Colorado House 2026 Legislative Day 107

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for a rigid stance, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Representatives Bacon, Barone, Basinecker, Rep Bottoms is excused, Bradfield, Bradley, Brooks, Brown, Caldwell, Camacho, Carter, Clifford, DeGraff Duran English Representative English Espinosa Furey Flannell Representative Flannell Froelich Garcia Garcia Sander Gilchrist Goldstein Gonzalez Hamrick Representative Hamrick Excuse

Hartsook. Jackson. Johnson. Joseph. Kelty. Leader. Representative Leader is excused. Rep. Lindsay is excused. Luck. Lukens. Mabry. Marshall. Martinez. Morrow. Representative Morrow is excused. McCormick. Wynn. Pascal. Phillips.

Richardson. Ricks. Representative Ricks is excused. Routenel. Rep. Routenel is excused. Ryden. Sirota. Rep. Slaw is excused. Smith. Soper. Representative Soper is excused Stuart K Stuart R Story. Sucla. Taggart. Rep. Titone is excused. Valdez A. Representative Valdez is excused. Velasco. Rep. Velasco. It's excused. Weinberg. Wilford. Representative Wilford. Is excused. Winter. Woodrow. Woog.

Zokai. and madam speaker

Yes.

Um, representative Barone.

Why?

Oh, come on.

Members, you have heard the motion that the journal be approved as corrected by the chief clerk. All those in favor say aye.

All those opposed, no.

The ayes have it The motion is adopted Representative Barone you better bring it home tomorrow I just saying Folks we going to move into announcements and introductions. Representative Camacho.

Thank you. Representative Lukens.

Representative Wilford.

Representative Woodrow.

Representative Brown.

Representative Martinez.

Thank you.

Members, we are ready to proceed to business, I think. The House will stand in a brief recess. Thank you. Thank you. . The House will come back to order. Members, thank you for your patience. Our staff does an amazing job, and we've got all sorts of work going on. To be sure we can stay on track today, I want to thank everybody as we work through our schedule. We are moving to business members. I will invite you to take your seats. Madam Majority Leader.

Seeing no objection, we will proceed out of order for consideration of resolutions. Madam Majority Leader.

Seeing no objection, we will proceed to the immediate consideration of House Resolution 1006. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Resolution 1006.

Representative Woog. That's rude.

Mr. Schiebel, please read our resolution.

Representative Wook.

Representative Clifford. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Blessed are the peacemakers.

Representative Woog, this is your second time to speak.

Round of applause for our guest. Thank you. Assistant Majority Leader Bacon.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of House Resolution 1006. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Representative Weinberg votes yes. please close the machine with 60 eyes, 0, no and 5 excused House Resolution 1006 is adopted co-sponsors Representative Weinberg co-sponsors Please close the machine Members, we will stand in a brief recess so we can greet our guests. The House is in recess. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. The House will come back to order. Thank you, members. Really appreciate everyone's patience as we juggle through so many things. Madam Majority Leader.

We need to read some reports of committees of reference. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Schiebel. Representatives Sirota, Brown, and Taggart will be excused at such time as necessary for the Joint Budget Committee meetings. Now, Madam Majority Leader.

Seeing no objection, the bills listed by the Majority Leader will be added to the Special Orders Calendar today, April 30, at 9.51 a.m. Representative Zocay Members, you have heard the motion Seeing no objection, Representative Zocay will take the chair Thank you. Thank you. .

I move to lay over Senate Bill 150 until tomorrow.

