to parents who probably aren't going to see the connection and connect the kid to the service anyway. So help me walk through that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate your question. And I'm going to push back on the LEAP because I think there's many examples in Colorado where we assess a fee for a program like this. So take, for example, the unemployment compensation fund. All of us pay into that fund. It doesn't mean all of us are going to be unemployed at some point, but we all pay into it. In the event that we need it, it is there, similar to this fee. There's also the petroleum storage tank fund that charges the fee. And in the event there's a leak, not saying everyone's going to have a leak, but when there is, there's a fund that covers that. And lastly, the family program. Everyone pays into that, but will everyone use it? No, but it is there when someone does need to take advantage of it. These are three examples existing in Colorado law. They're doing the exact same thing that this bill is trying to accomplish.

Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I'd probably wonder if some of those aren't just a stretch as well. But if this is, you know, we have this, you know, this ubiquitous information and now you're going to have to start getting into the, you know, getting into the, you know, into the online world. I'm not really sure how it'd be. I'm sure you'll hopefully you'll be explaining how that is going to be done when you're using like a artificial currency in an artificial space for an artificial economy. how we're going to apply a real tax to that. But if it's something that is, now I understand that you could say, well, this is a net benefit for everybody. And so therefore, maybe it would make more sense to, I don't think it would, but to divert, well, it would probably make sense to divert some other tax to fund this. And just like the previous, the bills that we had where, like, if somebody's going to do a ballot initiative, it would have to come with a, like, to say where they intend for that money to come from. Why does this not just take from a different fund and say, this is a priority for us, so we're going to take the money out of this other thing that, okay, we have tax dollars going to that, but this is a higher priority. So if this is a higher priority, why don't we take money out of something that we're now considering a lower priority?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Representative Graff, thank you for being a fan of some of my earlier work in the session because I am the co-sponsor of that bill as well. I will push back. We are not assessing a tax because you can't do that under the tabler. What we are doing is assessing a fee to an enterprise which is completely legal under Tabor, which is completely consistent with funding mechanisms that this committee passes very frequently. It's narrowly tailored to what we are trying to accomplish, which is providing mental health services to kids who spend excessive amount of time online gaming, which is vastly different than my other legislation, but I do appreciate the fandom, so thank you.

Yeah, I guess that was the like button, and I just had to hit it. No, I'm not asking for a different tax. I'm asking for a reallocation of a current tax to say this is a priority, so we're going to take that money from someplace else. So a big fan of Tabor and not giving the carte blanche to raise taxes every time a good intention manifests into a good idea.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that given the pervasiveness of online gaming and the way that this is impacting children, it's important to say that this fee paid for by kids can now go to supporting their mental health. And so I understand you might prioritize taking that funding from elsewhere, and we can have a difference of opinion there, but this is something that, again, is among 97% of teen boys and 85, I think, percent of teen girls, that they are spending their time and their dollars online gaming, and they should be able to put that money towards something that supports them. And to an earlier point you made about artificial currencies, L4 does address that.

Good afternoon Chair Woodrow and members of the House Finance Committee. I'm Heather Tritton, President and CEO of the Colorado Children's Campaign. The campaign is a nonpartisan policy organization committed to making Colorado the best place to be a kid and raise a kid We use data and research to identify what kids across our state need then advocate for policies that strengthen their well-being and help them thrive. I'm here today to express the campaign's strong support for HB 1418. When we invest in kids, we invest in the future of our state. In the 2023 Kids Count Report, the campaign rang alarm bells about rapidly declining youth mental health, as measured by the Healthy Kids Colorado Survey. A short time later, researcher and author Jonathan Haidt published a book called Anxious Generation, where he compellingly linked rapidly declining youth mental health to the widespread adoption of smartphones, rise in screen time, and the effects of social media. Between then and now, two things have happened. First, the companies that profit from kids' screen time have made hundreds of millions of dollars annually, mostly through microtransactions. Second, there has been a rapid expansion of the body of research linking screen time to compulsive spending tendencies, decreased outdoor time, increased aggression, and decreased empathy, and a decrease in developed relationship with other children. Even though these companies are already paying hundreds of millions in penalties and facing federal and state lawsuits, HB 1418 doesn't attempt to regulate or even punish the industry. It just recaptures an extremely small portion of their revenue-generating mechanisms to reinvest in youth well-being. It reinvests in prevention, in connection, and in community. It supports peer navigators, the young people helping young people find their way. It strengthens crisis response systems so that when a child is struggling, help shows up where they are, not just in an emergency room. And it creates a sustainable path forward for programs like iMatter that are already connecting thousands of Colorado youth to care. It also invests in state-level enforcement mechanisms at the Department of Education for student civil and disability rights. The well-being of our young people is not a niche issue. It is foundational. It affects their ability to learn, to grow, to build relationships, and ultimately to contribute to the strength and prosperity of our communities. Colorado kids need and deserve a dedicated, durable funding stream for mental health supports, especially one that doesn't put extra strain on the general fund. HB 1418 creates that funding stream. HB 1418 is the kind of solution Colorado should be proud to lean on. Please vote yes. Happy to help with questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Jack Johnson. I'm an attorney at Disability Law Colorado here testifying in support of House Bill 1418. I want to talk about the importance of the services that are provided by this bill and the reason that this is the appropriate mechanism to do it. Right now in this country, online gaming continues to be a consistent threat to children's well-being and their mental health. We see across the country that particularly children with disabilities are negatively impacted by the social outcomes that result from this unregulated industry. Whether it's bullying and harassment or taking advantage of developmental delays, these programs and services often lead to negative outcomes for these kids. These outcomes aren't just stuck to when these kids are in school. They last a lifetime and often result in burdens on our other systems that rely on. When students who are in school fail to get mental health care or fail to get the appropriate level of disability care or services they often end up on our social welfare systems requiring greater levels of care when they adults or in our justice system requiring extensive investment in crime prevention and justice enforcement What this means is that early intervention now affects not only the students who are receiving this but everyone in the community When we can prevent the negative outcomes of these social games and allow students and young individuals to be connected to services in schools, whether they're services related to their disability, services for mental health care, or services for programmings outside of school, the end result is the betterment of everyone, including people like me who play these games. Because as a user, when other people in our society receive the services from the negative outcome of our social gaming system, I benefit. My tax revenue doesn't need to go towards these other services. I'm not paying for extra jail time. We're not expanding jails or beds because we have provided appropriate levels of service and care at the earliest intervention possible. I'm happy to answer any questions, and thank you for your time.

