Senate State, Veterans, & Military Affairs [May 11, 2026 - Upon Adjournment]

Senator Marchman Thank you, Madam Chair. So also, the bill ensures public institutions of higher ed have grievance procedures in place for Title VI complaints and a designated coordinator responsible for compliance training and responding to concerns. That matters because rights are only meaningful if people know where to go and someone's responsible for addressing them. As you heard, the bill's been significantly amended to respond to budget constraints, and as it comes before you now, there is no fiscal impact. But even in its narrowed form, it still does important work. It provides clarity, accountability, and a more reliable process for students and families. No student should be left without recourse when they face discrimination at school. I respectfully ask for your support.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Nathan Fisher and I the Associate Director of the Colorado Catholic Conference which is the voice of the bishops of Colorado here in opposition to 1141 This bill can be used as a weapon of litigation against our schools Colorado is a very litigious state, and we have seen attacks against a bakery. This will do nothing more than invite lawsuits into our school. Section 1 is concerning this bill threatening religious freedom and conscious rights. It creates a system where schools and even private religious schools could face legal action for adhering to traditional biological or faith-based policies regarding sex, marriage, or gender expression. Furthermore, Section 2 of this bill presents significant First Amendment concerns. By vaguely defining discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, we risk penalizing educators and institutions. This could also include groups going onto campus to promote a pro-life message or comment on human sexuality. They would now be banned or face a lawsuit for promoting Sussman message on K-12 or higher ed campus. We are disenfranchising students who want to hear those ideas. Schools should be preparing students for the future, not serving as laboratories for social engineering. This bill restricts the ability of local schools and parents to have a voice in what is being taught and how that environment is governed. If we want safe schools, we should be focused on academic excellence and allowing parents to have the final say, not on building a new state bureaucracy that treats parents and traditional values as the enemy. Our students deserve the best chance of success, but not by dismantling parental rights. Our institutions of education are meant to present ideas to young people, not to hide information from them and discourage discussion. Why are we so afraid to allow students to hear and engage on pro-life, pro-family values? We must protect the free exercise of religion in all viewpoints, particularly in educational realm. Thank you, and on behalf of the Colorado Bishops, please vote no today.

Okay, this is offensive. I'm so tired of the racism or other discrimination insinuations being slammed around the last years. First, I'm from another country. I have relatives with bloodlines from Philippines, Indians, Alaska, German, European roots, all over. None of them approve of harm being done to all of us in racism or our children. I have friends who are gay, straight, pink, black, white, purple. It doesn't matter. But with Marxist public school socialist justice warrior indoctrination is harming children and pitting them against each other. Even the current president has gotten rid of all these offensive rules like DEI, SEL, CRT with false ways to pit kids against each other. It's no more right to discriminate against white as it is black kids or to refuse to. Why should they be apologizing for something they never did to someone they never knew? And we're doing all this silly. We have laws for all this discrimination. There are 50 million people being enslaved globally right now, a third of them children in trafficking. They're white, they're black, they're brown, they're all kinds of things. Where is that? Where is the protection for them? The U.N. agenda wants two thirds of us depopulated by 2030. That's World Economic Forum globalists. Aren't we having fun with that yet? So it's all wrong. Every bit of what's happening is wrong. telling kids to go out on the street and protest ICE officers is un-American and ridiculous. Everything that we have done here, we're mutilating children, giving them porn, letting counselors have Adam behind doors away from parents, and you're worrying about discrimination I say the racism that this body has passed into many laws is a huge crime We got to stop being stupid about this stuff We don need that

Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Brittany Vesely. I'm the Executive Director of the Colorado Catholic Conference, and I'm testifying in opposition to SB 26 or HB 261141, an expansion of Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act, which actually codifies discrimination against students and school employees who disagree with the state definition of human sexuality and certain tenets of the sanctity of life. This body has expanded the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act or CATA three times in four years, starting with HB 21-1108, which expanded protected classes to include sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. In 2024, HB 24-11-24 added financial penalties to criminal penalty of discriminating against CATA. In 2025, HB 25-13-12 added new definitions of deadnaming and misgendering to enforceable actions under CATA. Now, HB 261141 further expands Cata by specifying grievance procedures for students and employees who are accused of so-called acts of discrimination, including verbally professing their religious or sincerely held beliefs about human sexuality, marriage or the sanctity of life for preborn children on both private and public education, K through 12 and higher education campuses. It also empowers the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to file charges against schools and individuals who violate this law. This is the same commission whose rulings were reversed in the U.S. Supreme Court case, Masterpiece Cake Shop, and 303 Creative, for also woefully and wrongfully punishing citizens who live out their beliefs in the public sphere. H.V. 1141 also requires Title VI coordinator to be appointed to manage school student employee compliance to the Colorado Civil Rights Act. In practical terms, this bill will not prevent student organizations at colleges or K-12 campuses to host speakers or events that promote marriages between one man and one woman or argue that gender and biological sex are the same thing and conform to one's biological sex assigned at birth. It also requires that on higher education campuses, they cannot have speakers or groups talk about the sanctity of life for pre-born children. Freedom of speech and expression are God-given rights protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and HB 261141 is woefully in violation of both. On behalf of the Colorado bishops, we ask this committee to vote no on HB 261141.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I'm Catherine Wheeler, a board-certified OB-GYN physician, and I testify on behalf of myself asking for a no vote. We can agree that discrimination and opportunity in education is wrong. However, this bill redefines discrimination to forbid free speech if it is unwelcome by a group of people or an individual. Unwelcome is vague, determined by an individual's response, and it would chill speech and silence truth. The First Amendment rights of free speech and practice of conscience and religion are foundational for a free society. This bill is opposed to the purpose of education, preparing students to think clearly and critically, as well as forming character that can live in a free and pluralistic society. Education must not be about controlling different viewpoints and sheltered silos that certain groups and political powers desire. True education teaches students to critically evaluate evidence and to discern what is true and that which contributes to thriving. This means considering and being challenged by diverse viewpoints not banning them We have witnessed in Colorado the targeted investigation and attempted silencing of fact supported speech that validly confronts state sanctioned views As a physician with decades of experience in OBGYN and reproduction, including performing abortions, it would ban and punish my free speech right to speak based on scientific evidence about the developing baby, the reality of abortion, the biology of sex, short and long-term impacts of hormones and surgeries related to sex and gender, pregnancy and abortion. If some groups find the scientific evidence unwelcome, students don't need silos. They need opportunities to think critically in their formative years. This is a dangerous bill meant to control speech under the guise of anti-discrimination,

This question is for Ms. Rush. You mentioned SEL. Can you just define that for us, please?