Senate Bill 143 by Senators Coleman and Wallace, also Representatives Wilford and Garcia, concerning updating the name of the Colorado Youth Advisory Council Review Committee.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 143 to the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, this is a simple bill, but it does carry real weight. Senate Bill 143 renames the Colorado Youth Advisory Council Review Committee to honor Senator Faith Winter, a leader whose legacy is deeply tied to young people, civic engagement, and the belief that government should listen. Because that's exactly what this committee is about. It exists to elevate the voices of Colorado's youth to make sure that young people aren't just talked about in this building, but they're actually heard. And Senator Winter understood that better than most. She showed up for young people not just in policy but in practice. She believed their ideas mattered, that their lived experiences mattered, and that their futures deserve a seat at the table. I also want to take a moment to address what we heard in committee. There were subtle and not so subtle details about how Senator Winter's life ended, and I want to be really clear about something. members can we please keep our conversations to the side this is an important bill and i'd like to be able to hear our speaker thank you very much madam chair a person's life is not and should not be reduced to the circumstances of their death struggling with a substance use disorder does not erase your impact it doesn't erase your service and it does not erase the lives that you touch the policies that you shaped or the good that you put into the world. If anything, it should deepen our humanity. It should remind us that the people who serve here, the people that we represent, and the people that we love are complex, complex whole human beings worthy of dignity compassion and respect So I completely reject the idea that Senator Winter life or work somehow matters less because of how she died That not who we are and that not what this chamber should stand for By adding her name alongside Representative Hugh McKean we recognizing a bipartisan truth that investing in youth leadership is not partisan. It's foundational to a healthy democracy. This bill does not change the function of the committee. It doesn't create new programs or costs. What it does is ensure that every time this committee meets, every time young people walk into a space, that they're reminded of leaders who believed in them and believed in their potential. Names tell stories, and this name will tell a story about service, about mentorship, about showing up for the next generation, and yes, about honoring the full humanity of people who dedicate their

Members, I rise in support, obviously, because as a co-prime, that's what you do on your bills. I'm really excited to have been brought on to this bill with my dear friend and colleague from Adams County. This bill, I want to just be clear. I can't restate or I don't want to try to restate any of the important things that the rep from Adams County just mentioned. I only just want to say that COIAC gives hope to young people. Any of you that went and met with the young people that were here just last week know that. The questions that they ask, the deep investigation they do in policy, the way that they challenge the options and the decisions that we make in this body, That is what we should hope for in all of our young people. And Senator Winter fought hard to protect COIAC. She fought hard to make sure that COIAC lived up to its mission. We're not changing the name of COIAC. We are changing the name of the Review Committee. She will share this honor with the late Minority Leader Hugh McKean. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to move Senate Bill 12 to after Senate Bill 124.

Senate Bill 124 by Senator Wallace, also Representative Stewart R. concerning information related to the automated protection order notification system

Thank you, Madam Chair I move Senate Bill 124 to the bill Great Last year, the General Assembly passed House Bill 1098 which authorized the creation of an automated notification system for violations of protection orders. In that legislation, we directed the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to make information available to the automated system. What we have found out since is that CBI, in fact, does not have all the information needed to provide all of the notifications we outlined in last year's bill. Senate Bill 124 simply amends last year legislation to also require the Colorado Integrated Criminal Justice Information System in addition to CBI to make the information available to the automated system I would ask for an aye vote Is there any further discussion on Senate Bill 124

I move Senate Bill 12 until after House Bill 1421.

House Bill 1421 by Representatives Mabry and Caldwell, also Senators Doherty and Frizzell, concerning prohibiting certain compensation arrangements in the legal profession and a connection therewith,