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Mary Zanotti, and I serve as Executive Director of Colorado Youth for a Change and Operator of Youth Mental Health Corps. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in strong support of House Bill 1418 to create a sustainable funding stream for youth mental health services. Colorado's youth mental health crisis is straining families, schools, and providers. Needs are higher, wait lists are longer, and too many young people aren't reached early when support works best and prevents costly crises. This bill would expand front door capacity, trusted adults who can spot concerns early, connect youth and family to services, and ensure warm handoffs to care. Youth Mental Health Corps is a proven near-peer model. Our AmeriCorps members add non-clinical capacity for prevention and outreach so licensed professionals can work at the top of their scope. In two years, we've placed hundreds of members in schools and community sites serving nearly 10,000 young people while building pathways to the behavioral health workforce. Youth Mental Health Corps adds capacity without relying on higher-cost clinical positions and connects youth to early supports and resources, including IMATR and 988 to reduce escalation. We need stable state funding so this work isn't at the mercy of fluctuating federal AmeriCorps support. Without it, we risk loss on the ground of on the ground navigators and mentors, put more strain on counselors, clinicians, and school staff, and create stop and start instability for districts and partners, reducing prevention and increasing avoidable crises. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Yeah. Good afternoon, Chair Woodrow and members of the House Finance Committee. My name is Andrea Stoysavlovich, and I'm a policy and advocacy specialist on the Government Affairs Team at Children's Hospital Colorado. We're here today to urge your support for House Bill 1418 to support children's health and well-being across Colorado. As previously mentioned, there is already a ubiquitous nature of social media and online gaming use among youth. And we know that teens spend nearly five hours a day on social media apps. And research shows that three hours per day on social media doubles the risk of poor mental health, including experiencing symptoms of depression and anxiety. We also know that adolescents who experience cyberbullying are more than four times as likely to report thoughts of suicide and attempts of those who didn't. And lastly as a sponsor and representative Zokai previously mentioned 85 of teens in the U reported playing video games in 2024 with 41 of them reporting playing daily We know that online gaming can impact youth mental health through a duality of risks and benefits. While it can offer social connections, stress release, and cognitive perks, excessive use is strongly linked to depression, anxiety, and addiction-like symptoms. There are many nuanced factors influencing that impact between usage patterns such as too much time gaming can replace important activities and protective factors like sleep, exercise, and social connections, the content and environment of the game, and the individual vulnerability. But there are also companies who are pushing problematic play and engagement. The rationale for House Bill 1418 is that platforms profiting from addictive design and targeting should contribute to programs that counteract their negative impacts. That's why we're supporting House Bill 1418 as a forward-looking investment and exciting opportunity to support Colorado's youth, mental health, and well-being, ensuring young people have the support they need to be safe, healthy, and successful, both online and offline. The bill implements a key strategy often used in public health by ensuring that the revenue from these fees will be used specifically to repair and prevent potential harm to youth mental health and well-being. In closing, we urge your support for House Bill 1418, and I thank you for your time. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you and good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Madam Vice Chair and members of the Finance Committee. As has been said, my name is Angela Hidon. I'm the President and CEO of the Boys and Girls Club of Pueblo County, and I'm testifying in strong support of House Bill 1418. I started with the Boys and Girls Club back in the 80s, and what began as a job quickly became my life's work. I've spent over three decades walking alongside young people and families in my community, including my time as former state senator representing the community of Pueblo County. So when I say kids are facing something different right now, I mean it and experiencing it. The challenges have changed. Kids and teens today are growing up in a world that is more connected than ever. but many of them feel far more alone. We see this in their behavior, in their stress levels, in the way that they struggle to build healthy relationships. In Pueblo, many of the youth we serve are growing up in a low-income, under-resourced household. Many are being raised by a single parent, sometimes not by a parent at all. And for those kids and teens, the club is more than a place to go after school. It's where they find stability. It's where they find consistency and caring adults. And for many, it is where they find hope. The club has worked hard to evolve with the needs that are changing, building programs focused on social emotional wellness, workforce development, and giving kids and teens opportunities they might not otherwise have. But the truth is, None of that happens without sustainable funding. I've seen what happens when funding is uncertain. Programs shrink, staff are stretched too thin, and the kids who need us most are the ones who fill it first. After-school programs are not extras. As a parent once told me, they are essential for working families and for kids who need safe, supportive environments every day. This bill is important because it creates a pathway towards stability. It recognizes that we need to invest in prevention by giving kids and teens the resources, the relationships, and the environments that help them succeed before they reach a crisis point. That's what we do every day at the Boys and Girls Clubs, and that's what this bill helps make possible at a larger scale. So I want to thank the bill's sponsors for their leadership and recognizing the importance of investing in young people. And I respectfully ask for your support for HB 26, 14, 18 and the amendments. Thank you so much for your time today.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee my name is ryan templeton i'm the governmental affairs officer at the behavioral health administration house bill 1418 raises significant concerns for the behavioral health administration because we need legal and reliable funding mechanisms that do not jeopardize the viability of the programs that we would be funded by this enterprise therefore bha opposes house bill 26 1418 these critical programs youth peer supports i matter the crisis resolution teams are actively improving behavioral health outcomes for youth across our state. IMEDder alone has served over 16,000 youth with over 68,000 sessions since October of 2021. Labor and enterprise risks, the Internet Tax Freedom Act preemptions, and constitutional issues including equal protection and dormant commerce clause raise concerns for this program, which if revenue for these programs were to fall, We would be in a worse spot than we are without these programs. So therefore, we need legal and reliable funding mechanisms to not jeopardize these programs. So thank you for the opportunity to testify in opposition to 1418.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. For the record, my name is Amber Egbert. I'm the director of research and legislative services with the taxation division here at the Colorado Department of Revenue. I'm joining you all today to testify in opposition to the passage of House Bill 1418. The Department of Revenue has a number of administrative concerns with being able to manage the collection of the fee as this is currently outlined in this bill. Our administrative concerns vary from a couple of different issues related to just lack of clarity around the imposition of the fee, around the Department of Revenue's authority to be able to collect the fee, lack of clarity about other guardrails and enforcement mechanisms around the fee. We also have some timing concerns just related to the imposition of the fee and being able to get systems updated and provide information to fee payers timely We also wanted to flag similar to the Behavioral Health Association, the Internet Tax Freedom Act and some concerns around increasing numbers of lawsuits on Internet transactions and states imposing fees and taxes on those Internet transactions. Just as a final flag, since you guys all are the finance committee, the DOR wanted to flag that there is no funding source in the bill for DOR's costs to be able to collect and administer this fee on behalf of the enterprise. And so the state would need to pick up the cost of that either from the general fund or from a different cash fund. And so those are some of our concerns with this not being a program that we're really able to administer or support as it's structured right now. And so we would urge your consideration to not move forward with House Bill 1418 at this time. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much for your time today.

