Colorado House 2026 Legislative Day 119

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Mr. Schiebel, please call the roll.

Yeah.

And Madam Speaker. Thank you. 12 excused. We do have a quorum.

This is the strangest of motions, Mr. Minority Leader. Members, you have heard the motion that the journal be approved as corrected by the chief clerk. All those in favor say aye.

No. The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. Announcements, introductions. Questions? Well. Okay. That's a first. Is anybody really listening to them? No. Okay. Go ahead. Announcement. Rep Clifford. Thank you, Madam Speaker. State affairs will be meeting at some point today in room 107 Representative Woodrow Thank you Mr Speaker Pro Tem it an honor to serve with you Honor to serve with you Members, uh, house finance will be meeting in room 112 at some point today to hear bills assigned to the committee. See you then. Any further announcements and introductions? Members, we are going to be moving into business. If you could take your seats. Majority Leader Duran. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. I move to proceed out of order for consideration of resolutions. Seeing no objection, we will proceed out of order for consideration of resolutions. Madam Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker Pro Tem, I move for the immediate consideration of House Joint Resolution 26-1031 and Senate Joint Resolution 26-025. Seeing no objection, we will proceed to the immediate consideration of House Joint Resolution 1031 and Senate Joint Resolution 25. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of House Joint Resolution 1031. House Joint Resolution 1031 by Representatives McCluskey and Duran, also Senators Coleman and Rodriguez, concerning the designation of the convening date for the first regular session of the 76th General Assembly and the addition of a joint rule establishing deadlines that apply to the Senate and House of Representatives for the session based on the convening date. Madam Speaker. Thank you. Mr. Speaker Pro Tem, what an honor it is to serve with you. An honor to serve with you. I move House Joint Resolution 1031 and beg you not to read it at length. That is a very proper motion. Please proceed. Members, this resolution sets the starting date of the 76th General Assembly. And I am sorry to say I will not be here on January 11th, 2027, when you all will begin, many of you will begin again. We ask for an aye vote and want to commend our minority leader for going along with our decision-making process on when we should begin the next session. Really appreciate where we have landed. January 11th will be the start date. Madam Majority Leader. Thank you Mr. Speaker Pro Tem and it is an honor to serve with you. An honor to serve with you. And I would ditto what the speaker has just said and we'll see you on January 11th 2027. Seeing no further discussion the motion before us is for the adoption of House Joint Resolution 1031. Mr. Schiebel please open the machine and members please proceed to vote. That's all right. Valdez, story. are excused. Please close the machine. With 55 aye votes, 5 no votes, and 5 excused, House Joint Resolution 1031 is adopted. Co Thank you Co Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of Senate Joint Resolution 25 Senate Joint Resolution 25 by Senator Simpson, also Speaker McCluskey concerning recognition of the 150th anniversary of the Colorado Mining Association the oldest mining association in the United States Speaker McCluskey Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem I move Senate Joint Resolution 25 and ask that the be it resolved paragraph be read. Mr. Shebo. Be it resolved by the Senate of the 75th General Assembly of the State of Colorado, the House of Representatives concurring herein, that the General Assembly recognizes the Colorado Mining Association for its foundational role in Colorado's history and its continued representation of the mining industry to support responsible development for vital mineral resources. Madam Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker pro tem. The Colorado Mining Association is celebrating its 150th anniversary, as is our state. It is the oldest mining association in the United States, and I am so proud to be from a district that represents the mining industry from its earliest days until now. Mining was instrumental in Colorado's development and path to statehood. Many communities throughout our state owe their continued prosperity to the miners who originally made them their homes. I am proud to represent some of our state's most iconic mining communities, including Leadville. Not only is Leadville home to the National Mining Hall of Fame, it's also the location of the Climax Molybdenum Mine, an impressive open pit mine many of us have toured and visited. It's places like Leadville, the history of the Tabor's silver mining, and all of the mining across our beautiful mountain regions that make us so proud to be a part of this history. Mining is just a part of our past. If we want to meet our climate goals and economic goals, we need a vibrant and responsible mining association and industry. The Colorado Mining Association has been instrumental in ensuring safety, mitigating environmental impacts, reclaiming legacy mine sites, and implementing the most advanced and innovative mining practices in Colorado and the world. It is critical that we honor the role of the mining industry today, and I am proud to carry this resolution alongside Representative Soper. Representative Soper. Thank you, Mr. Speaker of Pro Tem. In the earliest days of mining, you had to be the first to get to your claim, and then you had to protect your claim. Just like on the resolution, if you don't respond right away, your name may not appear directly there. But I will say my grandfather was one who was probably involved with the Colorado Mining Association and a member of the Denver Mining Club. And he always talked about the importance of mining and how it developed our great state. you may have heard of the San Francisco 49ers. 49 refers to when the gold rush began in California. However, the 59ers, that refers to when the gold rush began in Colorado, and certainly many people were able to make their riches in our great state by being entrepreneurs and innovators, including the gentleman whose picture is above us here today, Mr. Barney Ford. He was a grub staker, one who understood that if you gave someone a pick and a shovel and asked for just a few shares of stock, a certain number of these guys would actually be very successful, and his grub staking ventures led to him being one of Colorado's richest men and later ensuring that we would not become a state unless it were a free state. So mining has made lots of people very successful here in Colorado, but mining continues to shape our state. We continue to innovate. Lots of new technologies are developed in Colorado, and that's why many nations come to Colorado to learn from our techniques and good stewardship that we have here to offer, and I'm proud to be the first name on this resolution. Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is for the adoption of Senate Joint Resolution 25. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine, and members, please proceed to vote. Please close the machine. With 60 aye votes, 0 no votes, and 5 excused, the resolution is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel. Reports of committees of reference. Committee on appropriations. After consideration on the merits, a committee recommends the following. Senate Bills 80 as amended, 170 and 185 be referred to the Committee of the Whole with Fable Recommendation. Committee on Judiciary. After consideration on the merits, a committee recommends the following. Senate Bills 72 and 190 be referred to the Committee of the Whole with Fable Recommendation. Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move that the following bills be made special orders on May 12, 2026 at 929 a.m. Senate Bill 170, Senate Bill 125, Senate Bill 72, Senate Bill 190, Senate Bill 80, and Senate Bill 185. Seeing no objection, the bills listed by the Majority Leader will be made special orders today, May 12th at 9.29 a.m. Representative Gilchrist. Members, you have heard the motions. Seeing no objection, Representative Gilchrist will take the chair. Thank you Thank you. The committee will come to order. With your unanimous consent, the bills will be read by title unless there's a request for reading a bill at length. Committee reports are printed in your bill folders. Floor amendments will be shown on the screen on iLegislate and in today's folder on your box account. Bills will be laid over upon the motion of the majority leader. The coat rule is relaxed. Mr. Sheebel. Please read the title of Senate Bill 170. Senate Bill 170 by Senators Coleman and Bright, also Representative Bacon, concerning creating a task force to study how to expand access to effective public schools for Colorado students. Representative Martinez. Thank you, Madam Chair. It's an honor to serve with you. Honor to serve with you as well. I move Senate Bill 170. To the bill. Amel Bacon. Sorry. It's a little early. Good morning, members. Senate Bill 170 is a bill to pull together a task force for us to examine new and innovative ways to address opportunity gaps and achievement gaps here in the state of Colorado. We work diligently with school districts, with our educators, and those in the educational landscape to identify what it is that we're looking for through the terms opportunity gaps. We believe that between now and the beginning of next session, we will be able to coalesce many people in the landscape, again, to look at innovative opportunities and to put forward any potential directions that we can go in. How this task force differs from other task force done before is that we specifically, what is unique about this bill is that we have different participants than what we've seen before. We are ensuring that we hear voices from all four corners of the state. And the purpose of this task force is to challenge ourselves to look beyond what it is that we've typically done as a matter of practice in this state. And with that, I will hand it over to my co-prime. Representative Martinez. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senate Bill 170 is a targeted and fiscally responsible approach to a substantial policy problem that the state of Colorado has worked on for decades. We are not building something from scratch. We are leveraging existing knowledge and focusing on understanding where we are seeing real progress for students. This bill creates a structured way to identify what is already driving results and make that information available to others who want to learn from it. It does not create a new top approach or mandate or require districts or schools to adopt any specific practices Senate Bill 170 is grounded in Colorado values deep respect for educators and an acknowledgement that we have a responsibility as a state to ensure more students can succeed. We have heard about the broad interest in this work from educators, leaders, and organizations across the state. That kind of alignment matters, especially in education politics. The Senate President, I, and AML Bacon believe deeply that we can do this. We can build an education system that serves all kids, not just those in the right zip codes. For those reasons, we respectfully ask for your yes vote on Senate Bill 170. Representative Garcia-Sander. Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to just come up and explain my no vote in committee. When I spoke with one of the lobbyists about this before we heard it in committee, I asked, how many principals and teachers did you talk to about this? And there was no answer. As a teacher and as a principal for almost 30 years now, I have seen tons of studies and tons of task forces, a lot from CDE. I've been part of some of those. and this is just, if you had asked, if the lobbyists had asked a teacher or a school principal, what do you think about this bill? They would have said, oh great, another one that's not going to help me in my classroom. And actually, during testimony, I had asked a couple of panels if they had heard about a book called Visible Learning that has all the research, that has all the information that we need. And that's been out there for the last 12, 15 years. And our CDE has supported that work and has shared that information with principals and teachers. Principals and teachers are already doing this work. And I was actually looking at the reason this bill came about, and I kept hearing, well, we have opportunity deserts. Yes, opportunity gaps. and I heard the term opportunity deserts out in our eastern plains schools our rural schools and I have to say that our rural schools are pretty rich with students who are better scholars who have lots of opportunities both in and outside of school and so while this bill is creating a task force to study how to expand access to effective public schools for Colorado students we already know that the research is out there we've had too many task forces over the years we've had too many people reading research and then sharing research it I understand the fiscal note is not coming at a charge to the state is coming from a gift grant and donation and that has already been been secured but I guess my point is that school teachers and school principals aren't looking for another task force. They're not looking for another report. They already know. And so that's why in committee I voted no because it's really unnecessary. As a teacher and principal who's lived through all these, we already know it's just, unfortunately, money that could be spent actually targeting some interventions or doing some good work instead of it being in a task force. So I will be continuing to vote no on this and I urge your consideration of a no vote also Representative Brooks Chair thank you You know, I love my colleague coming up here who has a background in education, because then that gives me a little perspective as well. You know, I'm just generally kind of grumpy and don't like this bill for a number of reasons, but at least her coming from an education standpoint validates some of my grumpiness. Because I'll tell you that today's gifts, grants, and donations is tomorrow's appropriation line. So I disagree that this is fiscally responsible. It's fiscally responsible as it looks now, but it will not be fiscally responsible a couple of years down the road when either the gifts, grants, and donations don't come in to the extent that it takes in order to cover the funding line, and then now it's getting a general fund appropriation. But gifts, grants, and donations, just period, which I'm seeing a flurry of gifts, grants, and donations activity here in the last 10 days. Maybe it's because everybody thinks that we're trying to get out of here and not really paying close attention to the policy. But the gifts, grants, and donations is simply a marker. It holds a spot. It holds a spot for an appropriation line. Oops, we didn't end up getting as much money as we thought that we would get from the gifts, grants, and donations. So now that it's already an appropriation line, we'll appropriate that money out of the general fund. So here we go again, bleeding out money that we do not have under the guise of fiscal responsibility. That is not fiscally responsible. That's being fiscally evasive with our money. I would ask for, I'm not crazy about the policy to begin with anyway, but just based on the fact that we're playing a little bit of a let's move the money around kind of game, I would ask for a no vote here. Because still, we're in a place to where we're going to be dealing with the deficit next year. We know we're going to be dealing with the deficit. So let's just not keep adding to the pile. Ask for a no. Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Chair. This program is seeking to study, among other things, the current state of opportunity gaps for public school students. How are opportunity gaps measured? That's a good question. One of the key measurements, if not the sole measurement, for opportunity gaps in public schools is the CMAS testing. Did you know that many rural school students and their families opt out of CMAS testing? It begs the question, is the data that is going to be used to do this study accurate in determining the efficacy of teachers? Is it a good measure? I support what my colleague from Weldon Larimer, I believe, Larimer, yeah, Weldon Larimer, has said related to the fact that this is not worth pursuing. It's more of a feel-good than an actual add-to, since there have been so many things done in this space. But if we are going to do this, we need to make sure that the measures we're using to do this study are assisting us in really understanding what is going on on the ground. And if we aren't doing that, then really it's Wasted money two times over. Because one, we already have data that points to good practices, and two, if we're using flawed data, then we're not really getting a clear picture here in Colorado. I'd continue to ask for a no vote. Representative DeGraff. Thank you, Madam Speaker. This feels once again like a great intention. no money supposedly gifts, grants and donations but those do I think get still into a category where they can be replenished by cash funds so if it's gifts, grants and donations I'm not really sure why we need a bill for a task force when we could, this is something that I think the schools already should be doing. I mean one thing that we could be doing is be increasing the level of accountability and parents can increase the level of accountability on their school boards by getting involved in the school board process, making sure that their school board actually represents the values of their community and is using the funds wisely in a matter of educational opportunities, disparities, looking at disparities in outcomes, or really you want opportunities, you want outcomes, and you want achievement, and growth in graduation rates would be a, I mean, that's not a good metric because then you just end up pushing forward with more growth. Because one of the things that it doesn't really say here is that meets or exceeds standards, which is currently at about 25%, whereas about 80% graduate. That is something that can be handled by the community at their local level and make sure that they replace the people with people who will hold their schools to a higher level standard. I don't think this, again, this is just kicking the can down the road to predetermined conclusions. I don't know what those predetermined conclusions are, but I'll be a no, and I recommend a no vote. Seeing, is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of Senate Bill 170. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 170 is passed. Mr. Schiebel, can you please read the title of Senate Bill 125? Senate Bill 125 by Senators Colker and March Minelts, Representatives Bacon and Phillips, concerning disability rights protections in public schools. AML Bacon to the Judiciary Report. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 125. And the Judiciary Committee report. Oh, yes, I remember. Okay. To the Judiciary Report. Thank you. In Judiciary, we actually made some... Sorry, I'm looking at the folks in the back. In the Judiciary Committee, we amended the bill to be clearer on the expectations of the effective date of the enforcement provisions of the bill. and with that Madam Chair we ask for an aye vote. Is there any further discussion on the Judiciary Report? Seeing none the question before us is the passage of the Judiciary Report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. The ayes have it. The Judiciary Report is passed. AML Bacon to the bill. Yes Madam Chair I move L10 and ask that it be displayed One moment Whatever that was in the back I wish I was a part of it What committee is it? Oh, energy? Is that energy? I don't know. Okay, it is properly displayed. Please describe L-010. Sorry, we're just going to do business down here. And so members, this is a technical amendment found by our drafter, we need to be sure that we can allow the department to designate someone to operate. And with that, we ask for an aye vote. Is there any further discussion on Amendment L010? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of L010. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those in favor say no. The ayes have it. L010 has passed. Representative Phillips. Thank you, Madam Chair. It's an honor to serve with you. Honor to serve with you as well. Members, this bill is for accommodations for students with disabilities. Sometimes those accommodations can be simple things like extra time on a test if you have ADHD. Members, could we keep our voices down to the side? Please continue. Thank you. Representative Phillips. Or it could be extra time to get through a hallway if you have a physical disability. And those are typically implemented with no problem. But this bill is addressing when accommodations are not implemented. For example, a life-threatening allergy. For example, a student with one leg that needs to use an elevator and does not get access from the school, even though it's required on their 504 plan. Or a student with mental health issues, anxiety or depression, that needs counselor check-ins and does not receive those counselor check-ins, which can and has led to suicide in Colorado. The Office of Civil Rights U.S. Department of Education typically enforces the implementation of these accommodations, but with the recent massive layoffs, they are unable to do so currently. So what this bill does is allows Colorado Department of Education to be able to accept complaints with the same process that the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights also accepts complaints. because if the U.S. Department of Education cannot protect Colorado kids with disabilities, then the Colorado Department of Education can. We ask for a yes vote. Any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of Senate Bill 125 as amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. Seeing none, the ayes have it. Senate Bill 125 as amended passes. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of Senate Bill 72. Senate Bill 72 by Senators Carson and Snyder, also Representative Espinoza, concerning increasing criminal penalties related to assault of conduct with a motor vehicle and any connection therewith, adding the conduct of causing the death of another person with a motor vehicle to the crime of criminally negligent homicide. Representative Espinoza. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 72. Representative Espinoza, to the bill. Yes, to the bill. So House Bill 72, you've seen a portion of this because it was amended into House Bill 1281. However, this was a separate bill that was running in the Senate, and we don't know what the fate of any of the other bills are, so we want to make sure that we're adding this provision specifically to our criminal statutes. Currently we have a misdemeanor for careless driving resulting in death and we have vehicular homicide which is a higher more difficult penalty to prove Our district attorneys have indicated that in circumstances where there is criminal negligence that results in the death of the vehicle that the criminal negligence statute, at least they believe, is not sufficiently identified to allow them to use that statute effectively. Therefore, what we are doing in this bill is adding the element of criminal negligence with a motor vehicle to the statute, creating an F-5 felony for those circumstances where a death occurs in a criminally negligent manner involving an automobile. That's the first part in Title 18, and the remainder of the bill makes conforming amendments in Title 42, which is our traffic laws. This is an excellent bill to fill a gap that currently exists in prosecution capacity, and we would ask for an affirmative vote. Representative Carter. Representative Carter. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Representative Luck.