Representative Mabry. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1421 and the Judiciary Committee report.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In the Judiciary Committee, we brought several amendments addressing concerns from stakeholders. First, we addressed some concerns from the debt collector's bar that the bill unintentionally captured some of their practices. So we put in an amendment making sure that longstanding debt collection practices are not impacted. We changed some definitions of legal services and non-lawyer definitions just to be clear about what we're covering here. We made clear that fixed fee arrangements are okay, specifically arrangements that are about a predetermined dollar amount. no payment for referral or leads, fee not contention on outcome or recovery, and the primary purpose is not the pursuit of monetary damages. This is in their structures where ownership might not be fully attorneys. and to acknowledge some of the language that we have in here about how fees are shared. We brought an amendment about litigation funding, making sure that specific tasks done by attorneys are not impacted, and then we did a complete carve-out for nonprofits. Let me ask for a yes vote on the committee report.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I just kind of want to highlight the resolution or excuse me, the amendments were a culmination of genuinely working across the aisle with the stakeholders. I'll be on a shorter time frame and actually taking in those concerns about potential issues and shortfalls that they may run into in their specific scenarios. And so while there was quite a few amendments in committee, I think we got a lot of people to a very good place in a rather short amount of time. And so certainly encourage an aye vote on that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First off, I want to thank my co-prime sponsor for working with me on this. We had a long conversation last night in the Judiciary Committee. This bill started its hearing at about 10.30 at night, and we didn't leave until about 1.30. So thank you, Judiciary Committee, for being true to form. So what this bill is about, it's about making sure that when you hire a lawyer, that that lawyer works for you and not an investor, not a private equity firm bought into a law practice to turn a profit for you. Colorado, in the rules of professional conduct, has long prohibited non-lawyers from owning law firms or sharing legal fees. And that prohibition exists for a reason. It protects the independence of good legal judgment. A lawyer who answers to an outside investor cannot fully answer to their client. But private equity firms have found a way around our rules. They use alternative business structures, management companies, out-of-state entities to do indirectly what they cannot do directly, take a cut of legal fees and exert influence over legal strategy and settlements. This bill is about closing those loopholes. It reinforces Colorado's existing rules in statute with teeth, ensures that legal strategy, settlement decisions, client representation remain in the hands of licensed attorneys, not outside investors. Now, in the committee, we had a long conversation about how the Supreme Court regulates the practice of law, and I agree. I also agree that if a lawyer is knowingly engaging in this sort of activity, they could be subject to sanctions. They could be subject to discipline under the model rules of – under the ethical rules of conduct. However, we also have the ability here in the legislature to regulate how business is done. So there's multiple tracks of accountability if the thing that we do not want to happen is happening, right? There's the business side, which is what we're trying to regulate, and then there's the practice of law side. We added some language in our amendments to clarify that we do not intend to interfere with the ability of the courts to regulate the legal profession. But this isn't about regulating the practice of law. This is about regulating how businesses are incorporated in our state. Those two things can exist side by side. And we ask for a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, members. And thank you, members of judiciary, for sticking it out late. And thank you for those who show up and testified. You know, as I said in committee once or twice last night, you know, I'm not an attorney. And so there's a lot of complexities of this bill that I don't fully grasp. But, however, talking with our chamber and the business community is why I joined and was a part of this bill. because what we heard from the business community is that there's this, what they would say, or what I would say is a perverse incentive structure of this basically lawfare in chase of profits instead of access to justice or righting a wrong and getting to justice. And so the way I kind of break it down in my non-lawfare, your mind is if we're talking about justice here and we're talking about that's why you have lawsuits to right wrongs, I think of it in a way of like policing, right? So we wouldn't be okay if the local police force, if we said, hey, you get a certain percentage for every fine that you write to a citizen, you get 40% of that fine because it would create the perverse incentive of officers obviously getting a percentage of that, writing larger fines, and then we'd have to ask ourselves, are they doing this because this is righting a wrong, this is in service of justice? And I think the answer would be no there, and that's what we're seeing with private equity firms funding these law firms here, is that it is profit-driven and not with a justice-minded outcome for righting wrongs in the business community. And as the chamber came and testified, it's already a difficult business climate here in Colorado, and this is adding a serious extra layer in costs to the business community. And I've also heard since then, just since last night, that CCJL, Colorado Competitive Council, and others are supporting this as well. So while we – this is an unholy alliance, I believe was the phrase that was used last night, that we're coming at this and covering a broad range here of concerns across Colorado from the business community and from the legal community as well. And so certainly would ask for your support here.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, we heard this bill late last night, and the vote was at 1.30 this morning. Now it's just a little past 10 a.m., which means there have only been about nine hours. If you noticed, within our filing cabinets, there are no updates. Like, I didn't even see a committee report. And maybe it did just make it out just barely in time. But, you know, that's a process fell that I would raise. Members need to have time to be able to see what happened in committee to read it. There were six amendments that were run in committee. I objected to all six of them on the principle that they didn't have a pre-amend version. This was a huge, huge bill impacting the legal profession. And now at the late hour past midnight, we're running six amendments in committee that the amendments were longer than the bill itself. That's the procedural objections that I have. Now to the substantive objections. This is big law, the trial lawyers getting together with big business. And what they're saying is we don't want law firms to have any alternative means for running their business. I represent rural Colorado. Delta County, the county I live in, is now down to three attorneys within the county. We will soon be a legal desert with having no attorneys, and they're looking for any means to be able to stay open. It's very, very, very difficult because in rural Colorado, people struggle to pay the fees, but there's fees that need to be charged just to keep the lights on and the doors open. What I realized after the committee meeting last night and talking to one of the big law partners as he said yeah we just bought a law firm in Grand Junction and one in Fort Morgan By cutting off the ability for law firms to have access to any other alternative means of capital you're saying that legal consolidation within the industry is the only means available. I have been working incredibly hard in the health care industry to stive off consolidation of our rural hospitals, because what we see is that key services are sent to the big cities, hardly anything is left in your small town, and the costs are driven up. And guess who will pay those costs? The business community and individuals like you and I. So by cutting off any sort of alternative means as even a possibility, it means that big law will come in, they will buy up a practice because when an attorney is ready to retire, I mean, that is the retirement. They hopefully can sell their practice, their book of business, and sell the physical building and any other sort of machinery they may have, like copy machines, which are not really worth much. So that's an objection that I have there, that we need to let the legal industry be able to operate as any other business industry. I can't imagine big government coming into any other industry and saying, we don't want you to have access to capital from any other means. We're going to chop that off using legislation. But if you're looking at survival, then consolidation merger M&A is kind of the only thing out there. Now to the separation of powers argument for why this bill is especially troubling. Under the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5.4, it