Thank you, Chair Woodrow and members of the House Finance Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Aaron Siegel, and I'm here on behalf of the Entertainment Software Association, which represents the nation's leading video game publishers and developers. We share your goal of improving youth mental health and recognize the urgency of that challenge. However, House Bill 26-14-18 is not an effective or appropriate solution. This bill places the burden of paying for a complex societal issue on a single industry and a single group of consumers. A 5% extra charge on in-game purchases, on top of existing taxes, would have to be paid by video game players for services they may never need or never access. These individuals will pay more at the point of sale every time, regardless of whether they ever benefit from the services being funded. Just weeks ago, a similar proposal was rejected by the House Judiciary Committee due to these same concerns. Equally important, this bill raises serious privacy and implementation issues. To implement this extra charge, companies may need to collect geolocation data from players to determine tax eligibility. Companies that have deliberately chosen not to collect this type of sensitive information would now be compelled to do so. For more than three decades, ESA members representing leading video game publishers and console makers have invested in advanced player safety tools, as well as robust parental and user controls to help ensure games are safe for children and teens. We share the goal of protecting young people online and understand the desire to fund mental health programs. However, using a targeted fee on video game players to fund general mental health services creates serious policy and legal concerns. For these reasons, we urge the committee to oppose the bill. I thank you for your time and consideration and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This question is for probably the BHA and or the DUR. I'm just curious what work you've been able to do with the sponsors to address your concerns. Mr. Templeton, you want to take that first?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Representative. Yeah, I think there is some connection back with the sponsors that needs to happen.

Yes, there has been some back and forth with our alleged liaison and with the Gov's office. And I think with amendments coming up, we have not seen those. So we are looking forward to seeing what that looks like.

Maybe just to say that it sounds like the CDLR might be in a similar situation. And we are working through our alleged liaison to try and get concerns in front of sponsors so that they can see what those look like. We're moving through channels. This bill came up a little quick, so we're hoping to see what the amendments look like and see how working with the sponsors looks.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. And thank you. I'm kind of curious. I was going to say it's amusing that Dior can't figure out how to levy a fee. That's got to be the first one I've heard here in finance for four years. But that would be a different debate. So I'm curious, two things. One, what have respective organizations done so far to protect the children? And two, how is that funded? Is that for Ms. Egbert?

I mean, whoever's got input on those two, I'd be curious about.

Thank you. I actually can't speak to funding for other like behavioral health, mental health kinds of programs. I think the BHA may be a little better positioned for that. I can speak just a little bit to collecting this fee. Part of the department's concerns are that there are not very many administrative provisions outlined in statute around this. And so that creates a situation where it's unclear between the enterprise and the department who gets to set the parameters of the fee, how it's structured, what collection provisions are allowed to be used. Kind of all of that framework is missing right now and would need to be in place for us to be able to move forward, or it puts us potentially at some risk around rulemaking for that.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the question. For instance, the iMatter program that would be enterprise funded is currently general funded for $5 million a year. the behavioral health administration's overall budget is about 300 million dollars half of that is is general fund about 22 percent of its federal fund and about 25 percent of the rest is cash funded so that's how service delivery happens for funding for behavioral services at least

can do you have any idea on success rates i mean if you're you're putting this money on forward What's the ROI? What are we getting in return for this, for the kids? Mr. Thomas.

Representative Hartzik, you may dialogue.