Representative Espinosa.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of Senate Bill 72. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 72 is passed. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of Senate Bill 190.

Representative English.

Representative English?

Members, can you please take your conversations to the side? Sorry about that. Representative English. Thank you.

Can y'all go over there? Thank you.

Representative Jackson.

Representative Joseph.

Representative Bottoms.

Representative Bottoms, could you speak to the bill, please?

So here's the second part of this. The House will go into recess. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Okay, the House will come back to order. I just also, before we begin again, just want to level set. This is really heavy policy discussions, important, impactful policy discussions. We have families in the room. We have law enforcement in the room. Everyone should be heard and understand each other's sides and just ask for respect in this moment that we remember we're in the well. And so with that, Representative Bodden.

Didn't say anything to me, didn't tell me what it was about. One of the things that happened, these are the details, is when I got out of my car and I was white, They didn't say, oh, I'm sorry, you're white, get back in your car. They had me over the hood. I don't know if anybody in this room has been over the hood with handcuffs being put on you. I have, and I didn't do anything. I've had a lot of people ask me about that afterwards. I told them, that's the police doing their job. For some reason, they thought I was a bad guy, probably from my car. It wasn't the greatest car. I don't know what was going on. They never told me, but I think the police did their job there. I never regret it and never felt bad about it. I think they did their job. Now, one of the things that I think is important about this bill that I greatly appreciate is that it would give the information. That's for everybody. I want to know the information about every cop shooting. I want to know the information about everything. But here's the thing. Let's go back to one of the examples that was used, George Floyd. If this bill would have been around during that time, this is the evidence we would have had, that he did not die from a police officer. He died from drug addiction, drug issues. Representative Bottoms, to the bill, please. This was brought up by the other side. George Floyd died because of drug complications, not a cop. George Floyd was a thug, and that narrative is old. Representative Bottoms, please, to the bill. That narrative is old and outdated And we need to move on He held a gun to a pregnant woman's belly The House will go into a brief recess Thank you. 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. Representative Bottoms.

Representative Carter.

Amo Winter thank you Madam Chair and I know as we try to turn down the rhetoric I don't believe that my colleagues see people that way because to say we all feel that way is incorrect man I'm just being honest with you I'm here in good faith I have conversations and I don't feel that way and it isn't that I don't care. It isn't that I don't care. And I think a lot of people in my caucus take offense to that because I think that we do work in good faith. And I'm just saying, I just, I mean, the blanket statement that y'all just see us as criminals and that you don't understand and you don't give enough care to care, I just, I can't subscribe to that. So if we're trying to bring down the temperature and we're trying to level set and be good with each other, I mean, you know, we talk about impugning people's motives. I just don't believe there's a lot of people on this side of the aisle that are bad people or look at anybody different. So, I mean, I just...

Representative Silber. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, we heard this bill last night in House Judiciary. I guess we are back in the game Standing here listening to the debate and having listened to a lot of witness testimony last night I think I can fairly say I can agree with both my colleague from southeastern Colorado and my colleague from Aurora. There's a personal story I'd like to share. But I can't. It's not my story. It belongs to a family friend. It does involve an officer's shooting, which the individual was killed by police. Without revealing details of the matter, what I will say is the demand to release the images did not bring about a story that the individual was innocent. It actually portrayed the opposite. I put that out there because there was a premise last night, and I believe that premise has continued on to today, that the full release of all body cam images, including the squad car images, leads to a result that the person who was killed by law enforcement was innocent. It could be, but it might not be. Everything in law is entirely fact-specific. And those general statements that we heard over and over again in committee, they might be true for all those cases, but we also don't know. At least I did not know the specifics of each one of those cases that were there. I did feel for every person who testified, because the loss of a loved one, whether your loved one was in the wrong or not, is one less life, and every life has meaning. And we need to recognize that. The bill is about the release of body cam images. And really the heart of the bill is ensuring that family members have an opportunity to be found by law enforcement, to be able to come in and view the images, and to view unredacted images so that they can hear the audio, they can see the visual. Nothing is held back, and then those images will later be released publicly. But there's also the side in the bill that talks about wanting to protect the integrity of the case that may emerge or may later emerge. And we heard testimony from the sheriffs, for example, who were a bit concerned about some of the language in the bill on page 8 of the bill. Or 7. Thank you, 7.

It is 7. It talks about extrajudicial statements are presumed to have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding on a criminal matter. And aside from all that we've talked about throughout this debate, we need to go back to what's written in the bill. this extrajudicial statement piece about subjective observations including observations about a decedent or witness character credibility or about the decedent or witness's guilt of a crime, or information concerning prior criminal records of a decedent or witness, It is important that we do not pass a bill that has laid in here the possibility of tainting any sort of a criminal case that may emerge from the early release of images and statements that may have been made or inferences that may have occurred at the time of the showing of the images. emotions will run high whenever there has been an officer-involved shooting there's a lot of information that is being gathered at that particular time the bill talks about the immediacy of allowing the families to see the images which i'm okay with but we also need to recognize there may still be a larger criminal investigation that's taking place because now you have an investigation into the officer-involved shooting, but you still have the underlying criminal investigation that's taking place because you need to be asking the questions, why did the officer resort to the use of force? What was going on that led to that particular point? And there could be statements that could be made there that could taint any sort of an investigation, whether it's into the officer or whether it's into the decedent and the facts that took place before the incident happened. I asked the sponsors last night. This is an area I'd still like to see them address. We did not see an amendment here today, and given that it's a Senate bill on the eve of Senediye, we're probably unlikely to see that addressed here. Because of that, it does give me pause, because I'm a yes vote on the bill. But yet, we also need to make sure that we aren't teeing up a situation to where the pending investigation, whichever way it's going, towards law enforcement or towards the decedent or towards people who survived, who may have been accomplices. I mean, let's not forget how complex these matters are. That to have a one-size-fits-all is a bit concerning. And I still would like to see these words addressed. And in conclusion, I would just say that, you know, we should release these to the families. but I do want everyone who's listening here today to know that just because a full unredacted version is released that doesn't mean that it shows the person was not culpable or it doesn't mean that they were an angel, it doesn't mean that they were a devil we don't know what happens in each individual case They're so fact specific. And I just want to remind the chamber that, you know, there's too much to be able to presume that one size fits all. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't really know what I'm going to say yet. I'll start talking a little bit about the process. I'm proud of how we deal with police issues in Colorado. I'm proud of the reforms that we have put in. I know that when Senate Bill 217 was passed, you couldn't find a cop in the ethos that thought that it was okay for the General Assembly to say that everybody should wear a body cam. And for the last two or three years, as we've engaged very large working groups from law enforcement, you couldn't get cops to give them back. Change around this place is something that comes through deliberation and work. And I have issues with rhetoric on both sides. I do not view our police officers as murderers. Again, I said the other day, most police officers have zero idea where they're going today or what situation they're going to be in or what call they're going to. or who they're going to pull over, or who's speeding, or who's going to be in a domestic violence situation, or whether they're going to pull their gun out of that holster that day. None of them start the day off thinking that that's how that day is going to go. And on the other side, from time to time, we do have bad apples that make it into the profession of policing. and one of the things that makes me proud in this state as opposed to some other places that I've lived is I see the cops being willing to hold themselves to account. Now we are in the place of policy. We are in the place where when people haven't gotten resolution they come to us and therein lies another proud moment. I don't know of a single legitimate issue that has ever been brought to the General Assembly about police officers, certainly since I've been here, that didn't get taken seriously and then didn't have action. And I think that this bill is a great example of that. Now, one of the things I'll say about this bill is it didn't happen in a vacuum. It started with families meeting with Rep. Bacon and then more of us and more of us for a number of months until something culminated into a question to be answered, like we have identified a problem, how do we solve it? but then it was also the police that came to the table and sat down and painstakingly worked with the sponsors through this until we got to a piece of policy that I think is really damn good and the fact that we're sitting outside committee last night and having a conversation about extrajudicial statements being made by the investigators and we're getting down to the nitty-gritty of two possible words in a bill is a testament of just how good it is, that that all that we can find left to work on in this piece of policy It is very very hard to get that many people to agree about something at one time So I want to acknowledge everybody that was involved in this bill. I'm looking up at a lady that's been chartering this water since it was a thought. and then she came and got the ear of people and you were heard. If you have an issue that's not working, you will get heard here. I believe it. I see it every day. If you have something that needs to be changed in law, we will be responsive. And I am, you know, I use the word, I don't know, shocked, surprised, et cetera, at how this policy came about and landed in the place that it did, where when I read this re-engrossed bill for the first time yesterday, I was like, wow. That's good policy. I want to address one thing that Rep Soper said about a conversation related to those extrajudicial statements. And I'm going to say a couple things because this is for the police officers as well. Investigators already have a rule that they shouldn't run their mouths. This is not a change in law. It's a reiteration of something. This is not saying all police officers can't throw spaghetti against a wall to see what sticks. It is not that the police chief can't say nice things about a police officer in a funeral even on a bad day. It's not that cops can't stand around and opine about things and chit-chat while they're trying to figure out the details and the nature of a particular case. Sometimes in a chaotic scene, a lot of things get said that we later find out weren't whatsoever. And I joke. The second cop tells the third cop. The third cop tells the fourth cop. The fourth cop tells the fifth cop that shows up. And by the time you get to number 11, what number 11 heard from what number 2 saw isn't even remotely the same thing. And that's why we call them investigations. We go back and we figure those facts out. And we pull this footage out. And we lay things out until we get the facts. And that's what investigators do. and we expect for them to stick to the facts. And what that means for the general public about an extrajudicial statement is we don't want you going and saying, I think this guy was a bad guy, tainting the jury of the public when they don't know yet. Now that's very different than I watched the film and saw him do X, Y, Z. we called those facts. I observed this as a fact. I think this is an extrajudicial statement. So I'm comfortable with where this ended up. I think this is really good policy. And, you know, I don't know those of you that got whatever about the conversation today. I appreciate that everybody has a right to speak in this well. and represent whomever they represent I have defended the rights of people that I can hardly stand to listen to sometimes when they come down here because I believe that they are representing who sent them This is a place of policy. We resolve issues as a matter of policy in here. I appreciate the dialogue on both sides. Some of it is sometimes hard to hear. And at the end of this day, I hope that we all recognize that what we put on paper and that we're affixing to the pages of our law books today is something that's really good for families. It's really good for the police. And even if there's some people out there that don't like it today, it's going to make the profession of policing better in this state because of what got written here. And for that, I am immensely proud. And I hope that we can end this debate and vote. Yes.