specifically says attorneys shall not share fees with non-attorneys, and then it lists some exceptions. So you can share with other attorneys, for example. You can share with your office administrator, your paralegal, your secretary, your janitor, your maintenance guy, your expert witness. that's already laid out in the rules of professional conduct attorneys have to not just sit for and pass the bar they also have to sit for the professional MPRE yeah the professional responsibility exam thank you for the helpline the 1.30am committee ending is starting to catch up you have to demonstrate that you've passed the ethical exam you've passed the bar exam and I believe in Colorado there's one other thing out there that they require of you as well we don't really have that in other professions and law is a self-regulating profession it falls under the Supreme Court every attorney is an officer of the court the court governs the practice of law and you heard one of the bill sponsors up here say this is only looking at the business side not at the legal profession side well as I explained last night in my closing you go back to ancient Rome lawyers didn't get paid a dime instead it was the aristocracy who lived off family money who took it upon themselves to represent the plebs in front of the pray door and to argue about the law on their behalf And there was an attorney early on named Gaius who did not come from the aristocracy, who said, I want to be able to be part of this helping service profession, but I don't have the family money to be able to work for free. Because that was always the obligation, was that you work for free. so instead they came up with the contract of mandamus and so it was someone else that paid on behalf of the client you move over to the united kingdom you know as law developed or great britain mandamus still exists instead it's a solicitor who instructs your advocate or your barrister so there's not a direct contractual relationship between the client and the advocate the trial lawyer. Further, even in Scotland, and if our trial lawyers are listening, a trial lawyer has to be self-employed. They're not allowed to affiliate with a firm. Imagine trying to make your millions of dollars being self-employed. Come to the United States, of course, we evolved even more. We allow for direct fees. We also don't have a separation between backroom lawyers and trial lawyers. I mean, there is kind of a distinction as people specialize. But fees are how lawyers get paid. It's part of the profession. It's like a Gorgian knot. It's interconnected. And to say that you can surgically remove the business part from the practice of law is impossible. I also raise a lot of objections to us not wanting the profession to be creative at all. Our sister states in Arizona and Utah have actually changed the rules to allow for a more creative model of financing and funding. Colorado's not done that. And the argument was that because Arizona had a creative model, there's a law firm in Arizona that's now using a backdoor approach to share fees with a non-lawyer in Arizona. We asked the question in committee, how does that not violate Rule 5.4 already? And they said, well, the Supreme Court didn't know. They hadn't weighed in. They hadn't pushed the issue with them. this issue is too soon the proper means for finding out an answer is to force the Supreme Court to have to answer the question instead we are bypassing all the structure that we have created for the profession of law by the way and we are now running to the legislature we are cutting off the Supreme Court's ability to even weigh in here all because big law wants to stifle innovation, wants to kill off small law, wants to injure rural Colorado. They want to drive up costs by mergers and acquisitions in rural Colorado. They don't want to give tools for small law firms that are struggling to make it. And then on top of it, they give a carve-out for non-profit law firms, Which by the way I want to lay on the record I don see how that doesn give rise to an equal protection argument because now for a non law firm they now have the ability to engage in creative tools or the backroom loophole, as was called last night. But if you're a for-profit law firm, this has fully been cut off, and you have no ability to do so. Members, this bill is not ripe for adjudication. It's not appropriate at this point in time. I am asking for a no vote from this body. I may appreciate big law and big business getting together to squeeze out the small guy. I don't. I'm being sarcastic there. It's easy to say it's good for business. Well, it's good for business if you're really big business. It happens to be really bad for business if you're a small business or an individual. For all these reasons, I will be a solid, strong no vote, and I would encourage the chamber to do the same. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. You may be hearing some of these same arguments when we vote for this bill on thirds, but I think it's important to lay the record as well as my colleague from Delta. I stand as well in opposition to this bill. The last question that was allowed last night was this. Lots of arguments were made that we've allowed private equity firms to come in and purchase veterinary businesses and purchase medical businesses and consolidate these other opportunities and businesses in our state. And that's the reason we have to act in the area of legal profession. However, my question was, are all of those other industries regulated by the state, or is there a different branch of government involved in the regulation? And the answer was yes. All of those examples that they were using to justify why they need this bill were areas where we clearly have legislative authority to act because the industries are regulated by the state. Fundamentally, for me, this becomes a question of, in terms of ripeness, that's a legal term of art, but it's also a question for me of whether you've had an exhaustion of remedies. In our legal profession and under the legal rules, we would have to have exhausted our remedies before we would seek a relief outside of the system. So the legal remedy at this point is to go to the Supreme Court and request an opinion of whether the actions that they're complaining of, That is, if a law firm in Arizona is doing this private equity sharing, can a law firm in Denver or Colorado anywhere partner with them without violating Rule 5.4? The nonprofits who agreed because of the carve-out to go neutral said they did not think that would be, that they thought that that would be a violation of 5.4, and that under the hypothetical that I proposed to them, there would not be an ability to engage in that practice without jeopardizing your own law license. Because as attorneys here if we engage in a conduct that is prohibited by our state even if it's allowed by another state, that is still a violation of my law license. And in fact, because I'm licensed in three states, it is my obligation to be aware of the sandbox that's happening in Utah and the prohibition that's happening in Texas, as well as my license obligations in Colorado. And why is that important? That's important because the judiciary which regulates the practice of law is a separate branch of government, and they hold my law license. a power, I would submit, which is much greater than the backdoor business threat that they are attempting to address in this bill. I raised and argued this issue at the committee last night, that we as a state have an obligation not to interfere with the judicial process. There was hearsay statements that judiciary had also been brought neutral because we said we can still regulate the practice of law. I don't believe that's binding on the court. I think there would be a real question in terms of separation of powers, but I also do believe it's us trying to impose our position over the judiciary, which is not appropriate in this context. We just had a major bill go through in terms of security and funding for security with the different branches of government. I don't remember if it's come to the floor yet or not. But in that context, a huge task force was established in which we as a legislature worked with the judiciary to make a determination of how to fund their needs and meet their circumstances without invading their province. This is a critical issue here, and I know many people are not lawyers, so you're going to feel like, okay, this is just a business call. This is not a business call. This is a separation of powers call. This is a call that is asking us to invade the rights of the judiciary, and I oppose that for this reason. And I concur with everything else that my good colleague from Delta said. But I would also note that absent at the table last night, which was critical to me, was the Sam Carey Bar, the Hispanic Bar, the Colorado Bar. Who was running and who was at this table? There was great hoo-ha that we got together, the Chamber of Commerce and the Colorado trial lawyers. Oh my goodness, this is unheard of. But where is the common interest between the Chamber of Commerce and the Colorado trial lawyers? In the notion of money and profit. And who is going to profit if we pass this bill? very few law firms in this state who will be able to take advantage of blocking out competition from other attorneys or other partnerships with people who want to build their businesses. That is not the proper role of government in this circumstance, and so I encourage you to vote no on this bill.