Yeah. Social emotional learning, which was really put into place by 1994 by Cassell companies. and it's a promise of that we're giving you emotional support, but it was really to push the acceptance of trans and LGBTQ and all of that, which I am not a hater of people who are not straight, you know, gay or whatever. But the problem is...

No, thank you. I just wanted the definition.

Hi, I'm Shira Teed. I'm the Assistant Director of Hillel of Colorado.

Oh, yes. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Wallace and members of the State Affairs Committee. My name is Shira Teed. I'm the Assistant Director of Hillel of Colorado. Hillel serves as the Jewish home away from home for about 2,500 Jewish students across the Denver metro area and northern Colorado. We are also members of the Jewish Community Relations Council, or the JCRC, which supports HB 26.1141 as amended by the Appropriations Committee. Over the last several years, Jewish students on campuses across the country, including here in Colorado, have experienced a significant rise in anti-Semitism, harassment, intimidation, and exclusion. The last few years have been strange, to say the least, for Jewish students. As an organization on the front lines, each school has varying levels of process for reporting behavior, much of which crosses the line into anti-Semitism. Many students have described feeling that they need to check parts of their identity at the door for fear of showing their Jewish identity and the preconceived notion that people may have about that identity. They stay silent when professors cross the line, fearing that their grades will suffer. They come to me as a first step. I have seen all too often what happens without an appropriate process to report these incidents. The most well-meeting of administrators does not have a clear path of documentation, and because of this, there is no way to follow the trend in reports. Students need a place to report anti-Semitism in a way that they have confidence that the report will be stewarded appropriately. Every student deserves to feel safe accessing their education and participating fully in campus life without fear of discrimination or harassment because of who they are. Jewish students and students from all backgrounds need confidence that when incidents occur, their schools will be prepared to respond consistently, transparently, and fairly. Thank you so much.

My name is Brandon Ratner. I'm the director of the Jewish Community Relations Council that does public affairs for more than 45 member organizations all throughout the state. I'll be very quick. I think the CHIRA hit the concern that Jewish students are facing. I do just want to say that sometimes in these sort of contexts, the ideas of freedom of religion can be thrown around really loosely. And I just want to reiterate that not every religion experiences the world the same way. And people from different backgrounds, there is a difference between free exercise, establishment, all of these sort of concepts. So there are religious communities that do think that these procedures are necessary, and I would just like to stand by that. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Committee members. My name is Jeremy Shaver. I'm the Deputy Regional Director for the Anti-Defamation League Mountain States Region, and ADL supports this bill as amended in the House. We are, as Shira already alluded to, facing a troubling rise in anti-Semitism in both K-12 schools and on college campuses in Colorado. In 2024, ADL recorded just shy of 1,700 anti-Semitic incidents on campuses across the country, an 84% increase from the previous year. In Colorado, ADL received 51 reports of anti-Semitic harassment and vandalism on university and college campuses in our state. A recent survey found that 83% of Jewish college students have experienced or witnessed anti-Semitism in the last two years, and two-thirds lack the confidence in their university's ability to prevent anti-Semitic incidents. This is why this legislation is so needed in this current environment. The bill clarifies that Colorado's existing anti-discrimination law, or CADA, expressly covers all types of discrimination in K-12 schools and higher ed institutions, which was unclear before and led to a narrow interpretation of what constitutes discrimination in schools. It has a broad prohibition on discrimination and provides legal standards for different treatment discrimination and harassment that clearly mirrors the federal law This legislation also includes a requirement that each public institution of higher ed develop and publish Title VI grievance procedures and designate a Title VI coordinator similar to the Title IX coordinators already in place They are tasked with ensuring compliance and tracking complaints. These requirements, which do not currently exist in Title VI, will enable higher ed institutions to more effectively address discrimination and harassment. Every student in Colorado deserves to learn in an environment free from discrimination and harassment. This legislation provides the protections and accountability that make this promise real. So we encourage your support. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Anastasia Cole and I'm the Policy and Outreach Manager for the Colorado Coalition against sexual assault or CECASA. And we're here today in support of House Bill 1141 because students in Colorado deserve to feel safe at school and have schools take discrimination and harassment seriously. In Colorado, young people are at the greatest risk of sexual violence compared to any other age. This can happen anywhere, including at school. In one school year, more than half of girls and four in 10 boys in middle and high school face sexual harassment and students of color and those who are LGBTQ plus experience higher rates than their counterparts. This negatively impacts students' physical, psychological, social, and emotional well-being. It shows up as depression, anxiety, eating disorders, suicidal ideation, and a decline in academic performance and withdrawing from friends and family. And it can result in missing assignments, failing tests, and an inability to concentrate in class, skip school, and even drop out. This is really why this bill is so important. In recent years, Colorado has taken steps to improve the rights and protections for students experience harassment and discrimination based on their sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, and other protected classes. CECASA was proud to work with Senators Winter and Marchman on Senate Bill 23-296 to ensure students, guardians, and employees were better informed of the process for reporting and responding to harassment and discrimination. Senate Bill 1907 to address and prevent sexual misconduct on higher ed campuses. But one of the main important issues has remained unresolved at the time, which was the enforcement and accountability for failures to uphold these protections and rights. CCASA would like to thank the sponsors for bringing this bill close to close this gap and to ensure we do better for our youngest Coloradans. When we take harassment and discrimination seriously, we can keep them engaged and on track academically, and we can send a message that harassment and discrimination will not be tolerated here. Please support House Bill 1141