All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I'm not going to respond to the impugning of my motives. And I'll just tell you, it's very difficult to come down here after an emotional appeal, especially because I have some issues with the policy itself. and that's what our job here is. Now, when we're looking at the value of life, I always go back to the values of our republic, which we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And it is very disappointing in humanity when anybody takes joy in the death of anybody else, especially in a situation like this, because we have to go back to remembering that we have a system that is based on innocent until proven guilty. And that bar of proven guilty should be very high, and it should also be very high for the accused on either side of this issue, whether it's the decedent or the law enforcement officer who had the very unfortunate life circumstance of being involved in taking somebody else's life. I don't think anybody ever gets over that. I have friends who are on the military side, not on the police side, but on the military side who have taken the lives of combatants. That's a horrible experience. That haunts them. This is not a casual event. I don't have a problem with anybody saying black lives matter because I believe all lives matter. I think a lot of our problem with our devaluing of life is because we don't recognize that pre-born lives matter. and when pre-born lives don't matter, none do. Rights are a funny thing that they either all for one or none for all But we need to have the policy around discussion and you can truncate the discussion of policy for a motion I remember the whole conversation about police and body cams, and recognized that I think the biggest defenders of body cams right now are police. now I also know that there's a big issue around the body cams because those body cams record a lot they record everything and that everything creates a big problem it's truth it's truth and what they record is a version or an aspect of the truth It's not the encompassing truth. And sometimes we have to remember that one of the things about truth is that truth hurts. The law enforcement on the other side of that body camera are also innocent until proven guilty. And when we decide to put everybody on the Truman Show, by the release of body cams, you are going to have a chilling effect on law enforcement. These things have been looked at in surgical rooms, on the flight decks. Do you put a camera in there and record everybody all the time? Now, when you look at, say, the, I would say, I would dare say, as much training as the law enforcement has for the use of force, I mean, it's very fortunate that they use it very little. And then when you get into an actual situation where those events happen, you are going to have, emotions are going to run high. and you are going to create a chilling effect and I don't think it's necessarily going to be a good effect. So I want to talk about my issues with the bill. I'm glad that everybody has really high praise for the bill. I have some concerns, so I came down to bring those up. I have a concern that we have the General Assembly further declares that the release of information to the families and to the public about the use of force by peace officers that results in death as a matter of mixed-wide state and local concern. Release is the letting go of. It's transparency, and I'm okay with the transparency, but the bill requires the public releasing incident recordings after they are released to the victim's family. So the bill requires publicly releasing the incident recordings after they are released to the victim's family.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I also agree. I like the transparency piece. And so I had a question on the testimonies that were heard in committee. Looking at the Secretary of State, I see two organizations in support, one opposed, some monitor, but a ton of amending. So I'm just curious what that debate was. What were the amendments asked for? Did they say why they weren't in a full support or a full opposed? I'm just curious what amendments maybe were brought forth. What was that discussion in committee on, why there seems to be almost two pages of amending and then only one page with either a one opposed to support? Representative Rex Thank you Madam Chair I rise in support of this bill and I want to begin with something really simple. When a person dies at the hands of law enforcement officers, their family deserves to know what happened. Not eventually, not after years of legal battle. and not after bureaucratic delays designed intentionally or not to wear them down. They deserve the truth, and they deserve it now. That is the moral foundation of what we're here to discuss. And today, Colorado has the opportunity to act on that foundation, to move from principle to law, from rhetoric to accountability. For too long, the families of people killed by police in Colorado and across this country have been left in the dark. They are told an investigation is underway. They are told to wait. They are told that releasing information could compromise the process. And while they wait, officials make public statements, statements that shape public opinion and that assign blame. that characterized their loved ones' final moments while the family have seen nothing. Think about what that means. A mother learns that her son has been shot and killed by an officer. She turns on the news and hears the law enforcement characterize what happened. She reads statements online. She watches videos that others have already seen. And she, the person with the greatest and most legitimate stake in this, has been given nothing. No recordings, no timeline, no information about who is investigating and why. That is not transparency. This is a system that has protected itself at the expense of the people it was built to serve. and it falls hardest on the communities of color, blacks, Latinos, and indigenous people who are disproportionately the ones navigating this system. They are the ones most likely to lose a son or a daughter, a parent, a partner, and then find themselves fighting for years just to see a video of what happens. The disparity in who bears the burden of police use of force is inseparable from the disparity in who is denied basic transparency afterward. Senate Bill 26190 takes meaningful concrete steps to change this. The bill increases transparency standards and holds law enforcement and officers accountable when someone dies at their hands. These requirements allow grieving families to actually know what happened to their loved ones in a manner in which they are entitled to. The harm of under-transparency is documented, repeated, and real. We know what happens when families are denied information. They lose trust in the system. Communities lose trust in the system, and when communities of color have been surveilled over police and underprotected for generations, they lose trust in the system. The consequences are not abstract They are felt in every interaction between the residents and officer every traffic stop every wellness check every 911 call made or not made because of fear Transparency does not undermine law enforcement. A system that cannot withstand scrutiny is the thing that undermines law enforcement. And SB 26190 asks only that we extend to grieving families the basic dignity of information and that we do so on a reasonable timeline with oversight and with accountability built in. The families who have been fighting for years for recordings, for answers, and for basic acknowledgement that their loved one's death deserves scrutiny are watching this body. They are watching to see whether the state of Colorado is serious about the promise it has made. Members, the question before you is very straightforward. Do we believe that a family has the right to know what happened when a loved one was killed by an officer of the state? If the answer is yes, and I believe it must be, then this bill deserves your support. Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Do not let procedural concerns become a reason to delay accountability for another year. Another session, another grieving family. The families of Colorado who have lost someone to the police use of force have waited long enough. Our urge is to support Senate Bill 190 for the families who cannot be here today, for the communities who are watching, and for a Colorado that chooses justice over delay. Please vote yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's an honor to serve with you.