Thank you, everyone. I was in this committee last night until the wee hours of the morning. I'm surprised to see it here already so soon. I thought there was a waiting period. Last night, several things went on, you know, legal beagles speak and all that. But I came to this looking at this bill from a business standpoint, from a business mind. And as a previous business owner you know I always looking at things that are either going to enhance or not enhance a business freedom to have their business and run it how they want And that was the main concern that I had within this, because within the bill, you know, it states, you know, that they shall not, you know, compensate or engage in management services. It says they shall not do a lot of things. and then any portion of a settlement, verdict, judgment, award, recovery, or payment received on behalf of a client that is allocated to a lawyer or a law firm as compensation for legal services in any amount paid by a client or third party for legal representation, legal counseling, legal advocacy. And then it goes on down for any revenue or financial benefit derived from legal services, including revenue collected, blah, blah, blah. you know and it forbids payments made solely for the non-legal goods or services including purely administrative clerical operations and on and on and then it goes into stating on page five about what a legal fee includes and that is a contingency fee flat fee hourly fee just any fee or any money that that a business which a law firm is it's a law firm but it's also a business and for me to tell, we're now telling businesses what they can do with whatever money that they are able to, they receive, who they can pay, how much they can earn, what they, how they can earn it, I have a problem with because I believe in the freedom of operating your business as a business owner however you want. The fact that only an attorney can, can, can own a law, a law firm is, goes against my, my business nature. For me, if someone wants to own a business and hire whoever they want that represents them and does the work that they are trying to do, they should be able to do that. I believe that this bill prohibits compensating non-legal experts in a case if they're working on a contingency, which we see that a lot. I believe that batting these models will make it harder for plaintiffs who lack upfront cash to hire an extensive expert needed to prove their case. examples of these services are court filing costs processing server with the sheriff even expert witness fees doctors accident reports investigators i mean everything that you see that that lawyers and that clients would need to have to prove their case and have a strong case so for me I believe that it allows lawyer to lawyer litigation over fees or even cause retaliatory lawsuits I believe that it increases costs for small law firms that they cannot afford up front and they won't be able to handle the larger suits that they would like to take on because they're now being regulated to death again more regulation on our businesses you know it throughout the entire night it just came to where it was like one thing happening out in in arizona that they don't want uh these law firms to be dealing with and that it's going to hurt um law firms if someone other than they are here in colorado representing that business and honestly i believe it's up to the business owner i believe it's freedom of being able to operate your business how you want unless someone can explain to me how operating my business or someone operating their business that they spent their money on that they spend their blood sweat and tears and education on is a bad thing I would really like to hear that because for me business is business and we need to stop regulating them We need to start standing up for our small businesses and I don believe this bill does it I think it actually does exactly the opposite. So that's where I stand.