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Elsie Fierro, and I am the political and policy coordinator at One Colorado, and we are here in a support position on House Bill 26-1141. As someone with a master's degree in education policy, I know the deep history of inequity in education. Even with the Brown versus Board decision, redlining and inequitable school funding have had lasting impacts on access to quality public education for Black LGBTQIA plus youth. I also know that achieving equity in education goes beyond access and must include an environment free of discrimination. Black LGBTQIA plus youth are more likely to experience school discipline, bullying, and curriculum exclusion. As a Black LGBTQIA plus person myself I grew up being told that boys couldn wear earrings at school and your hair wasn done if it wasn straightened I also grew up seeing teachers breaking up a queer couple holding hands but not doing the same for straight couples As well I also grown up being told that Black kids were not as well behaved as other kids. I was told that the Civil War was not fought over slavery and had never heard of LGBTQ activists in school until college. My experiences do not even compare to some of my peers who ended up in the carceral system or did not live to see their 20s. I am testifying in a support position on House Bill 261141 today because at One Colorado, we believe that all students deserve access to equitable education free of discrimination, no matter their race, gender, or sexual orientation. We believe this bill can help LGBTQIA plus youth, and we are proud to stand with the proponents and sponsors of this bill who brought this forward. Please vote yes on House Bill 26-1141 and refer this bill to the Senate for a full vote. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

I have one or a couple, I guess. for our folks here, we heard from others prior to this that they thought that their religious beliefs would be stifled under this legislation. Could you help explain to me a little bit further your positions on why you don't think your religious beliefs would be stifled under this legislation? Or I suppose the expression of your religious beliefs. I would just say that is not,

Thank you so much. Seeing no further questions, we appreciate you all being here. we'll pull up some witnesses that were called previously can we have Patty McNernan Paige Briskey and Ken Armstrong and then did you want to testify in opposition you can come up please okay I'm sorry Lori is who we need pulled up not Patty Sir, we'll start here in person with you.

I'm sorry.

Okay, next we'll go online to Ken Armstrong.

Thank you so much. Next we will go to Patty McNernan. Before we do that, I have another bill in committee, so I will be passing the gavel over to Senadora Gonzalez, and then I will be back for votes.

section two thank you very much thank you for your testimony next we will go to ms gimelstein

Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. Next, we'll go to Ms. Briskey.

strike pregnancy outcomes. Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. I believe that that concludes this panel of witnesses. Colleagues, do we have any

observations that you weren't able to at the time. Mr. Pearl.

Thank you, Senator Wilson and Chairman Gonzalez. Yeah, there are so many first-aminted issues that this raises. I sympathize with the Jewish students who are being accosted with anti-Semitism in the guise of free speech, but that can be dealt with in many other ways than this particular bill which chills free speech. in regards to, you can imagine, gun issues where people like myself would be offended by a person who is advocating for gun rights on campus, but that should not create a grievance. I should be able to confront those people, talk to them civilly, and address those issues in real time and not be going through a grievous process and a bureaucratic process, which in effect will chill speech, and won't be able to hear from those gun proponents. And same thing with gender-affirming ideology. As you know, that's a very controversial area in medicine. Currently, the CAS review threw a lot of conventional wisdom into challenge, and recently the British Medical Association confirmed the evidence that CAS reviewed and the methodology that's used. If I were to bring that up in the context of a free speech event on a campus, I could be creating a hostile environment and thereby being kicked off. And again, chilling free speech. I already mentioned pregnancies and for some reason we throw pregnancies and parenting in this protected class I not sure what the intention was but my suspicion is that people who are uncomfortable with challenges to abortion rights don't want any challenges to abortion rights on campus, and they should be welcoming the best pro-life arguments and understand them and be able to respond to them in a civil manner. Our country is not going to advance. We're not going to get past this hyper-partisan, hostile, violent environment that we live in until we learn and model, particularly in schools, how to engage civically in these kind of debates.

Thank you, Senator Gonzalez and members of the committee. My name is Elizabeth Moran. I'm here on behalf of the Arc of Colorado. I was a late sign-up just minutes ago, so I appreciate you asking us. The Arc of Colorado is an advocacy organization that provides advocate services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities across the state. About 80%, I would say 80 to 90% of our work is in the education environment. Now, certainly our services are across the lifespan, but a lot of the work we do has to do with discriminatory practices or lack of services and supports within an education environment. Students with disabilities continue to face discrimination in Colorado schools through exclusion, bullying, unequal discipline, barriers to participation. Families are too often left without clear or effective ways to seek accountability. So I want to acknowledge the testimony that I've heard today and what prompted my wanting to come up because a lot of the testimony has focused on gender-affirming policies, religious beliefs, freedom of speech. And while people may hold differing personal or religious beliefs, I believe that 1141 does not prevent anyone from necessarily expressing those beliefs, nor does it eliminate constitutional protections for free speech or religious exercise. What it does require is that schools provide all students, including students with disabilities and LGBTQ students, and that intersection where a lot of students find themselves with a disability and then some other something, what it does is it provides them equal access to education that is free from discrimination and harassment. Education is a civil right. Students with disabilities deserve the right to learn in environments where they are respected, supported, and protected from discrimination. And I respectfully urge you to support House Bill 261141.

No.

Senator Marchman. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, committee, for hearing this bill today. I just also want to thank all of the folks who came to speak both in favor and opposed to this bill. This bill is really meant to ensure that we do have protections in place, specifically around Title VI on our campuses, K-12 and institutes of higher ed. We did hear how this builds off of some of the work that's been done in the past, some work I've done on SB 23-296. But we really just want to make sure that students in Colorado get access equally to education without harassment or discrimination. So I'd urge an I vote on 1141 today.