Colleagues, since this went on a bit, I came down because one of the catalysts for this shooting happened in my district. And it's a truism that first reports are always wrong. We call that rule number five in the military. So asking law enforcement to withhold their opinions on what happened immediately before doing an investigation I think is critical. The only thing law enforcement should be putting out in the DA right after a shooting is that we had an officer-involved shooting, the time, place, number of casualties, and we are continuing the investigation. That's not what happened. in the case we had. We have a DA and sheriff's office that have public relations people they pay full time that immediately put out spin on what happened. And it was inaccurate. There were inaccuracies in there. What does that do for the trust in those organizations? People say, oh, well, the families are going to spin it. Other groups are going to spin it. You're the professionals. you're the professionals that are expected to act like adults it gets so bad it withholds some information and drip out others totally inappropriate the personnel file on the deputy we're told is totally off limits and they're disturbing things. But the victim... This entire life has to be an open book immediately. That's not the way we should do business. And when I criticize law enforcement, and I criticize a lot of things that go on, it's not being done from any kind of dislike of law enforcement. I love law enforcement. I criticize my Marines all the time because they weren't holding the standards of the Marine Corps. So when law enforcement is not upholding the standards of law enforcement, of course we have to call it out and ask them to get to the standards rather than becoming an insular group that feels like they're under constant siege. So demanding that they act professionally, which this bill is asking, I think is very reasonable. So again, I rise in support of this bill because I have seen issues that this bill would directly address. So I'm glad it was brought forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our colleagues for all of the debate. I'm hoping I can round out debate on this bill and we might be able to move forward. I did have some housekeeping that I needed to do, and interestingly, it is because we have been in conversations with law enforcement throughout this whole bill and this whole time. For what it's worth, yesterday, we had some policy questions that we were trying to answer, and I just want to address that. before I get to some closing thoughts. In the bill, we have a section on extrajudicial statements. And what extrajudicial means is outside of court, extrajudicial. In the bill, we have a section where we say, in the investigation of an incident, and I want to walk us through the elements so we can get clear. I wanted to lay a little bit of record to help with interpretation of this law moving forward. In the bill, we say, in the investigation of an incident that is involving use of force by another peace officer that results in death. Okay, so in the event there is an interaction with law enforcement that results in death, and it says that a peace officer shall not make an extrajudicial statement, statement, again outside of court, on behalf of law enforcement agency that the peace officer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication. So that means if they are making a statement regarding that incident on behalf of the law enforcement agency, then they should know that they cannot say subjective observations. And so they should know that they are making a statement on behalf of the law enforcement agency and that those statements will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter. And so that could mean a court hearing. That could even mean an internal affairs investigation And so within that context we then named the following extrajudicial statements are presumed to have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in a criminal matter So again, the language is about if you're going to do an official communication on behalf of the law enforcement agency regarding the incident, the following statements are presumed to materially impact the case. And one of which is subjective observations, including observations about a decedent's or witness's character or credibility, opinions, not facts, opinions that a decedent or a witness is guilty of a crime, and information concerning the prior criminal record of a decedent or witness. and the latter is, for what it's worth, that also counts in court. You can't just say things that people may have done in the past because it could be construed as prejudicial. And you would hear in court, objection. So they shouldn't be able to do it here. What we wanted to share on behalf of the conversations we had with law enforcement is in regards to certain extrajudicial statements. We want to acknowledge that we have continued work to do, but here is what I would like to say. I want to recognize that this was a subject of significant conversation, not only in the Senate, but in the House, and it continues to be something that there is different analysis on. However, we want to acknowledge the different interests at play, such as peace officers that are responding to an incident and are expected to inform the public of what's going on in the moment, and DAs that are evaluating the facts of an incident after the immediate circumstances have concluded and are focused on building a case. The provision around certain extrajudicial statements are presumed to have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in a criminal matter, But we want to recognize what subjective means. As you heard from many of our colleagues who spoke, subjective means narrative, not facts, and especially talking about things outside of the incident to which we are mass communicating about. If they make a mistake of a fact, like a car was actually blue when they said gray, We believe that's a mistake. That is not subjective narrative. So there's one more point in regards to footage on body cams. And so while we do agree that footage and comments made on body cam are not extrajudicial, we do want to be mindful in the event that the body cam footage is then released as a statement. and one, if any agency allows that footage to go out, because we're talking about releasing footage to family, right, and their prejudicial statements on that, that's their responsibility. But generally speaking, I think we're okay with the notion that statements made on body cam are not necessarily extrajudicial. Okay. So I wanted to get the housekeeping out of the way. I know and I know we have taken our seats and perhaps moved on but here are some things that I want to point out in regards to why we brought this bill I want to respect our families because our families didn ask for what happened here today Our families asked that we bring forward their experiences so that we could address policy and glaring gaps that have made the losses of their children so much more unbearable. And so we want to respect them. I want to say the names again of Rajon, Jaylin, and Kylin. And I want to share with you how this bill was brought to us. Our communities are at a place now where it feels like every couple of months or six months someone has lost their lives at the hands of law enforcement. And so when we look up and we see in the grand scheme of the statistics of who has lost their lives, it's not just one demographic. But considering what our population is in this state and considering how many people have died at the hands of law enforcement, we can't help but notice that the black community is two, three times more likely to have died in police altercations. And so I want people to understand, we're not saying that people are running around being indiscriminately racist. But our community is concerned that we are disproportionately represented when it comes to the demographics who die. And so our communities asked us as a matter of policy to examine that. I think it's a fair question from us because there's nothing in my DNA. I want to express my colleague, you know, he always talks about phenotypes. And while I don't disagree that on the face our skin color is an objective fact, we are living in a world where we are questioning why those who have it are disproportionately represented of those who die. Unfortunately, in this country, we have a legacy of where we have assigned characteristics to those phenotypes, and the way for us to break out of that is through means like in this bill, transparency, so we cannot allow for and rely on any potential biases. The communities that brought this bill forward to us, they believe as we do, that there's There's nothing in our DNA that makes us batter people. There's nothing in the way that we were brought into this world that makes us somehow more reason to be more likely to die. And so some of us should ask what policies can we put in place to get to some sort of parity. And for what it's worth, we need to be heard and believed on how we feel when we live those statistics. I want to say this is not a matter of right and wrong as it is for anybody who comes in here and talks about their experiences We hear all the time people saying their positions and what we might feel about each other given our positions But we should be allowed to tell you how we feel. And it should be noted that people can't tell us how to feel. when we talk often about how we feel in regards to the statistics and treatment to our skin color one I don't know how anyone can correct a feeling but two we are often met by language that would almost go to the ends of the earth to tell us we can't feel what we're feeling and I hope and I know many of you and we're kind of past our moments when everyone was kind of looking forward but I hope that many of you can hear us tell you when we see these statistics what it makes us think it makes us think we have to tell our children how to behave it makes us think we have to change what we are wearing so we don't look aggressive. It makes us think. And I'm going to stop at think because the next layer of thinking is feeling. When someone is shot for holding a cell phone, we want to question why there was assumed danger there that cost someone the loss of life. At the end of the day, the only entity in this country that is allowed to take our life or liberty is law enforcement, and therefore they should have the highest standards of scrutiny, which includes transparency. But this bill came to us on behalf of families who have lost children that we believe in this free country of ours should have the right without impediment and barrier to at least see the footage of what surrounded the death of their children on behalf of people who are legally agents of the state. And whether that's a local government or whatnot, we're talking about government. And so I just want to end with this. What we heard and saw today is just a fraction and a tidbit of what many of us walk and see in the world. it is going to have to be somebody's determination and requirement to intervene and say that between constituencies and actors of the state how can we collectively define what is public safety? It must be received that people do not feel safe with those who are supposed to keep them safe. And we should be allowed to cry. And the fact that I'm even saying allowed to is a testament to how some of us have been conditioned in this world. on how we're allowed again or how we even express ourselves again. Because it never goes unmet. I wish I could say that was true. And if we can't even express our feelings in this space, we know it extends out into the streets, out into spaces where there's tension, of liberty and life being at risk. And so if it can happen in this room, we know it can happen outside of this room. But whose responsibility is it? At some point, we both have to step up and say it is ours. There's nothing wrong with saying maybe someone shouldn't have died as a result of any sort of police matter. There is also nothing wrong with saying not everybody's walking around looking to harm someone because they wear a badge. But as policymakers, if we cannot question the disparity in those numbers and both come to terms with how we have all contributed to the tension out in the world, then we cannot move forward and it should not, shall not, and will not be only one community's responsibility. I do not deserve to be asked, nor do any of our families deserve to be asked, what did they do? So I hope it's no longer a you problem. I hope it's no longer a me problem. And in my time in this building, we have worked to a place where anybody, regardless of where they stand in the stakeholder space, knows my phone number and we talk to each other. And just like they are able to bring to us their sentiments, we should be able to do the same. We are asked regularly to do that in this building. So at the end, we will not and cannot apologize for how we feel. And I would only ask that we don't be put down for it and immediately surrounded by pressures to center somebody else's feelings about what happened to us. But it's not for a lack of interest in being a part of a solution. And so on behalf of the families, I want to thank them for their grace because they didn't ask for any of what happened here today. All they asked for is to believe and know that the losses that they sustained were valued enough to be told unedited, uninhibited, and unredacted on what happened in the loss of their loved ones' lives. And on behalf of the state, we owe nothing but transparency. We are owed nothing other than facts and not opinions and narrative. And with that members we ask for an aye vote on Senate Bill 190 Is there any further discussion Seeing none the question before us is the passage of Senate Bill 190 All those in favor say aye

Mr. Schiebel, can you please read the title of Senate Bill 80? Senate Bill 80 by Senators Coleman and Simpson, also representatives of Lukens and English, concerning creating the Cradle to Career Grant Program.

Representative Lukens, to the bill.

Representative Lukens, to the Appropriations Report.

Is that okay? We're still to the... Okay, give me a second. Is there any further discussion on the Appropriations Committee report? Thank you. Representative Luck?

It's an interesting number to say that no one entity can get more than 49% of a grant. And I'm just wondering why we picked 49%. Representative Lukens. Thank you, Madam Chair. I did not bring this amendment. I just asked for a yes vote on the amendment and committee. So our good colleagues from, let's see, I'll have to find them on the list. I'll tell you which colleagues brought this and would encourage you to ask the colleagues that brought the amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The well is open. So whoever brought this amendment, Paging, whoever brought this amendment who might be able to answer why this particular number was selected If there is no further discussion I will move us along Is there any further discussion on the Appropriations Committee report Seeing none the question before us is its passage

Aye.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In the Finance Committee, we also added additional guardrails to the grant program, and the guardrails ensure that the recipients of any grant dollars are based in community. We ask for your yes vote on the Finance Committee Report.

I rise in support of Senate Bill 80, the Cradle to Career Program. This is a bill that allows us to bring in much-needed support to help our communities who are in the most dire shape and to support kids and families experiencing poverty. It allows the entire state of Colorado to have extra funds to work with those organizations in each of our own neighborhoods, towns, and regions who are doing good work to help families but lack reliable funding. It helps each one of us look at our districts and identify the roadblocks that could be preventing the children who live there from getting the solid foundational education they need to break the cycle of poverty in which so many have been stuck. At the end of the day, all of us want to do the same things for our districts. We want to help the families we serve to be safe, healthy, and prosperous. Many of us see different approaches to get there, and that's where Senate Bill 80 comes in. This bill doesn't rely on general funds to help. This bill doesn't create new programs or prescribe solutions from afar. It attracts philanthropic participation to identify and fund the programs that already work in each of our communities. I appreciate all my colleagues' thoughtful responses to this bill, and I certainly am always happy to keep the dialogue going. As we start to see funds come in, let's work the coming years to refine and perfect how that will look. I am a sponsor of this bill because I know the most important thing in creating a vibrant Colorado economy is to raise healthy, educated, and vibrant children. It is that simple. I ask my colleagues for a yes vote to make sure that every child in our state has the best opportunity to succeed.