Thank you, Representative.

housed within the behavioral health administration that we contract out outcomes within that program are great kids have access to low barrier therapy sessions that help with a lot of the things that this this bill is trying to accomplish the the issue that the behavioral health administration has with this bill is not about the programs, it's about the funding mechanism for that. If we were to move general funds to an enterprise and there's legal concerns related to the enterprise, then those services go away. That's our concern with this piece of legislation. Any other questions from the committee? Representative Garcia, my apologies. That's okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have to admit that I'm actually shocked to see BHA here opposing this. I'm wondering if you can help me understand how a new dedicated stream for youth mental health is actually not congruent with your mission and why you think being here opposing this is congruent with your mission. Mr. Templeton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the question, Representative. We are not opposed to the programs that this funds. It's the mechanism. We are concerned with it it's not legally a viable way to fund these programs that is our concern with this piece of legislation um same with what um department of revenue had mentioned the mechanisms for getting funds to these programs is what is a challenge for us we want to see these programs continue it's just we don't see that this is the right pathway based on the current version of this bill. Representative Garcia. Thank you. So it seems to me then, given the purpose of BHA, you are not DOR. So it seems to me that BHA should actually then be here and maybe more of an amend position that would support the L-001 that sets up what actually does look like a legal funding scheme here. And so I just, I wonder if there's something else behind your opposition to this bill. Mr. Thompson Thank you Mr. Chair Thank you Representative We have not seen amendments to this piece of legislation Representative Marshall Wait I still have more questions Mr. Chair Sure Thank you Mr. Chair Representative Garcia Thank you And I guess this next question goes to Well I guess just to close on that It seems that just flat out Opposing a concept that would support youth mental health given the relatively low results of all your other programming. It seems like an amend position makes more sense for your department. However, I'm going to move on to the Department of Revenue. We also know that the Department of Revenue already administers fees for marijuana, short-term rentals, peer-to-peer car sharing. these are things that you already do so I'm wondering if maybe you can identify how those fee collecting mechanisms that are already in place couldn't just easily be translated into this new fee collection election for this enterprise. Mr. Templeton. No, it's. My apologies. Ms. Egbert. Ms. Egbert. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Representative for the question. It's not that they can't, they can. It's just that the bill is very vague right now, the way any of the administrative provisions are structured. And so it's not clear whether DOR has the authority to make these decisions on our own through rulemaking, whether the enterprise can impose these sorts of decisions independently. It's not clear sort of like the time work and the framing of those things with the way that this is currently structured. And that ambiguity in how that is going to work is not laid out in statute the same way that some of these other different fee provisions are. That's not to say that it couldn't possibly be overcome. That's just to say that it's not currently. So as a follow-up, Mr. Chairman, I assume you gave us permission to keep going to dialogue. So, Ms. Egbert, again, I think I'm then surprised that seems like a pretty easy fix to do with an amendment in this bill. And it seems as though the Department of Revenue should actually then be here in an amend position to make sure that they can actually fulfill what the legislature puts forward instead of coming, I don't know, I'd venture a guess at the whim of the governor and just opposing a bill that helps youth mental health. Ms. Edward. I think we're certainly willing to look at amendments and see if that can make things more workable. I just know that they're not at this time. I am done, Mr. Chair. Excellent. Representative Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Chair. so this is for BHA and for the DOR. Has the Attorney General or OLS or anyone provided you any legal opinion to structure your positions? I'm not asking what they've told you, but just if anyone has given you guidance. Mr. Templeton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative. We've done a thorough review of the introduced version of the bill to come to our position as well as contributing to the process for the fiscal note. Ms. Egbert. Ms. Egbert. Thank you. We have regular meetings with our AGs. We have this sort of on the list of issues that we'd like to bring to them. We have not had an opportunity to do so yet. The first time we saw the bill was when it was introduced. So we're working as quickly as we can alongside you all. Okay. Any other questions from the committee? Sinan, thank you all for your time this afternoon. We're going to go back to proponents. We can have Marissa Garcia, Trey Rogers, Josh Krizwicki, Sarah DeLeon, and now Aaron Steger. Mr. Rogers, if you could hit the little button under your folder. Nice to see you, Counselor. The floor is yours for three. Thank you, Mr. Chair. members of the committee. My name is Trey Rogers. I'm an attorney here in town. I've spent a good deal of time working on Tabor issues in the legislative context and the litigation context for nearly 30 years, and I'm here to testify that 1418 complies with the Tabor Amendment. I want to cover two important components of that analysis First the bill would impose a fee not a tax Payers of the charge young people will be the beneficiaries of the youth mental health services the enterprise or enterprises would provide So the nexus is a key factor in establishing that the charge is a fee under Tabor. And this is made clear by, as you heard Representative Camacho mentioned earlier, the Tabor Foundation v. Bridge Enterprise case, in which the Court of Appeals held that a charge was a fee, not a tax, where, quote, the General Assembly's primary purpose was to create a charge that would finance a particular service, end quote. That's clearly the case here. Now, to Rep Marshall's point earlier, some who pay the fee may not receive services. Others who receive services may not pay the fee. And that's just fine with our appellate courts. So in the case of the bridge enterprise case, The fee imposed there was used to repair deficient bridges. There's nothing to stop a driver from Oklahoma or Nebraska or Utah from coming to Colorado when driving across those bridges that others paid to fix. And the court was just not bothered by that. By the same token, the court was not bothered by the fact that there may be some who pay the fee and never cross a bridge that was fixed by the enterprise. The court, in summing that up, said, quote, essentially, as long as a charge is reasonably related to the overall cost of providing the service and is imposed on those who are reasonably likely to benefit from or use the services, close quote, then the charge is a fee. Second, let me address the question of whether this is a qualifying enterprise. What our courts do when they consider whether a proposed enterprise is, in fact, a proper enterprise, One of the things that they do is they look for private sector corollaries. So is there a private business that looks like what is being proposed in the