Senator Colker. Thank you, Madam Chair. And just to follow up on those words, that's what we're looking to do, is make sure that these kids are protected. And as it states in the definition, harassment or discrimination means to engage in or the act of engaging in any unwelcome physical or verbal conduct or any written pictorial or visual communication by a student or employee that is directed at a student or group of students because of that student's or group's membership in or perceived membership in a protected class that I had listed before. I don't understand where we see the protections in making schools unsafe when it comes to the freedom of speech. when you're making students feel unsafe, getting that free and appropriate education. We want to make sure all of the students are protected, and especially those who can be targeted. So I encourage an aye vote on this bill.

Senator Samora Wilson. Thank you, Madam Chair. We already have protections. We already have protection of our rights. And it's like this, you're including private schools, and parents utilize private schools for a reason because in the public schools there's things that go against their beliefs. and this bill is going to undermine that. I mean, let's just be honest. That's what's going to happen. And it's going to open up litigation. That was mentioned and that will happen. I've been on that side in raising my daughter and having to deal with the public schools and what I thought was inappropriate material. So, I am going to be a no. We've already have protections and this is going to undermine those rights.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Senator Merchman. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 261141 to the Committee of the Whole. Okay, that is a proper motion. Mr. Sayed, please pull the committee. Sanders. Gonzalez. Aye. Eldonar? No. Samor Wilson? No. Marchman? Aye. Madam Chair? Aye. That motion passes 3-2. Thank you members. Good luck on the floor. Next up, we will hear House Bill 1431. We'll be in a brief Senatorial 5. You are it. Do we need to get Judah? Mm-mm. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. And we're back. We will next be addressing House Bill 1431. Who would like to kick us off? Senadora Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues, it is an honor and a joy to bring you my last bill ever, ever, ever in this building. House Bill 1431 is a sunset bill. Hard-hitting policy, friends. Let me just say that we have worked over the years to ensure that as many people as possible, as many Coloradans are possible, are able to access licenses and become certified. And so this bill continues on and builds on that good work. The bill as amended adds individuals who are duly licensed, certified, registered, or enrolled in good standing in another country to the occupational credential portability program established in statute. This allows the regulator to approve an application for license certification registration or enrollment by endorsement reciprocity or transfer for these individuals Without the bill the occupational credential portability would only apply to individuals who are duly licensed, certified, registered, or enrolled, who are in good standing in another state or U.S. territory or through the federal government. With that, I will turn it over to my co-prime sponsor, Senator Judah. Thank you, Madam Chair. So from a practical standpoint, that means that the boards and programs may allow for individuals who are currently licensed, certified, registered, or enrolled in good standing in another country to use that credential to directly apply for licensure in Colorado as long as other requirements are met and unless prohibited. Without this change, these individuals must first obtain a license in another U.S. state or territory and hold that license for at least one year before being eligible to apply under occupational portability. While this bill no longer allows occupational credential portability programs to supersede individual practice acts, some of which have requirements related to specific accrediting entities, it is a tremendous leap forward for Colorado. Very few states have a program that allows individuals with a credential from another country with substantially equivalent requirements to use that credential to directly apply for equivalent credentials, and I ask for an aye vote. Thank you so much. Members, questions for our sponsors? Seeing none, we appreciate you both so much for being here. We'll move on to witnesses. All right. So we'll go to Sam Delp, Kieran Gonzalez, and Victoria Francis. Is there anyone else who would like to testify in support of this legislation? All right, we'll start off here. If you could state your name and who you represent, you will have two minutes. Madam Chair and members of the committee, my name is Gating Gonzalez, and I'm the graduate policy intern at the Colorado Fiscal Institute, where we work to make Colorado a state where fiscal and economic policies promote equity and widespread prosperity. Today, I'd like to speak in support of increasing opportunities for licensure across different professions. Licensing procedures create barriers that limit foreign educated professionals from fully participating in Colorado's workforce. This impacts the state's overall wealth and its ability to meet workforce demands. Due to current licensing barriers, many highly educated workers are in lower skilled jobs, resulting in lost productivity and tax income. This is called brain waste. Research estimates that occupational licenses cost Colorado around 57,000 jobs per year and about $375 million in lost output. By allowing foreign-educated workers to show similar competencies, states tap into underused skills and grow their labor force. This is valuable to increasing overall earnings, consumer spending, and total state collections. Immigrant workers are a major driver in health care, social assistance, and education services in Colorado, totaling 19% of the labor force and contributing around $6.8 billion in gross domestic services and goods. despite these contributions brain waste remains significant and is reflected in Colorado's growing demands and in the healthcare and mental health workforce research data stresses that there is severe underuse of immigrant labor in health care and social services. This workforce gap has been highlighted in recent local research showing Colorado will likely face a shortage of over 4,400 behavioral health specialists in 2026 and 1,700 primary care physicians by 2030. Additionally, 54 of Colorado's 64 counties are designated health professional shortage areas with many rural communities lacking sufficient providers. Shortages in our workforce continue to supply longer wait times, higher service costs, and reduce access to care. In modernizing licensees for foreign trained professionals, Colorado can responsibly increase its workforce. Thank you for allowing me to testify today. I urge you to vote yes in support of this bill. Thank you. Sir? Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Sam Delp, and I'm honored to be the Director of the Division of Professions and Occupations at the Department of Regulatory Agencies. I'm here today in favor of 1431, and I'm pleased to have worked with the sponsors on this bill. I'd like to highlight what this bill does, and then also highlight a couple of the things that it specifically does not do. First and foremost, this is a workforce bill. It provides qualified professionals who are licensed and credentialed outside of the United States the opportunity to pursue licensure in Colorado through their prospective regulatory boards without needing to first obtain a license to practice in another state. This bill specifically does not require a board to issue a license to anyone that does not meet the licensing requirements, and it does not permit the director or staff at DORA to override or issue a license on behalf of the board. It does not lower the standard or change the requirements for a license, and it does not prevent participation in any licensure compact. Finally, it does not compromise public safety or consumer protection. There is nothing inherently unsafe about an applicant simply because they were trained or practicing outside of the United States. These applicants would need to go through all of the same licensing requirements that anyone trained domestically would need to go through in order to obtain their license. This bill is a common sense measure that gives fully trained professionals the opportunity to obtain an occupational license and fully practice in the workforce and open up access to care for Coloradans. Once again, thank you to the sponsors and the committee for your attention to this bill. I ask for your yes vote, and I'm happy to answer questions. Thank you so much, sir. Next, we'll go online to Ms. Francis. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Victoria Francis and I'm the Deputy Director of State and Local Initiatives at the American Immigration Council, a 501c3 nonprofit. I'm also a proud Colorado native living in Arvada. I'm here to express the council's support for moving barriers that keep qualified Coloradans from contributing to the state's workforce. To this end, I respectfully encourage the passage of House Bill 26-14-31. In order to remain competitive and meet critical workforce shortages, Colorado will need to continue to implement policies that not only attract and retain and immigrant talent that complement U.S. foreign workers, but that utilize the skills of immigrants who already call the state home. House Bill 26-14-31 will allow trained professionals, including those trained outside of the U.S., to demonstrate that their skills meet Colorado standards, thereby increasing economic opportunities for all residents and helping to meet the state's workforce needs. To help illustrate why this measure isn't so important, my organization has conducted quantitative research on the impact of immigrants already in the state. As of 2023, Colorado is home to more than half a million immigrants, making up nearly 10% of the state's population. These new Americans are critical to addressing the state workforce surges across the skills and education spectrum and complement U born workers with 82 of immigrant Coloradans being of working age so between the ages of 16 and 64 compared to 64 of U Coloradans The diverse educational background of immigrants allows them to feel critical workforce shortages. As of 2023, 40.5% of immigrants in Colorado had attained a high school diploma and had some college education, 17.7% held bachelor's degrees or higher, and 16.8% held a graduate degree. As more Coloradans reach retirement age and the state continues to work to address workforce needs, retaining and leveraging the talent of all residents is critical. I encourage this committee to support the passage of House Bill 26-14-31. Thank you for your consideration and for your time today. Thank you so much, members. Are there questions for these witnesses? Senator Zamora Thank you, Madam Chair, and this is for Ms. Francis. You mentioned some data there. I was just curious, out of the, you said half a million immigrants, do you have any kind of idea who this bill would benefit, like a percentage? Ms. Francis. Thank you, Chair and committee member for that question. I do not have that information available to me at this time. I'd be happy to send along the data that we do have about workers in Colorado, however. Senator Zemora Wilson. Thank you, Madam Chair. And this question is for Ms. Gonzalez. You mentioned there was 4,400 immigrants. You used that data, and you said it really fast, so I'm sorry if I don't get it correct. But you mentioned a shortfall. First of all, I was wondering, where did you get that data? if you could clarify what it pertained to. And I do have a follow-on question. Ms. Gonzalez. Thank you for the question. And I'm so sorry for how fast I was going. The 4400 refers to we will have a behavioral health specialist gap of 4400 specialists by 2026. And I got that information from the Colorado Rural Health Center. They did a snapshot of Colorado's rural health. Senator Zamora Wilson. Thank you Madam Chair I'm just wondering do you know why we're having a short call? Ms. Gonzalez This could be attributed to a lot of different factors in the environment or with different just there's not enough people, they talked about a nursing shortage which is attributed to people not being able to meet the requirements to afford nursing school and all of the different educational requirements specifically, but to the larger question, I think that I don't have necessarily the answer, but thank you for the question. Thank you so much. Seeing no further questions, we appreciate you all being here and sharing your insights. Is there anyone else in the room or online who would like to testify on this legislation? Seeing none, the witness phase is closed. Sponsors. Who would like to kick us off? Oh, no, excuse me, I'm sorry, and I was jumping right to closing statements, my goodness. Committee members, any amendments? Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. Sponsors, wrap-up statements now. Senator Judah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members a couple years ago I had the honor of co the Global Talent Task Force for the state and it became more and more obvious how many people were able to contribute to our state by way of programs like this And I am incredibly proud to have done that work and to continue to build on that because of the reality that, you know, people who come to our state can only contribute to the economic vitality of the beautiful tapestry we call Colorado. And with that, I ask for an aye vote. Senadora Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I will just say that prior to the original legislation that put this policy into practice, which we are now renewing here via this sunset, you had healthcare professionals working as taxi drivers. You had college professors working in restaurants. And this policy, and now through this sunset, the continuation of this policy is supported by a broad constellation of organizations, including Juntos Community, the Acupuncture Association of Colorado, Colorado Rural Health Center, the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition, the Boulder Chamber, Boulder County, the Colorado Office of New Americans, SEIU, the Colorado Nursing Association, and the Department of Regulatory Agencies itself. There is no opposition to this bill, and it is a joy and an honor to bring this forward for your consideration. With that, Madam Chair, I move House Bill 26-14-31 to the Committee of the Whole and ask for an aye vote. That is a proper motion. Are there closing comments? Senator Pelton. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, sponsors, for bringing this bill. My district, as you can see, is very vast. We have shortages out there. My hope is that the immigrants can speak good English, because some of us old guys have a hard time if they can't. But I see this as a good bill. So it's not just in the health care industry out in my world. So I appreciate this bill, and I am supportive today. Further closing comments? I will just say one of our witnesses mentioned both brain waste and workforce shortages, and I think in this day and age, having the combination of those things, it is the very imperative of this legislature to ensure that we are negating both of those and putting them together. So I applaud your work as well as this effort to make sure that as folks come to this nation, they can really add the very most that they are to our society. So I appreciate you both so much. Senadora, it is a great honor to have your last bill here in committee. And with that, Mr. Sayed, please poll the committee. Senators, Gonzalez. Elton R. Aye. Samoa Wilson. Aye. Marchman. Aye. Madam Chair. Aye. That bill passes unanimously. May we please, for the love of everything holy, put this on the consent calendar. Absolutely, if you're willing to do it for your last bill. Oh, I'm sorry. There is an objection to placing this on the consent calendar. And as a result, we will be hearing you in the well again. We appreciate that opportunity. With that we will next hear House Bill 1274 which is my legislation so I will pass it over to one of my fellows on the committee I'll take it. She got enough. She got enough. Thank you. All right. We have House Bill 1274 up. We've got our sponsors. Who would like to start? Senator Wallace. Thank you so much, Madam Chair and committee members, for your consideration of House Bill 1274, which helps ensure the viability of our state's nonprofits by establishing a comprehensive framework for advance payments to nonprofit organizations, while ensuring strict financial controls and oversight as requested by the state controller. The bill provides an option for state agencies to provide upfront payments to nonprofit grantees for state-funded grants. Again, this is an optional opportunity that they can put themselves into. Since it's introduction, some key changes have been made to the bill, including removing the 25% required minimum payment that was in the introduced bill and replacing it with a risk assessment that will be conducted by the agency and have final approval by the state controller. Finally, we created required criteria for nonprofits to provide in order to be considered for advanced payment, including a risk-based eligibility screening, minimum necessary payment