Thank you. I rise today in strong support of Senate Bill 80 today and want to encourage all of my colleagues here to do the same. right now in our state there are kids who only go to school four days a week in colorado we have kids who struggle to get three meals a day in many of our districts we have children who cannot read at grade level and who are lagging behind in math comprehension it's not because they can't learn it's not because their teachers don't care it's because before they even arrive in the classroom they are facing challenges stemming from poverty that even adults can't navigate. This bill allows grant money to come in from philanthropic organizations, both across the country and right here in Colorado, to support the wraparound services that each of these children and their families need to make sure they can go out to school and learn unburdened by hunger, lack of transportation, worries about before and after school care, or even darker troubles their parents may be facing I know that in my district and I bet it may be similar in many of yours Groups like the Boys and Girls Club to name one of many provide the children I see with enrichment programs in addition to what they get inside the classroom They're offering them mentorships, check-ins, and chances to play in sports leagues. They are helping parents who may not have time to hustle between jobs and after school. practices make sure their kids don't miss these opportunities. I also know that in my district there are smaller groups who are working within certain neighborhoods or schools to provide specific solutions to the local challenges faced there. It takes a village to raise a child and we know all of these organizations are an essential part of our village. Senate Bill 80 sees what is working on the ground and say let us help you be wildly successful successful and help even more kids. I appreciate each and every one of your commitments to your constituents and I ask that you join me in passing Senate Bill 80, a truly community-based bill to help fund community-based solutions and help our kids out of poverty. I don't think there's anything wrong with creating more access and opportunities for them to be the best version of themselves and thank you all for listening and I urge you all to vote yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair and thank you sponsors for bringing this. I appreciate the difference you're trying to make with this program. I will be brief. I was asked to run this by our colleague from the Palisade area that had to step out and heard it this morning and approves. So I move amendment L015 to Senate Bill 80 and ask that it be displayed.

Thank you much. This is a relatively simple amendment, though it's lengthy because it changes quite a few lines. It really changes the mechanism for the management of the program or the responsible office to manage the program from the Department of Human Services to the Department of Local Affairs and the reporting out to the local government committees in the House and the Senate. SB 2680 is structured more like a community development and local capacity building grant program than a traditional human services benefit program. The bill funds entities including local governments, local ed providers, higher ed tribes and nonprofits. It really rests on community needs assessments, local providers, economic mobility outcomes, and annual reportings on performance. It fits much more squarely in Dola's Lane, where they do work on capacity building locally, managing community-facing groups, and coordinating with local government. So on behalf of my colleague, I do urge a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to my good colleague for bringing this amendment and giving us a chance to look over this amendment in advance. We will be respectfully asking for a no vote. We did stakehold this amendment with the Department of Local Affairs, and they believe that we would have to add FTE to the fiscal note to house the program in DOLA, DOLA, whereas the Department of Human Services is able to, it has the to take this program on now, so we ask for a no vote on L... I can't see the L. L15.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the sponsors who have all good intentions for taking the amendments in the Second Appropriations Committee hearing. However, I still have concerns about Senate Bill 2680, and I want to explain my no vote in Education Committee and why I'm still a no vote on the floor today. I have concerns about Senate Bill 2680. I'm concerned that there's a disconnect with the interagency cooperation. The bill lacks a requirement for CDHS to align educational and early childhood standards with CDE and CDEC. I worry about the fundraising burden on CDHS. They must absorb the workload of raising $900,000 using existing staff before the program can even begin. I worry about the donor influencing. Private funders can effectively set state policy by paying the administrative costs required to trigger the program's launch. I worry about high entry barriers. small and rural nonprofits may lack the staff and data expertise to complete the required high barrier of applications. I worry about inflexible partnerships and the lack of fiscal guardrails. There is no hard annual dollar cap on future general fund matches to prevent escalating state costs. But most importantly, I'm concerned that this state-run, privately-funded grant system could dictate local education policy more than local parents, education leaders, and democratically elected school boards. I worry about the creation of a longitudinal data system via set of performance indicators and shared data systems that track children from birth into the workplace as the bill lacks mandatory data suppression protocols to protect the identities of service recipients in small populations. And I'm concerned about a nonprofit attaching itself to the state to push an agenda of a small few. I value the democratic nature of our public school system, so I will be a respectful no today.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the bill's sponsors for all of their work. We had a very robust conversation in committee last week and lots of discussion on various different points. I appreciate the amendments that were brought forward in appropriations. that certainly helps, but I too have some significant concerns about this bill and this policy. There's just not very much foundation laid in the bill to provide for this non-profit to be able to function. There's just not enough details to hold it up. I am concerned about the statements requiring high-quality educational programming and extracurricular programming, and that those statements are not fully vetted to totally understand what that really means for kids. I'm very concerned about what the desired outcomes are, that those aren necessarily specified either it really is presented as a non effort that is going to be managed and you know, managed and monitored by a state agency with a million dollar budget every year that's coming from gifts, grants, and donations. And the agency is to be responsible for raising those funds without additional staffing to be able to make that happen. And I think if there's a desire and a need for an entity to be a nonprofit and move through this process to help other nonprofits to have additional funding, I think that's totally fine. But I don't think our state should be involved in the management or coordination of that effort for this million dollar process that the state just doesn't need to be involved in and that's why I was a no in committee and that's why I remain a no

Thank you Madam Chair. So I think a really important question to ask is why did this get out of the Ed Committee with one vote. And we had three teachers who voted against this in committee. And then it went to a props, and it died by one vote in appropriations. And I didn't know this, but I learned something that if you have a bill that dies, you can ask them for a mulligan. You can ask for somebody to bring it back, somebody who voted no. You can ask them to bring it back and have it heard again and hopefully plead your case. And so I would ask why. Why is this being lobbied so hard when it's so split? Nothing prevents a private entity from being a grant pass-through. So why is this entity that we want to start so important that, based on gifts, grants, and donations from a private entity, they want to be a pass-through for grants? As I was thinking through about this bill today, I thought about one of the things that lobbyists have said is, this is going to benefit your YMCAs. It's going to benefit your Boys and Girls Clubs. Well, what about United Way? United Way already does that. and is this going to be taking away from United Way's efforts? I do also echo some of the concerns from my good colleagues from Arapahoe and Douglas County and also Jefferson County. They had some really good questions in committee that are the same as my concerns. I'm always concerned about the data collection of students and children in the privacy. I also have questions about what is the long-term pressure on the state budget. Right now, it's gifts, grants, and donations for this year. It's gifts, grants, and donations for next year. But as we've seen and we heard at the beginning of session, please don't run bills with fiscal notes, and please don't rely on gifts, grants, and donations, because eventually that's going to come back to the state's general fund. And we heard that there is an amendment that says it's not going to hit the state's general fund, but then is it going to come back and hit education or another priority, Medicaid, because we talking about prenatal grant funds One of the things that I saw this as is it creating a grant program to receive grants from grant programs and this new grant entity is going to give grants to programs that already receive grants. So it's really creating a middleman bureaucracy, and when we have middleman bureaucracies, that means that some of the money that's intended to go to the recipients is going to be skimmed off to take care of the administrative costs. So I have a lot of questions about this, and that's why I will continue to be a no, and I encourage you to do the same. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So, Article 5, Section 34 of the Colorado Constitution reads, No appropriation shall be made for charitable, industrial, educational, or benevolent purposes to any person, corporation, or community not under the absolute control of the state, nor to any denominational or sectarian institution or association. No appropriation shall be made for charitable, industrial, educational, or benevolent purposes to any person, corporation, or community not under the absolute control of the state nor to any denominational or sectarian institution or association. This is one of those curious provisions in the state constitution. Its history is curious. Its application today is curious. But I don't really want to talk about those pieces. I want to talk about a key rationale that substantiates that particular policy policy being placed in our state constitution. From my vantage point, it reaffirms what I often argue from up here, which is the state is not our savior. The government is not tasked with solving everyone's problems in every instance. We have a particular role to play. But it is actually a very frustrating and minimal role. Because what we're asked to do is be the referee. That's really the fundamental role of government. It's morphed into this leviathan that gets into everything. but ultimately, at root, what we were supposed to do was be the referee. I have a dear friend who is a soccer referee, and he's an excellent soccer player, and he referees competitive games. And I can only imagine how frustrating he gets at times when teams or players make the wrong choice. I'm sure that he has been tempted on more than one occasion as a ball goes by him to kick it To enter into the play But as the referee that banned that barred you can do it In the same way, we are really to be the referee. To make sure that there are rules that everybody plays by and that they're fairly applied. But all the other stuff that happens on the court really is not for us to engage. That is the game. And if we want to engage the game, then we should be game players. We shouldn't take on the role of referee. It is to the core part of this bill because of the fact that this is game playing. This is players in the game. It's not setting the stage. It's not being a referee. To be a referee in this context would be to say that a non-profit who is providing services to families can't lie about who they're serving. That would be a referee task. They can't skim off the top and violate fiduciary duties. That would be a referee task. but to put government in the place where they are actually receiving dollars and then sending those dollars out to organizations that they choose who do certain things in community puts us in a place where we're actually now playing the game. And we shouldn't do that. We shouldn't do that for a lot of reasons. In this particular instance, these dollars are coming through gifts, grants, and donations. And I understand that some would say, well, what's the harm in that? If the government gets in this, it's not taxpayer dollars. But would it concern you to know who those dollars come from? Do we ask? What do we call it when big money and big government join forces? There's a term. And why would big money want to join with big government in this way, as opposed to just providing those dollars straight to the entities if it's all about simply helping the organizations do better, helping people get out of poverty? Why would you want a middleman? that is government connected? It's a valid question. Is it because there is a hope that these initial gifts, grants, and donations will come in and act as starter funds? And then over time, somebody will come in the next five years when this General Assembly has all but forgotten the commitment that this should never come out of general fund dollars, and suddenly it switches and it's no longer funded by gifts, grants, and donations. It's funded by the taxpayer. I'm not impugning your motives. I'm not suggesting that you all have that intent. What I am sharing is my own experience in this building. One of the first things I learned in my first year when we were discussing the And I wanted to do something, and the JVC member at that time said, you can't do that. And I said, why? It's part of the budget. And she said, because there's no line item in the budget. And you can't create a line item through the long bill process. You have to do that through a separate bill. And oh, by the way, note that when gifts, grants, and donations get added into a bill, that creates a line item in the budget, which then opens the door for any future legislature to put stuff on in there. And how many of you know it's much easier to create an entire structure and put it in under terms that everybody is okay with right now and then incrementally year over year start to strike out some of those more controversial pieces that were part of the negotiated position from the start. It's much easier to strike out a line than introduce the whole. It's interesting to me, there was a post today, I'm not on social media, but it got trickled down to me that suggests that this is also connected to some outside campaign conversations. What exactly is that about? How does that interact with the decision being made here today? We already have a mechanism wherein these, as my colleague from Weld mentioned, grant offering organizations provide funds to the grant receiving organizations. Again, leading back to that why question of why create the middleman? Why allow a government entity into that space? Why allow for another layer of red tape? If we really are wanting to get families out of poverty, why put more bureaucracy on them? Why burden them more in this way? And then it gets to my core heart issue, which links into the whole referee piece. how does this facilitate genuine relationship in community? There was a structure at once designed that prioritized the family, the church, the community. And as I mentioned, the government stands as a referee above. But when the government steps in, it disincentivizes those other groups from participating. Because if the government is going to take care of it, then I don't have to. And that doesn't just mean I don't have to give money, finances. It also means that I feel released from giving of myself, giving of my time, giving of my energy, pouring into others. Because the government will do it. And the government will help facilitate the monies that flow in and choose which organizations are worthy enough to be distributed to, which raises a whole other constitutional question of who those organizations are and why should we give to that one and not this one. And why are we giving 49 to this one and another 49 to that one and the remaining 2 to this guy in the middle when there are hundreds of organizations out there that could benefit from it We participate in what I consider the great conversation in this space. A conversation that has been had over centuries related to what is the good life? What is the role of government? How do we leave a society better than we found it? All of these age-old questions. What is just? What is true? And when I see bills like this, I have to say it goes against my understanding of the age-old answers to what is good and true and beautiful. Because it further incentivizes us to live as silos. It further incentivizes us to depend upon government. It further incentivizes us to expect more, to expect to receive more than we expect to sacrifice and give. Now for some, I probably sound like a crazy person up here. He who has ears. but I really struggle with a lot of things that get done in this space not because they aren't necessarily good ideas but because they're not ideas that we should be advancing in this format, in this forum with the authority we have as we yield the sword of the state but I don't even know that I don't even believe this is a good idea to create this middleman to create this other entity And since there are so many other swirling questions around why now, what impact is this having on outside political conversations? And will this actually further harm our nonprofits as they seek to get the available dollars because of this? And why with all the other programs that we offer, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I will be a no.