legislation? Well, here, the private business corollary would be an insurer where everyone pays a premium, but only those who suffer an adverse consequence covered by the policy receive the benefit of that policy. And again, you heard Rep Camacho mention that there are several existing enterprises like the Petroleum Storage Tank Fund, the Unemployment Insurance Services Enterprise, and the Family and Medical Leave Insurance Enterprise, all of which operate in a similar fashion. So for those reasons, this is a proper enterprise. We're dealing with a fee, not a tax. Urge you to support the bill and happy to answer any questions. Thanks. Thank you. Please hold for questions. Is Jack Curry in the room or online? Because I meant to call you up as well. My apologies. Okay, next witness, is it Ms. Garcia? Yes. Take it away. All right, good afternoon. My name is Marissa Garcia, and I have served with Colorado Youth for a Change and Youth Mental Health Corps for the past three years. As an engagement support member, I support high school students with attendance, engagement, resources, and social-emotional needs while advocating for their success. At first, I had no desire to work in a school setting. I wanted to do more big-picture things, and I didn't really see the impact that this position had. My first week at my school, after doing basic introductions with my students, a student knocked on my door and told me he was experiencing a mental health crisis. One week and one interaction is all it took for a student to reach out. Unfortunately, these conversations haven't slowed down. I continue to navigate conversations about suicidal ideation, self-harm, substance use, and more with students who reach out. this position has opened my eyes on the impact that one trusted adult has on a community of students three years later later and I couldn't imagine myself doing anything else I'm so lucky to be a part of their best days and even their worst I don serve I don only serve sorry I don only serve and support my caseload students but other students around the school who have sought me out for support I have watched these students face things that no child should have to go through Loss of friends to violence, suicide, food and housing insecurities, tough home situations, and immigration. Through it all, they have allowed me to be a resource and a shoulder to cry on. Throughout these unforgiving situations, it's impossible not to see their amazing personalities. They lead with humor, with kindness, with forgiveness, and I get to be the person to remind them that their hardships don't define them. I get to be the one to watch them find their spark. As I conclude my third and final year with my students, I am proud to leave them with the tools they need to advocate for themselves and to navigate tough situations without me. I am beyond thankful for the experience that youth mental health has given me and for what my students have given me as they helped me find my own spark as I go on to start my master's in social work next fall. Having a trusted adult is not a privilege it should be a guarantee a parent of a student has expressed that every school needs someone in my position and i couldn't agree more youth mental health core is necessary and youth mental health core saves lives thank you for your time thank you please hold we go online uh to aaron stager good afternoon mr chair and members of the committee my name is aaron stager and i'm I'm the club director of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Northwest Colorado in Craig. And today I am talking about how I'm in support of House Bill 1418. I'm proud to share that before I was employed full time at our Boys and Girls Club, I was a club kid myself. I started coming to the club when I was about eight years old. I spent my afternoons here doing homework, hanging out with friends and getting to know the staff who really cared about me. It was a place where I felt safe and where I could just be a kid. Now, I get to be that person for the kids in my community, and I can tell you that the things kids are struggling with in today's world are much different than when I was growing up. We see kids coming in who are overwhelmed, who are struggling socially, and who are just glued to their phones and online games. At our club, we don't allow online social and gaming platforms like Roblox. not because we want to take things away from kids, but because we understand the risks and we know how quickly things can go wrong in those spaces. So instead, we focus on giving them something better. When kids walk into our club, they're not just passing time. They're building friendships, they're learning how to handle tough emotions, and they're figuring out who they are and how to make good choices. And all of that comes down to something simple, having adults in their life who show up for them every day. That's what the club was for me, and it's what we try to be for every kid who walks through our doors now. The bill matters because it helps invest in places like ours, places that give kids real connection, real support to be aware of and manage their emotions, and a safe alternative to some of the online spaces that aren't built with their well-being in mind. I'm really grateful to the sponsors for bringing House Bill 1418 forward, and I hope you'll support it today. Thank you for listening and supporting kids like the ones that I get to work with every day. Thank you. Next, we'll go to Sarah DeLeon. Chairman, members of the Finance Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of House Bill 1418. The Healthy Kids Colorado survey, the statewide anonymous health assessment for our middle school and high school students, is telling us something we cannot afford to ignore Across the state youth are more disconnected than any generation we have data on They are spending more time online and less time with the people around them Adults in schools are the last line of a safety net with nowhere near enough hands to hold it. In Moffitt, a rural school district in Sawatch County, that health professionals classify as a mental health care shortage area. These state trends are not abstractions. They are our students by name. The most recent Healthy Kids Colorado survey at our school, completed with a participation rate of 91%, shows that one in three of our high schoolers felt persistently sad or hopeless in the past year. One in five seriously considered suicide. Three in four spend more time, more than three hours a day, in front of a screen, and fewer than half say that they belong at their school. The last number connects directly to what the research tells us about this generation. Belonging is not a soft outcome. It is the single most reliable protective factor against every crisis indicator. And right now, more than half of our students don't have it. This is what a mental health care shortage area looks like from the inside. Our youth mental health corps member placed this fall through a partnership with CDE and AmeriCorps is doing the work that no one else is able to do. Through the YMHC, she was successfully certified as a behavioral health technician, providing the trauma-informed care foundation our students need. She selects and delivers our school's social-emotional learning curriculum, is developing a multi-tiered system of supports to match students to the right level of care, and becoming the kind of trusted adult presence this data tells us is missing right here on our campus. She is now enrolled in a master's program in school counseling and is applying as our school counselor's role for next academic year. In a district where a sole counselor is often the only support in the building, that is a workforce pipeline rural Colorado and schools like ours have never had. HB 1418 creates a dedicated sustainable funding enterprise supported by a 5% fee on gaming platform on add-on transactions. The very technology driving the disconnection we are trying to reverse, and it directs it into the peer navigator programs and crisis services for communities like ours. This generation is telling us in the data, in the hallways, that they are struggling and they are alone. House Bill 1418 is one answer. Please vote yes. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Krizwicki? Yes, thank you. Good afternoon and thank you for this opportunity today. My name is Joshua Krizwicki, and I've spent the last two years serving with AmeriCorps and the Youth Mental Health Corps at an after-school rec center in Creed, Colorado, working with students K-12. Most of my role is showing up, being a consistent, trusted adult in kids' lives, and because of that, they open up. I've had students talk to me about anxiety, family challenges, and feeling like they don't belong, things they haven't shared with anyone else. The behavioral health training I received through Youth Mental Health Corps has made a huge difference in how I show up for those moments. Instead of feeling unsure, I know how to listen, stay calm, and help connect kids to support when they need it. And that just hasn't impacted my service. It's changed how I show up in my personal life, too. I feel more confident advocating for myself, for my family, and for my friends when it comes to mental health. That's something I wouldn't have without this program. I've seen how powerful this work can be. One student I worked with used to shut down or act out when things felt overwhelming. But over time, with consistency and trust, they started opening up, asking for help, and building confidence. This experience has changed how I see my future and showed me how important early mental health support really is. Programs like the Youth Mental Health Corps fill a gap that communities, especially rural ones like mine, don't have any other ways to fill. Sometimes the difference for a kid is simply having one person who shows up and knows how to respond. I strongly encourage you to fund this work. Thank you for your time. Thank you. All right. Last call for Jack Curry. Okay. Committee, any questions for this panel of witnesses? All right. Seeing none, just thank you all for your time. Oh, Representative Marshall. For Mr. Rogers, I'm just, you know, your analogy again to the bridge case. I'm looking at the amendment that is being proposed, which will make changes, where we have the audience of the online gaming service product or feature is determined, based on internal company research, to be composed of at least 2% youths, or 2 through 17. and they have the same definition for a covered platform. So if we're talking just approximately 2% are even eligible and 98% who are paying the tax, I'm sorry, fee, are not and can't even access, it does seem completely apropos because if you have a vehicle, no matter where you are in the state, you can drive across one of the bridges that your fee is paid for. We're talking 98%, and now that 2%, that is the universe we're looking at for possibly using these services, and now that universe, I'm assuming maybe 10% to 20% will actually use it. So we're talking one-tenth to two-tenths of a percent, and you think that's an appropriate for a business service that all the customers are paying for? Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Rep. Marshall, I don't, and that's why L-006 will address that. That amendment will remove the 2% threshold. I hope you vote for that amendment. That will change the bill to default to the definition of reasonably likely to be accessed by youth to track a federal statute, That is the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998, which provides a much more robust definition around what is a website or a service that serves youth. Follow-up, Representative Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I mean, not a huge follow-up, but I guess the question would be, the bill as here before, so it would be totally non-TAPER compliant then, as it sits. Mr. Rogers. I wouldn't want to give an opinion on that, but I sure do hope you'll vote for L-006. You were willing to give an opinion that it was TAPER compliant? You made dialogue. The bill would be better if L006 passes. That's what I can tell you. Yeah. Okay. Any further questions for the panel Say none Thank you Appreciate your time Okay Final panel of witnesses Stuart Jenkins, Jenny Merrigan, Megan Strauss, Angie McFaul. If you could kick us off, there should be a little button. Okay. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Angie McFaul, and I'm the Director of Youth Success here on behalf of Gary Advocacy, a Colorado policy organization committed to improving the well-being of Colorado families, testifying in strong support of House Bill 1418. Carrie's work focuses on school readiness, youth success, and family economic mobility. Within our youth success work, we have a deep commitment to supporting youth well-being. In order for all young people to have choice-filled lives, they must have connections to adults and peers who care about them, the opportunity to pursue a passion, and systems of support if their mental health is faltering. There are few opportunities to bring more resources to youth well-being. At a time where our state is making multiple painful cuts, we are excited about this opportunity to invest in youth mental health. According to the Jed Foundation, our kids are susceptible to the negative impact of online gaming, including greater social isolation, bullying, and often greater anxiety and depression. That said, we know the work that connects young people to adults who care about them in real life is one of the most effective interventions against negative mental health outcomes. We have been strong supporters of the Youth Mental Health Corps for a modest cost. It has so many benefits. You've already heard from tremendous advocates about the focus and impact of the Youth Mental Health Corps, so to that I'll just say ditto. Further at Gary, we are tremendous supporters of out of school time. It is where young people often pursue their passions, develop a sense of purpose, connect with peers and adults, and feel a sense of belonging. highly protective factors against youth mental health concerns and all highly predictive of youth thriving. For these reasons, we think the opportunities for youth to do what they love after school and summer is not nice to have but must have. The resources that House Bill 1418 provides for youth mental health and well-being are critical. We'd like to thank the sponsors for bringing this important bill forward and respectfully ask for you to vote yes on House Bill 1418. Thank you for your time. Mr. Jenkins. Good afternoon, Chair Woodrow, members of the committee. My name is Stuart Jenkins, and I serve as Executive Director of the Colorado Alliance of Boys and Girls Clubs, representing 18 club organizations, serving more than 70,000 young people across Colorado in before, after school, and summer programs. I really have the unenviable position of following some of our amazing staff and leaders from around the state. Boys and Girls Clubs are here today and strong support of House Bill 1418 to address the documented impacts of online gaming platforms on youth. Every day in our clubs, we are seeing firsthand the growing impact of online environments, including gaming platforms on young people's mental health, behavior, and relationships. As you heard from one of our staff members, some of our clubs have made the difficult decision to limit, and in some cases ban, gaming platforms like Roblox and our facilities due to the health and safety risks, including addictive behavior and lower social engagement and exposures to inappropriate content and