amounts, detailed financial documentation, and mandatory reporting and oversight. Through these processes, we can ensure strong fiscal responsibility and oversight while also allowing our nonprofits the upfront payments that are so critical to their success. Too many non-profits struggle with the current process of state grants. As one example, Four Corners Youth Rainbow Resource Center in Durango said, quote, most state grants require organizations to spend the money first and then wait, sometimes months, to be reimbursed. That might sound like a minor administrative detail, but it's a make or break issue for small non-profits. As I think we could all emphasize, most of us, most of our families couldn't go months and months without a paycheck. And I will note that we've heard about nonprofit employees fronting costs for months themselves out of their own pocket. And even worse, other organizations, specifically small organizations' closest community needs, choose to forgo state grants entirely due to the uncertainty of when they would be paid and the difficult reimbursement-based model. I heard that particular sentiment from a key nonprofit who has been helping immigrants in my district for decades. They simply won't interact with the state's grants or other processes, given their unclear, strenuous process and delayed repayment system. We must do better for those serving our communities and filling some of our deepest needs, and we look forward to the conversation today as well as appreciate your consideration. Thank you. Senator Wiseman. Thank you. Members, not a lot to add to Senator Wallace's introduction. A few things on this from me. One, this idea is not new. Back in 2021, I think a few of us were here. We passed HB 21-1247, which allowed a version of this advanced grant disbursement, but only for grantees within the orbit of CDPHE. We were in the middle of COVID. Obviously, there State needed some help in dealing with the public health issues of the moment. Two, just to share an example in terms of how I come at this, I have almost two years of history in this subject now. Talking to nonprofits and associations of nonprofits, there was a bill that didn't make it out of House Approps Committee last year and long road. And here we are now with a different approach that will hopefully get done. But there's a specific nonprofit in my community that does a lot of needful work, has been able to scale rapidly, act as a partner to the state government, to local governments on the east side of town as well, and take on a lot of grant work. And at one point I heard from their director that she had personally taken out a six-digit loan just to keep payroll going and meet expenses because the nonprofit was 60, 90, 120 days accounts receivable to various governments that were granting entities to her organization. Kind of astonishing that she could do that. I think in no way should we as a state be expecting anybody involved with organizations that help us with the work that we choose to do through our policy goals to take on that kind of burden. Nonprofits should be expected to meet strict financial controls. We are talking about state taxpayer money after all. But fundamentally they are not supposed to be lenders to the state. They are programmatic partners with the state. And lastly, when we don't have the kind of mechanism like we're trying to set forth in 1274, I think the reality is that we screen out. We don't black-letter law screen out, but in practical fact, we screen out a lot of nonprofits that otherwise could engage with the state and provide useful services. I think the reality is the biggest nonprofits in the state are probably clustered around here in the metro area. I know there are some larger community foundations in El Paso County, but more upstart nonprofits or those that are inherently smaller in the more sparse parts of the state, like I know are represented on this committee, they're the ones who are at least going to be able to carry 120 days accounts receivable. A large 50, 100-year-old nonprofit around here might have enough going on, might have enough of an endowment that it can carry that float. But we don't want to make being able to carry a 90 or 120-day account receivable a condition preceding to granting with the state at all. So if we want to really open up grants engagement opportunities around the state to larger and smaller nonprofits, to those that are a little bit more practiced at dealing with state procedures and to new ones that might have an idea, passion, energy, and might be a little bit new at the process of engaging with the state, then I think we should have a mechanism like this. it was entirely rewritten in the house after extensive engagement with the executive branch including the controller as you'll see we're not specifying a set percentage we're specifying i would say rather than a simple rule of this or that percent we're specifying standards if you can prove up you need more than say 25 there's a mechanism for that and frankly if you can't prove up you need to advance more than 10 that's all you're going to get But the procedures, the showings are frankly pretty exacting in here. So you'll hear some witnesses and we'll stand for questions. Very good. Does anyone have any questions for our sponsors? I have a really quick question I was just noticing the fiscal has a departmental difference for four departments and I assuming that those are grants that are offered through those departments Okay, please help me understand what these are. Senator Wiseman. Thank you. So the actual fiscal note, the numbers in the box, reflects a small approach to DPA, DPA, which handles the contracting for the state, just for a little bit of work that they will be doing as sort of the central hub, if you will, for the other departments to kind of have the standardized procedures that they will be able to share out to the rest of the executive branch of state government. What the difference gets to is in the fiscal process, these departments came back to the analyst and apparently said, well, we think that we might need to do this additional work and it's going to drive all of this money, you know, another half a million and a bunch of FTE. The reason that's wrong is because the entire bill is permissive. If we were mandating this, okay, that might begin to make sense. But A, it is permissive, and B, the bill itself says that in the first instance, DPA shall develop sort of guideline procedures and make those available. And the point is that's supposed to be enough. If in a future year some department decided that the baseline procedures developed by DPA were insufficient for their purposes, they could try to convince the first floor to put that in their budget request for November, and we would go from there in the usual way. But that's why the departmental difference. Thank you. That helps a lot. All right. We do have three witnesses in person and one remotely, so we'll welcome them all up now. We've got Marco Dorado, Ms. Jessamine Lockhart, Ms. Naomi Amaha in person, and then online I believe we have Mr. Stuart Jenkins. Great. So it looks like we have our panel together. I'm going to start over here so you have plenty of time to figure out what you're going to do with the microphone. Feel free to use the one in the middle if that's easier, but I'm going to start here. You're going to have two minutes if you'll tell us who you are, and then you've got two minutes. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of House Bill 1274. My name is Naomi Amaha, and I'm the Director of Policy and Government Affairs for the Denver Foundation. We are a community foundation that has been working over the last 100 years in collaboration with community members to address the current and future challenges. Through our grant-making, we consistently hear that the state's reimbursement funding models create serious challenges for nonprofits, particularly small, community-rooted organizations. Nonprofits are often required to pay program costs up front, then wait months, sometimes six to nine, to be reimbursed. This system unintentionally shifts risk from the state onto nonprofits that can least afford it. We have seen organizations drain reserves, mortgage personal property, or take out high-interest payday loans just to keep vital services running. That is not sound public policy and it puts programs and people at risk. In response, my organization, along with other funders and First Southwest Bank, launched the Colorado Nonprofit Bridge Loan Fund. We expected to make four loans in the first year. Instead, we received 21 applications almost immediately. That demand underscores the scale of this problem and why philanthropy alone cannot solve it House Bill 1274 addresses this challenge responsibly The amended bill gives state agencies the option not the mandate to provide advanced payments based on immediate cash needs, uses risk assessments approved by the state controller, and requires clear budgets and reporting to ensure strong accountability for public funds. We thank you all for the work that's been done and really feel that this approach will modernize state grant practices It will expand access for smaller nonprofit organizations to be able to apply for grant dollars and will help taxpayer dollars achieve their intended impact. It will also deepen the partnerships between state and nonprofit organizations intended through these grant opportunities. And I respectfully request that you vote yes on this bill. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Amaha. And then, yeah, it turns yellow when it's 30 seconds, just FYI. And you may go ahead. Good afternoon, committee members. My name is Jessamyn Lockhart, and I serve as the vice president at the Public Education and Business Coalition, PEBC, and I'm here to speak in support of House Bill 1274. I'd like to thank the bill's sponsors, Senators Wallace and Wiseman, for carrying this important bill. PEBC is a nonprofit in Denver that works across Colorado, partnering with urban, rural, and suburban school districts to provide professional development for teachers and school leaders and to bring more teachers to the state through the PEBC teacher residency, one of the oldest and largest teacher residency programs in the nation. We've trained over 1,500 teachers in Colorado as an approved licensure provider, and our model is proven to improve teacher retention. 81% of our alumni remain in the classroom after five years, which is far higher than the national average. PEBC has been the beneficiary of multiple grants from the state, mostly through the Department of Education. We've worked over the years to address the teacher shortage via our teacher residency program, provide better training for mentor teachers and school principals and offer living stipends to teacher candidates to honor their commitment to the hard work they do during their training year operating a statewide residency program that's responsive to the needs of future teachers and the districts that we partner with is complex works this year we're alone we're working with 25 different school districts numerous charter schools and 40% of our partners are in rural communities we have full-time staff across the state and because we believe that members of the local community are best equipped to support their educators. The current state grant program system where grants are distributed as reimbursement can lead to financial strain on our organization and has led to us needing to make difficult decisions like cutting FTE and reducing the amount of support our teachers who are working to serve each and every learner in our schools is less. This bill would create flexibility to provide the option of upfront funding and lessen the operational cash strain that we feel as a nonprofit organization. And we think at PEBC that this is a strong solution to better support grantees and ensure that there are no service interruptions due to a lack of funding. Thank you for your time, and I respectfully ask for your support. Thank you, Ms. Lockhart. And now we'll go right here. Easier, I think. All right. Just click on when I'm ready to go. Great. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of House Bill 26-1274. My name is Marco Dorado, and I'm Managing Director of Communities Lead, Communities Thrive, a statewide coalition of small nonprofits working to improve how the state partners with the organizations delivering essential services in our communities. Last summer CLCT held listening sessions with more than 40 nonprofit leaders across Colorado organizations serving rural communities youth immigrant families LGBTQ folks and people experiencing housing instability These conversations helped us better understand how the state funding systems work in practice for non-profits delivering services on the front lines. One of the most consistent themes we heard was the challenge created by state reimbursement based grants. Leaders described having to work, having to weeks or months of program costs before receiving payment from the state. Some organizations reported delaying services while waiting for reimbursement. In one case, a non-profit leader shared that they had to open a personal line of credit just to cover payroll while waiting for reimbursement from a state grant. These organizations that want to partner with the state to serve their communities, but the current system can make that partnership financially risky or even inaccessible. That's why the advance payment option in this bill is so important. This legislation preserves existing oversight and accountability requirements while giving state agencies the flexibility to structure payments to better support their nonprofit partners and the programs they deliver. By allowing advance payments when appropriate, agencies can strengthen the partnerships they rely on to carry out state funded services. Nonprofits serve as essential partners to the state, connecting communities to the services they need. And that partnership is adequately supported through responsive funding mechanisms, programs launch on time, staff turnover decreases, and communities experience fewer service disruptions, strengthening outcomes for both the state and the people these programs are designed to serve. On behalf of CLCT and our coalition, I respectfully urge you to support House 1226-1274. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dorado.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Stuart Jenkins, and I serve as the Executive Director of the Calder Alliance of Boys and Girls Clubs, representing the 18 club organizations across our state. I'm here today to express our strong support for House Bill 1274. At Boys and Girls Clubs, we work every day to ensure that young people, especially those who need us most, have access to safe, supportive, and enriching environments after school. State grant funding plays a critical role in making that possible, and the way that those funds are dispersed is critical to the day-to-day operations for community-based organizations like ours on the ground. These challenges are exactly why intermediary organizations like the Alliance exist. We help reduce administrative and financial burdens so that smaller nonprofits in our network can focus on serving youth, and we expand access to state funding for clubs, especially rural communities that otherwise might not have the capacity to navigate complex grant requirements or front significant costs. Even with that support, the current system still creates real barriers. Many of our clubs, particularly in rural and smaller communities, operate on very lean budgets. They don't have large reserves or lines of credit. When grants are structured as reimbursement-based or when there are delays in disbursement, clubs have been in the position of taking on significant program costs for months at a time. In fact, some of our organizations have experienced reimbursement delays of up to three months, amounting to tens of thousands of dollars in expenses they've had to carry. While those moments are thankfully rare, that kind of financial strain doesn't just affect balance sheets, it directly impacts our ability to hire staff, keep programs running consistently, and serving kids and families without interruption. House Bill 1274 offers a practical, thoughtful, and flexible solution. By improving how and when these grant funds are distributed, including the use of advanced payments, this bill helps ensure that nonprofits can focus on delivering high-quality services rather than managing cash flow uncertainty. This is especially important right now as out-of-school time programs across Colorado are simultaneously facing increased demand and funding reductions. Making sure that existing state investments are deployed effectively and efficiently is more important than ever. We are grateful to Centers Wallace and Weissman for championing this issue on behalf of community-based organizations and for bringing forward a solution that reflects the realities that nonprofits like our clubs face as business operators. On behalf of our clubs, I respectfully urge your support for House Bill 1274. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Dorado, I'd just like to understand, after your listening session had been completed, meeting with the nonprofit organizations who would be impacted by this bill, I'd just like to hear your perspectives on outside of this policy, what else the state could be doing to better support these organizations.