Thank you, Madam Chair. and in appreciation of both the sponsors and talking with them, I move L-008 to House Bill 1421 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I won't go on this a long time. you've heard my speeches on this. This is to a petition and I urge a yes vote. Is there any

colleague here for bringing this. We certainly support this as well. It makes sense. And please be an aye vote. Thank you. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, the

Senate Bill 12 by Senator Danielson, also Representative Velasco, concerning compensable losses under the Colorado Crime Victim Compensation Act for enrolled members of a federally recognized tribe.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 12 and the Judiciary Report to the Commute Report. Is there any discussion on the Commute Report? Representative Velasco.

Is there any further discussion on the Judiciary Committee Report? Seeing none, the question before us is its passage. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The committee report passes. To the bill. Representative Velasco.

That is a proper motion. One moment.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. So this is also a technical amendment, and we wanted to make sure that we were explicitly adding traditional Native American healing ceremonies as an expense for this fund, and we are substituting gifts to individuals who perform to honoraria provided in Connection West. and this change is because many times the people who are performing the healing ceremonies might not be certified so then they still need to be paid So we added that change Is there any further discussion on the amendment Seeing none the question before us is the passage of L to Senate Bill 12

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. members, this bill allows for traditional Native healing ceremonies to be eligible expenses for crime victim compensation without requiring a licensed clinician, therapist, or medical professional. And this was because current policy excludes Native survivors because traditional ceremonies are led by elders and cultural practitioners, not licensed providers. Currently, victim compensation programs routinely reimburse non-clinical expenses like funerals, relocation, lost wages, massage, and even yoga, demonstrating that licensure is not a universal requirement for accountability. This bill is similar to states with larger native populations like Arizona, Oklahoma, and New Mexico, who already allow culturally-based or traditional healing practices within victim compensation programs. Our Native American people experience disproportionately high rates of violent crime, including domestic and sexual violence compared to non-Native populations, increasing the need for accessible victim compensation. Native survivors are significantly less likely to access traditional Western services due to historical trauma, lack of culturally appropriate services, and providers, which limits the effectiveness of clinician-only models. Culturally grounded healing practices are associated with improved trauma recovery outcomes, including reduced PTSD symptoms and higher engagement in follow-up care. So I urge an aye vote.

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

Bill is being the second reading that of and makes the following recommendations. They're on House Bill 12, excuse me, House Bill 1421 is amended, passed on second reading, ordered gross in place on the calendar for third reading, final passage. Senate Bills 12 is amended, 124 and 143, passed on second reading, ordered revised and placed on the calendar for third reading and final passage. Representative Zocchi.

No, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. I move to lay over Senate Bill 43 until tomorrow.