Thank you. Thank you to my co-prime sponsor, Representative Lukens, who's a school teacher, and myself, educator as well, and a past Board of Education member. But we believe strongly that the state has a critical role to play here. running this through the state ensures durability. It ensures accountability and it sends a clear signal to communities, to philanthropy, to national partners that Colorado is committed to the work for the long term. When the state leads with this legislation, it creates a stable foundation that attracts additional investment from both national and Colorado philanthropies, and it allows dollars to flow more consistently into communities. These philanthropies are advocating for this bill in Colorado because they want to partner with states that are serious about sustained impact, accountability, and transparency, not short-term programs that come and go. That's how you actually move the needle on economic mobility, and I support this legislation creating access opportunities and resources for our families to thrive And with that members I ask for a yes vote Representative Lukens Thank you Madam Chair And just to clarify a few things again we brought an amendment in Appropriations Committee that states that there will be no general fund impact. We also brought a number of amendments that added guardrails to this program based on the feedback that we heard. At the end of this day, this bill helps kids. This bill supports programs that are focused on poverty reduction for kids, and that is why we ask for your yes vote.

Aye.

No.

2. Senate Bill 185. Senate Bill 185 by Senators Marchman and Baisley, also representatives to Tone and Kelty, concerning measures to enhance the Office of Information Technology Security Procedures.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Moves Senate Bill 185.

All right, yeah, so this is a JTC bill, and we had an IT audit that was done recently, and it was pretty bad. So what we did in JTC was we put some things on paper here to be sure that OIT is complying with best practices and regulations for IT. We also added in a section so if there's an additional audit that needs to be done that is more detailed to get into the nitty-gritty, that the auditor, the state auditor, can look to us to approve some money from the TRPR, the Technology Response Prevention Fund, and we can get that audit going. So this is just putting in black and white some of the things that they should be doing anyway, and I ask for a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I agree with my colleague. This is a pretty simple, straightforward bill. You know, just with the audits, it just helps, you know, the state of Colorado strengthen their cybersecurity and their security procedures that they have. It hardens, it helps to find areas to harden our cybersecurity and safeguards that we have within the state. It's very straightforward, very simple, and pretty much everyone in the industry does the same thing. So I ask for an aye vote.

Aye.

No.

Passes.

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

Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, your Committee of the Whole begs the deportes under consideration. The following attached bills being the second. The second recommendation is on. On Senate Bill 72, 80 as amended, 125 as amended, 170, 185, and 190, passed on second reading, ordered revised, then placed on the calendar for third reading and final passage.

That's Peter. Can I move the House to stop the report to committee of the whole?

Representative Sukla, how do you vote?

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

Representative Weinberg votes no. Carter, DeGraff, Foray, and Wynn are excused.

Please close the machine. With 41 I, 21 no and 3 excused,

Thank you, Madam. Oh, sorry.

Madam Speaker.

We're here with Transyn.

Senate Bill 183 by Senators Mullica and Kirkmeyer, also Representatives Winter and Lindsay, concerning state funding for capital construction costs for a project being undertaken by the Colorado School of Mines and in connection therewith authorizing the state to issue finance purchase of an asset or certificate of participation agreements to finance a portion of capital costs associated with the renewal of critical building systems for the Colorado School of Mines Guggenheim Hall and making an appropriation.

Senate Bill 192 by Senator Cutter, also Representative Sober and Joseph, concerning an appeal process for producers to contest the eco-modulated dues assessed against producers to finance the producer responsibility program for statewide recycling.

House Joint Resolution 1032 by Representative Duran, also Senator Rodriguez, concerning the appointment of a joint committee to notify the governor that the second regular session of the 75th General Assembly is about to adjourn Scene ADA.

We are good to go.

Madam Speaker, I move to lay over Senate Bill 43 until tomorrow, May 13th.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move House Bill 1250 to the beginning of the third reading calendar.

House Bill 1250 by Representatives DeGraff and Bacon, also Senators Bright and Wallace, concerning procedures relating to state action resulting in the relinquishment of private property.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1250 on third reading and final passage.

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

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

Representative Weinberg votes no.

Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Representative Weinberg votes yes. Please close the machine. With 64 I, 1 no, and 0 excused, House Bill 1250 is adopted.

It's so close.

Madam Majority Leader.

The motion before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 35 on third reading and final passage.

No, ma'am.

No, ma'am.

Senate Bill 35 is adopted. Co-sponsors.

Mr. Sheebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 155. Senate Bill 155 by Senators Mullica and Marchman, also Representatives McCluskey and Brown. concerning increasing the availability of homeowners insurance in the state and in connection there with making an appropriation.

Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 155 on third reading and final passage.

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

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

Representative Weinberg votes no. Please close the machine. With 43, I, 22, no, and zero excuse,

Please close the machine.

Madam Majority Leader.

The motion before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 178 on third reading and final passage.

No, ma'am.

No, ma'am.

is adopted. Co-sponsors.

close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 3. Senate Bill 3 by Senators Wallace and Cutter, also Representatives Brown and Stuart R, concerning expanding the scope of the Battery Stewardship Act to cover the end-of-life management of electric vehicle batteries. Madam Majority Leader.

The motion before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 3 on third reading and final passage.

Representative Sukla, how do you vote? No, ma'am.

Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No.

Phillips. Please close the machine.

With 49 a.16 no, zero excuse, Senate Bill 3 is adopted.

Please close the machine.

Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 23 on third reading and final passage.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Please briefly explain.

Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is permission to run a third reading amendment on Senate Bill 23.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move L044 to Senate Bill 23 and ask that it be displayed.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I stated before, a few technical changes as well as one very important change, which is to create the precise number for total program in the bill upon changes made yesterday on second reading.

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

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

Representative Weinberg votes yes. please close the machine with 65 ayes zero no zero excused amendment

Madam Speaker I move Senate Bill 23 as amended on third reading and final passage

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

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

Representative Weinberg votes no. AML Bacon AML Bacon, 10 bucks Please close the machine With 57 I, 8 no, 0 excuse

Please close the machine.