unmoderated interactions And this isn anecdotal It backed by research Studies consistently show that excessive or unsupervised digital engagement is associated with increased anxiety, depression, and social isolation among youth. At the same time, a strong and growing body of evidence shows that high quality afterschool programs are one of the most effective protective factors that we have. For example, according to the National Afterschool Alliance, drawing from multiple studies finds that participation in afterschool programs leads to improved social skills, stronger emotional regulation, and reductions in problem behaviors, including aggression and delinquency. A comprehensive literature review conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services further finds that structured afterschool programs are associated with measurable and significant gains in social-emotional development, particularly for youth from low-income communities. And critically, these outcomes are driven by relationships. Research demonstrates that one of the most powerful interventions in addressing the youth male health crisis is ensuring that every child has a trusted adult in their life. After-school programs are uniquely positioned to provide these consistent, supportive relationships at scale, as well as many of the other programs that are mentioned and supported by this bill. This bill takes an important and pragmatic approach. It recognizes that online gaming is a part of young people's daily lives, and instead of ignoring the harms, it creates a mechanism to reinvest a small portion of that economic activity back into solutions. Solutions like expanding access to youth peer mental health providers, strengthening early intervention crisis response services, and with the amendments today, investing in high-quality community-based after-school and summer programs. This is about aligning public policy with what the research tells us works. investing in real-life environments and programs that build connection, belonging, and resilience for young people. We are deeply grateful to Representatives Zokai and Camacho for their leadership in bringing this bill forward and their commitment to youth safety and well-being on behalf of Boys and Girls Clubs, who respectfully ask for your support for House Bill 1418 and the sponsor's amendments. Thank you. Thank you. Please hold. We'll go online to Jenny Merrigan. Hi, good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of HB 1418. I come to you as an out-of-school time professional and a leader with Scholars Unlimited, where we serve hundreds of elementary students across the Denver metro area through after-school and summer programming. At its core, this bill is about responding to what people are experiencing right now and investing in what we know helps them thrive. We are seeing the impacts of increased time in online environments every day, heightening anxiety, difficulty with emotional regulation, and challenging building healthy peer relationships. These are not isolated issues. They are directly tied to youth mental health. This is where social and emotional learning, or SEL, becomes critical. In high-quality after-school programs, SEL is not an add-on. It's embedded in everything we do. Young people learn how to understand and manage their emotions, build positive relationships, navigate conflict in healthy ways, develop a sense of identity, belonging, and purpose. These are foundational skills for mental health resiliency. The ability to cope with challenges, adapt, and thrive. At Scholars Unlimited, we see this in real time. When a young person has a trusted adult, a safe space, and consistent opportunities to practice these skills, we see decreases in behavioral challenges and increases in confidence engagement and overall well This is prevention This is early intervention HB 1418 strengthens this work by creating a sustainable funding stream that directly supports youth mental health services and out-of-school time programs. It recognizes that if we want different outcomes for young people, we must invest upstream in environments that build resiliency before crisis occurs. And importantly, it does so without relying on the general fund, reinvesting revenues from youth-facing digital platforms back into youth-serving solutions. Right now, demand for programs like ours are far exceeding our capacity, especially for young people from underserved communities who need the supports the most. This bill would allow us to expand access, deepen impact and ensure more young people have the tools they need not just to succeed, but to be well. If we are serious about mental health, then we must be serious about SEL and the environment that it makes it possible. HB 1418 is smart, sustainable investment in both. I urge your support. Thank you. Thank you. Please hold for questions. Next, we'll go to Megan Strauss. Ms. Strauss, can you hear me? Yes. Okay, I didn't know if we were still pausing for questions. It's all you. Okay, great. Hi, my name is Megan Strauss. I'm the founder and executive director of Alpine Achievers Initiative. We are a small nonprofit serving youth in Colorado's San Luis Valley. I founded Alpine Achievers because I saw the need firsthand for youth mental health support. I was teaching high school math and as a trained social worker, I couldn't ignore the fact of what was in front of me. Young people in our region face an intense concentration of risk factors, poverty, isolation, and limited access to services. The need for increased mental health support was profound and it was urgent. And that was in 2015. The need has only grown since then. COVID disrupted the foundational relationships and routines that kids depend on. Social media has deepened isolation and gaming has in ways that we are still grappling with. The youth mental health crisis is not hypothetical. It's happening in our schools and our communities every single day. And another reality in rural communities is that mental health support is stigmatized and formal therapy often requires parental consent, creating barriers that leave many kids without any support at all. We needed a different approach. Through AmeriCorps, we now place roughly 30 individuals each year in youth-serving schools and organizations across rural Colorado. Research is clear that positive adult connection is one of the most important protective factors for young people, and our members provide exactly that. The Youth Mental Health Corps training has been a game-changer for how our AmeriCorps members show up in these schools. and allows us to level up the skills of AmeriCorps members without requiring a clinical degree so they can show up more effectively for the kids who need them most. It's an incredibly cost-effective community-rooted capacity building that works. In addition to being a workforce pipeline in these rural communities where there is a mental health crisis worker shortage, it creates that workforce pipeline that Sarah was talking about. And another thing to just make really clear is that this isn't only intensive youth mental health support that this bill would fund, it would just increase the amount of trained adults serving in schools and youth serving organizations across the board. And so I know there was a question. earlier about whether or not the kids who are impacted by gaming would even be affected by these programs. And I would say that in rural Colorado, in our school districts, individuals like in Moffitt and Josh Serving and Creed, they touch almost every single student in the school district. So if it is somebody in rural Colorado where there is a youth mental health core AmeriCorps member, the answer would be almost indefinitely yes, because these school districts are so small. And so the impact that our members have is so, so massive.