House Bill 14-19 by Representative Sorodin Brown, also Senators Maul Blaine Bridges, concerning the over-refund amount for state fiscal year 2024-25 of state revenues in excess of the state fiscal year spending limit under Section 20 of Article 10 of the state constitution and in connection therewith making an appropriation. Majority

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 261419 on third reading and final passage. Representative Marshall. Mr. McClendon.

Representative DeGraff.

Representative Bradley.

Representative Woog.

Members, the motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 261419 on third reading, final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine. Members, please proceed to vote. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Representative Weinberg votes no. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote? Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes yes. Please close the machine. With 41 aye votes, 21 no votes, and three excused, House Bill 1419 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Representative Lindsay, co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1340

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1340 on third reading and final passage

Yes.

No.

House Bill 1345 by Representatives McCluskey and Hamrick, also Senators Coleman and Simpson concerning higher education funding and in connection therewith, implementing the recommendations in the report of the higher education funding allocation formula.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1345 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

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

Representative Weinberg votes no. AML Winter. Please close the machine. With 54 aye, 9 no, and 2 excused, House Bill 1345 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Representative Lindsay, co-sponsors. please close the machine Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1147

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1147 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

No, ma'am.

House Bill 1282 by Representatives Phillips and Goldstein, also Senator Mullica, concerning the elimination of duplicative regulation of school district child care centers.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1282 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

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

Representative Weinberg votes no. Joseph and Soper Please close the machine With 55I 8 no 2 excused House Bill 1282 is adopted Co-sponsors Representative Lindsay, co-sponsors Please close the machine Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1414

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1414 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

No, ma'am.

Senate Bill 158 by Senators Weissman and Ball, also Representatives Carter and Espinoza, concerning early parole procedures for a youthful offender who has successfully completed a specialized program.

Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 158 on third reading and final passage.

Senate Bill 159 by Senators Weissman and Gonzalez, also Representatives Mabry and Martinez, concerning measures for managing the capacity of the Department of Corrections.

Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 159 on third reading and final passage.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I just want to explain my vote to my district and to the sponsors. I supported my first year here, the representative from the Valley's plan to help get these people rehabilitated, help them get retrained and get them back into society. I appreciate that part of this bill as well. The only thing that I'm trying to balance that with is the time served issue. I know that these aren't violent crimes, but at the end of the day, the people did speak on the ballot, and I think that carries through a little bit on making sure that we have truth in sentencing and time spent. And I appreciate what they're trying to do here. I 100% agree with the programs and the education. How do we expect people to hit the ground running when they don't have any legs underneath them to do that? And we do want them to be productive members of society that are contributing to a greater state. but at the end of the day when it comes to adding more and more time served and allowing people out faster that that's where i have the issue with this bill so where i am for the first part i just can't get behind that based on what the people said on the ballot this last november so i just wanted to explain why i will be a no vote today seeing no further discussion the motion before us is the adoption of senate bill 159 on third reading and final passage mr schiebel please

House Bill 1033 by Representatives Gonzalez and Duran, also Senators Rodriguez and Pelton B, concerning expanding the scope of the Colorado Cottage Foods Act and in connection therewith making appropriation.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1033 on third reading and final passage.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I ask permission to run a third reading amendment.

Yes, this is a technical amendment that will just make sure that all the language mirrors throughout the bill that we made for public health and ask for a yes vote.

Representative Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move L019 to House Bill 1033.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So all this is just a technical fix to make sure that the language is clear throughout. So sometimes local public health is CDPHE, and we accidentally dropped this scenario from our bill in one section. So it needs to mirror the rest of the bill, and we ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move House Bill 1033 as amended.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's an honor to serve with you. It is an honor to serve with you. Colleagues, I was a no, but during second reading, right towards the end, I was doing a lot of research during second reading with regards to the funding sources. As a policy reason, I'd just be a no. There isn't a single public health authority, if you check the Secretary of State's website, that is in support. Not only not in support there isn a single public health agency that is in neutral monitoring All public health agencies that have registered a position are in opposition It's not good policy, but the thing that is very disturbing and the reason why I'm down here on thirds is it's taking $300,000 to implement. And where could we possibly get $300,000 in this environment where we can't spend anything or pennies for anything. Well, we're getting $100,000 of it from the Assisted Living Residence Cash Fund and $200,000 from the Medical Administration Fund. Assisted Living Residence Cash Fund, and I'm reading straight out, is a state-managed account funded by the licensing and regulatory fees paid by assisted living facilities. It is used specifically by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to cover the costs of licensing, oversight, and enforcement of these assisted living facilities. But we're raiding that fund. we're rating the fund to provide inspection services for these assisted living facilities and we've been screaming at the entire state government to squeeze every penny that they could so if we're going to say oh well this is just excess money lying around in the assisted living fund paid by the licensing and regulatory fees of these facilities, but we're just going to reprogram them and reappropriate them to something we think is more important. I have a very big issue with that. And we're also, once again, I've seen many bills come through where they push off and kick the can down the road for a couple fiscal years when the impact will start on the general fund. Our fiscal issues are not going away in the future. We need to exercise some self-discipline. And I particularly don't want to hear colleagues that come down and scream about raiding different funds or Tabor and everything when it's something special to their heart. they go ahead and decide principles don't matter. Representative Marshall, careful, please.