And we do a lot of grants. So, okay. Seeing no further questions, we'll go ahead and dismiss this panel. Thank you for your testimony today. This will be the last call if anybody would like to testify on behalf of House Bill 1274. Seeing none, the testimony phase will close. Sponsors, do you have amendments?

Committee, do we have amendments?

So we're going to close the amendment phase. Wrap up.

Senator Wiseman. Thanks, Madam Chair and committee. Look, briefly, when we as a state choose to engage with nonprofit partners, it's an acknowledgement that we can't do everything ourselves or in some cases that we may not be the best entities to do things that we nonetheless want to get done as a policy choice matter. Given that, we should not erect barriers to nonprofits that want to work with us as the state to accomplish our shared goals. Some nonprofits obviously have been managing, even if they're carrying three or four months of float. But we know that we have effectively been screening out a lot of nonprofits that just can't manage that. We flat should not be requiring anybody to go get a bank loan or put something on their credit card because we're taking that long to make the disbursements for services already performed. in reliance on the state. Now, again, it is tax dollars. We have to be careful. We have a pretty exacting set of rules in 1274. Nobody's guaranteed to get an advanced disbursement, and no department is required to even offer it. But we're trying to set up a framework here to put a little bit more carefully managed flexibility into state granting, and I think over time that will allow us to achieve our program objectives better and we'll open up the doors to participating in all of this to newer nonprofits that are probably better distributed around the state because including smaller ones in some of our smaller communities. So we ask for a yes vote. Thank you.

Senator Wallace can you move your bill please Yes ma I was just going to say I move House Bill 1274 to the Committee on Appropriations with a favorable recommendation

Mr. Saeed?

My bad.

Sanders Gonzalez Aye Altanar No Samara Wilson Respectfully no Wallace Aye Madam Chair Aye

Yes, and I will try to be quick. I understand that we don't have any witnesses signed up, so I will do my very best to field any questions the committee has. Right now, the Colorado Commission on Higher Education has 11 voting members, and not a single one of them is a current student. These are the people who set policy on tuition, student fees, academic programs, and more. And the students those decisions directly affect have no formal voice in the room. House Bill 26-1029 changes that. It expands the commission from 11 to 13 members by adding two non-voting student members, one from a four-year university or graduate research institution, and one from a community, local district, or area technical college. And that second seat matters a lot to me. In my district, students at Ames, in Loveland, in Front Range, right up the road in Fort Collins, are working adults, first-gen college students, people balancing two jobs and family responsibility. They are exactly the students whose experiences should be shaping state higher ed policy. And they have historically been the least represented I also want to note the amendment adopted on third reading in the House which made a technical but important correction ensuring that the standard political affiliation balance requirement applies to the full commission, including the student members, without carving them out. It was a clean, sensible fix and one that makes the bill stronger. This bill also makes a corresponding adjustment to the advisory committee, removing the existing student rep slot from that body, since students will now have direct representation on the commission itself. As a former teacher, I believe voice and representation aren't just nice-to-haves. They're how you build systems that actually work for the people they serve. This bill is a small but meaningful step, and I ask for your support. I'm happy to try to answer any questions you may have. Thank you so much.

No, ma'am.

Let the students have a spot on the commission. I'd urge your aye vote.

I will just say I was also glad to see the seat for community colleges and technical folks. I also went to community college, too, and I will say that the transfer between the two of them was difficult, Whereas community college felt like it was set up for me, a working very much full-time student, it was also set up for single moms working three jobs. And when I went to a traditional four-year institution, it didn't feel like it translated quite as well. And I think that having those voices there together on this commission will be useful to the sort of picture overall. So I thank you so much for your work on that and on this bill in general.

Yes, ma'am. I move House Bill 1029 to the Committee on Appropriations.

Sanders, consults. Aye. Pelton R. Aye. Samarelson. Respectfully, no. Marchman. Aye. Madam Chair.