Thank you committee. Any questions for this panel? Thank you all for your time this afternoon. Last call for witnesses on 1418. Seeing none of the witness testimony phase is closed. Bill sponsors. I understand there's an amendment. Okay. Representative Zokai.

Second by Representative Camacho.

Yeah, I do. Thank you. L1 was sent, I believe, Friday afternoon to all of you, And this is that second enterprise that we have discussed in opening statements as well as through testimony. There is also a change to the definition of online gaming platforms. And happy to answer questions on L1 or to move on to amendments to L1.

Do you want 12 or 13? I'm going to move L12 to L1.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this is an amendment to the covered platform definition. The key piece here is starting on line 18. It is excluding telecom or Internet service providers. This bill is aimed at online gaming platforms, not the Internet provider. and that was a request that we make that extra clear and that is what this amendment does.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L-13.

Representative Zokai. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L2 to L1.

Representative Zokai. Thank you, Mr. Chair. L2 just adds some ledge deck language around out-of-school programs and the need for this bill and establishes that nexus that we have been discussing.

Representative Zokai. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L3 to L1.

Representative Zokai. Thank you, Mr. Chair. L3 adds some more criteria around who is eligible for this funding. We think that this is important clarification and ask your support.

Representative Zocok. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L7 to L1.

Tell us about L7. Thank you, Mr. Chair. L7 is around that reasonably accessible by a minor language, and it is striking that 2% threshold requirement. As Rhett Marshall so astutely pointed out, We don't think that is the right threshold. This 2% language came from other places in statute, but we don't think it's applicable for the purposes here. And so we ask for your aye vote to clarify that definition.

Representative Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So what is the clarification?

Follow-up, Representative Marshall. What is the federal standard?

Follow-up, Representative Marshall. Page 7 of Amendment 1. What do you mean, line 15? Page 7 of line 15?

Representative Marshall, you make dialogue.

Well, please, we will pull it up for you.

So I can read section 6501 to 6506. Essentially, it is about what is targeted towards children, whether personal information is collected from minors, what exactly that information that is collected from minors includes, whether it is a website that is targeted to children. So since this is a federal standard around what is targeted and marketed to kids, we feel comfortable with it. But happy to clarify that language any further. But we want to ensure consistency.

Okay.

Mr. Chair, no more amendments to L1.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L6.

Second by Representative Stewart.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. this is the same amendment as it appears in the bill that we just passed around striking the 2%

Representative Zocay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L4. Second by Representative Camacho.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This adds on that transactions must be listed in U.S. dollars so that we're not talking about artificial currencies and so that individuals, miners that are making these purchases know how much money they are spending.

Representative Marshall. I think I just like my curiosity. So if the child is paying in cryptocurrency, there is no tax or fee.

Follow-up. Representative Marshall?

So, yeah, confused. So if they're, I mean, this is very intangible. So how do we convert this into U.S. dollars just for the sake of this fee? For, you know, they could just say, well, this costs one cent, but it costs like there's some online credit that they've earned, like high score or points or something like that. So now we're going to be converting game points into U.S. currency for the purpose of purchasing this? I mean how does because if you not converting points if they buying something online I just confused Are they like are you talking about actual they are committing their visa card to actually purchasing something which would be already with U dollars and now

Representative is okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you,

follow up representative de graham so the point the the game would list however many sparkly tokens

the game representatives okay thank you mr chair so to give you an example from my current life

Any further questions on L004?

Any objection to L4? Seeing none, L4 has passed.

Second.

Any objection to L5? Seeing none, L5 has passed.

L9 has been moved and seconded.

Committee, any questions on L9? Any objection to L9? Seeing none, L9 is passed. Representative Zokai, are you moving L8?

Okay, go for it.

Second. Okay, L008 has been moved and seconded. Tell us about the severability.

Committee, any questions on L-008? Seeing none, any objection to L-008? Seeing none, L-008 is passed. Any further amendments?

Tremendous. Committee, any amendments? Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. Wrap up, bill sponsor.

Representative Camacho.

Committee, closing comments.

Representative Hartzell.

Any representative to the graph?

Representative Garcia.

Any other closing comments from the committee? All right I just want to say before we put it to a vote I appreciate the bill sponsor work on this where they coming from I do want to note that Representative Marshall does have extensive experience in taxation law and policy I also want to say that we're playing catch up. This is highly sophisticated technology. It's designed to lure children in, get them hooked, get their money, and put them at risk for being subject to online predators. Please, Representative Marshall.

With that, 1418 heads to the Committee on Appropriations as amended bill sponsors. Who wants the honor? Representative Camacho.

Second. All right. There's been a motion and a second. Ms. Culver, please pull the committee.

Camacho. Yes.

Garcia. Yes.

Hartsook. No.

Stewart. Yes.

Tatum. Yes.

Yes. That passes 6-5. We have nothing on the calendar yet for Thursday, but that could change. Please pay close attention to the rest of the week. Until then, finance stands adjourned.