We make choices. And raiding a fund that is no nexus whatsoever to a bill just because you like it is the wrong thing to do. And the other $200,000 comes from the medical, where is that? Well, I just lost it, but the medical residence fund is for the administration, and that also is inappropriate. But again, in the next year or two, if you hear a horrible story about some assisted living facility, that something fell through the cracks because it wasn't inspected, you made the choice. You made the choice. And there's 300,000 people. $1,000 is being taken from funds that already have their structure in place, but we're going to add another FTE. Increasing once again, or decreasing the tooth-to-tail ratio, so those who are constantly crying about bureaucracy and come down here and decry it, but when it's something you want, again, we make that choice. It is absolutely wrong to raid the assisted living facility fund for this. And it's difficult for me not to see that the $300,000 mirrors other money that we tried searching for very vulnerable populations. But this is more important. So I ask for a no.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think rating would imply that we're stealing and we're not stealing any funds here, members. These are uncommitted dollars that CDPHE is allowing us to use. To use so that those entrepreneurs that want to start a business can have the funding to start a business. And maybe they can build up to a food truck. Maybe they can build up to a small restaurant. At the end of the day, they want to be able to provide for their families in the way they see fit. and this gives them the opportunity to do that, whether that is to buy groceries, whether that is to buy a pair of shoes or a prescription. These are uncommitted dollars. I can't say that enough. So nothing is being raided, nothing is being stolen, and I ask for a yes vote today.

Okay. Members. Members, let's all be conscious and thoughtful about speaking respectfully in the well, not accusing anyone or impugning motives. I appreciate the debate. The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1033 on third reading final passage as amended. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Lindsay votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? Yes, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes yes. Please close the machine With 46 ayes 17 no and two excused House Bill 1033 is adopted Co-sponsors. Representative Lindsay, co-sponsors. Mr. Schiebel, please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 51. Sorry. I'm sorry.

Madam Majority Leader.

The motion before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 51 on third reading, final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Lindsay votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no. Please close the machine. With 40 I, 23 no and 2 excused, Senate Bill 51 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Representative Lindsay, co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1420.

Madam Majority Leader.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1420 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine. Members proceed to vote. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Lindsay votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? Yes, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes yes. Brown, Velasco, Velasco, Please close the machine. With 63 ayes, 0, no, and 2 excused, House Bill 1420 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Representative Weinberg, co-sponsors. Please close the machine Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 101.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 101 on third reading and final passage.

House Bill 1417 by Representatives Soper and Bacon, also Senators Roberts and Rich, concerning the disability-related accommodation requirement of a testing entity.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1417 on third reading and final passage.

Senate Bill 132 by Senators Roberts and Carson, also Representatives Joseph and Soper, concerning the requirement that a law enforcement officer offer a voluntary preliminary screening test for alcohol to a driver and a connection they're worth making appropriation.

Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 132 on third reading and final passage.

House Bill 1015 by Representatives McCormick and Taggart, also Senators Simpson and Amabile, concerning the extension of the Colorado Homeless Contribution Tax Credit through Income Tax Year 2030.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1015 on third reading and final passage.

House Bill 1077 by Representatives Gonzalez and Wilford, also Senators Linstead and Marchman, concerning the average market rate of unprocessed retail marijuana and a connection therewith making an appropriation.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1077 on third reading and final passage.

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 benefits or open enrollment, please feel free to reach out to Shannon Briggs in accounting. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, I move to lay over the balance of the calendar until Friday, May 1, 2026.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move that the House stand in recess until later today. And, members, tomorrow is relaxed dress.