Madam Majority Leader.

The motion before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 103 on third reading, final passage.

No, ma'am.

No, ma'am.

Co-sponsors.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 191. Senate Bill 191 by Senators Mable and Frizzell, also Representative McCormick, concerning the use of gift grants and donations made to the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing for the purpose of enhanced reimbursement for nursing facilities that serve residents with behavioral health needs.

Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 191 on third reading and final passage.

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

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

Representative Weinberg votes no. Please close the machine.

Please close the machine.

Madam Majority Leader.

Representative Leader. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Colleagues, this bill has went through several changes in the Senate, and I just want to make sure that everyone in this chamber understands what those changes were. And I want to thank the good senator from Colorado Springs for his leadership on this bill. However, I just want to make sure that there was no other changes done, and everybody is really clear. So with that, I ask this bill to be read at length.

01 Christopher McMichael X 4775 Senate Bill 26 Senate Sponsorship Kip and Exum Amabel Ball Benavidez Coleman Cutter Gonzalez J Coker Lindstedt Marchman Roberts Snyder Wallace Weissman House Sponsorship Wilford and Velasco. Senate Committees Transportation and Energy Appropriations. House Committees Energy and Environment. A bill for an Act 101-102-103-104. Concerning energy affordability, and, in connection therewith, establishing a percentage OF income payment plan program for income qualified utility customers. Bill Summary Note, this summary applies to this bill as introduced and does not reflect any amendments that may be subsequently adopted. If this bill passes third reading in the House of Introduction, a bill summary that applies to the re-engrossed version of this bill will be available at http colon slash slash leg dot colorado dot gov. The bill requires an investor-owned electric utility, utility, to submit a proposal to the Public Utilities Commission, PUC, that establishes a first allotment of residential electricity service, fair. Shading denotes House Amendment. Double underlining denotes Senate Amendment. capital letters or bold and italic numbers indicate new material to be added to existing law dashes through the words or numbers indicate deletions from existing law house amended second reading may 11 2026 senate april 17 2026 third reading unamended senate amended second reading april 16 2026 service program the fair service program provides a minimum level of electricity at a marginal cost rate for income qualified utility customers A fair service proposal that a utility submits to the PUC must include.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado, Section 1. In Colorado revised statutes, add 40-3-122 as follows, 40-3-122. Energy affordability, percentage of income payment plan program, eligibility and participation, cost recovery, definitions, rules. 1. Definitions. AS used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires, A. I. Administrative costs, means a utility's direct costs for labor, including applicable benefit loadings, materials, and other verifiable expenditures directly related to the administration and operation of a PIP program. 2. Administrative costs must not exceed 10% of the total amount of the fixed credits applied to customer bills for current usage and peri-existing arrearages, or 10,000. zero zero two fifteen to two dollars whichever amount is greater one b affordable percentage of income means the amount two of a participant's annual bill that is deemed affordable based on three a participant's annual household income as determined for pursuant to subsections four b and four c of this section five c application means six i a request by an applicant to participate in a utility seven pip program if an investor-owned utility offers their own eight application process 9.2, a referral by a third party, AS described in subsection 10, 3, A, 2, B, of this section, for an applicant TO participate in 11 utilities PIP program, or 12, 3, a process determined by the commission by order or 13 by rule. 14.D, arrearage means the past due balance.

balance owed by a 15 participant in a percentage of income payment plan program for 16 utility service as shown on the most recent bill received by the 17 participant before the participants initial enrollment in the 18 pip program 19 e i fixed credit means an annual bill credit that is 20 calculated by utility at the beginning of a participant's 21 participation in the utilities pip program each year and is 22 delivered either as and upfront annual credit or as and equal 23 monthly credit on the participants monthly utility bill 24 2 the fixed credit is equal to the participants total 25 projected full annual bill as the participant's affordable 26 percentage of income payment 27 002-3 f full annual bill means the projected electricity or one gas consumption of a participant in one calendar year billed at two standard residential rates before any fixed credit amount or three other credits or discounts are applied to the bill 4 g income qualified utility customer has the meaning five set forth in section 40-3-106 1 d 2 6 h investor owned utility or utility means a retail seven electric utility retail gas utility or a combined retail electric aid and gas utility in the state that is regulated by the commission nine and is not a cooperative electric association or a municipal request for the bill to be done 11 i part is withdraw your request please thank you madam

The motion before us is the passage of Senate Bill 2 on third reading. Please proceed, Rep. Johnson.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 2 on third reading final passage.

Yes, ma'am. Excuse me, no, ma'am. No, ma'am.

No, ma'am.

Senate Bill 2 is adopted. Co-sponsors.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 184. Senate Bill 184 by Senators Rodriguez and Ball, also Representatives Carter and Mabry, concerning benefits for firefighters who contract certain conditions.

Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 184 on third reading and final passage.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I know we discussed this quite a bit yesterday, but I just wanted to rise again. I do oppose the bill, and it's not because I don't want the best care and treatment for our firefighters, but because I believe that all firefighters matter in this. And carving out firefighters that work from the state and eliminating them from the bill while expending coverage to others just because we can't afford it as a state was wrong. This body should be striving to improve the lives of all. we should be striving to make sure that the law covers everyone equally and this bill doesn't do it. And as we're doing this, we're creating a very large unfunded mandate

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I heard this committee, I'm sorry, I heard this bill in committee on Saturday night, and then obviously we had a conversation about it yesterday on the floor. wanted to just put a couple things on the third reading record here. First, I do not dispute the idea that employers should cover the costs of damages that their employees incurred while in the course of work. And in this case, that means firemen. if they are finding themselves harmed as a result of the work that they do I do believe that we have an obligation to them And insofar as these individuals are employees of the state or creations of the state, that burden is real and true. And ultimately, I wish that our budget was such that we prioritized our own obligations in this way before turning outward and taking on obligations that other people are supposed to cover. but we don't have the dollars right now, because that's not our budget reality, to do that. We don't have the dollars to cover the 163 state-employed firefighters, nor do we have the dollars to help ensure that through the workman's comp system, all of our local jurisdiction firefighters also are covered. which then begs the question what do we do? We have an obligation but we don't have the necessary resources to fulfill that obligation. This bill started out as desiring to fulfill that obligation to all firefighters across the state and in the Senate they struck the language that applied to the state employees because we couldn't come up with the $2 million. But if you note in the fiscal note, there is contemplation that if we lose the likely litigation that will come under equal protection grounds, that we are actually committing ourselves to possibly multi-millions worth of dollars, both in litigation as well as in future claims that we will then have to cover. We have a trust. And it's a unique construction. We're one of only two states that has such a thing, and it has been very effective. And we heard in committee from individuals who run the trust that had these different new conditions been brought forward, they would review it in the same way that they have reviewed others and seek to add it where the actuarial evidence supports that the harms come from their employment. And yet that process wasn't undertaken. Instead, we're adding those conditions not in the trust, but in workman's comp, which is much more costly for our local fire districts. And we were told that the reason we're doing it that way is because almost two-thirds of our fire districts are not participating in the trust, even though it's mandated by law. And we're told they're not participating in it because it's costly. But the interesting thing about that is it doesn't actually cost them. They're invoiced, the district pays, and then they can submit that receipt to another entity in the state, and that entity will refund them. So while there is that initial payment, yes, it is reimbursed. That doesn't happen with Workman's Comp. And we have numbers here to say that without our trust system, over the past nine years, only 55 of our 300-plus fire districts, 55 of those districts representing 2,600 firefighters, they would have had to absorb $16.8 million in cancer claims without the trust system. with the trust system they didn't have that obligation because the way that the system works as I understand it is whatever you claim through the trust you can't then double dip into workman's comp so that 16.8 million dollars would have been a burden on our local obviously you know workman comp there different calculus but you get the point and so the question is as we adding more conditions to workman comp lowering or I should say raising the threshold that the fire departments have to meet in order to counter any sort of workman's comp claim, we are going to see an increased fiscal burden on our local fire districts. And that's not inconsequential. It's not a statement of, hey, I don't care about these firemen. We shouldn't do this. It's going to cost too much. That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying, though, is in my district, I have a number of special district fire departments. Some of them have recently run mill levies because they're barely above redline. In communities that themselves are largely not above redline. And so what happens every time we add additional items to their budget? They either have to forego services to the community, or they have to ask for more money from people who are already struggling. We as a state decided we couldn't do that for $2 million. And yet under this bill, we are forcing that requirement upon others. We are foisting it on them in a way that will have consequences. Like I said, I think we owe our firemen for the harms that are caused to them in the line of duty. That's not my argument. But when you only have so many dollars, when you have this other entity that may be able to take on this burden in a better, more cost-effective way and when you may result in having the loss of services in some communities that very much rely upon I don't think that this bill is ready yet to go forward. I respectfully ask for a no vote.

No, ma'am.

No, ma'am.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 152. Senate Bill 152 by Senators Ball and Pelton Bee, also Representatives Wilford and Barone, concerning changes to the usage of automated vehicle identification systems.

Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 152 on third reading and final passage.

No, ma'am.

No, ma'am.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 188. Senate Bill 188 by Senators Mavelin and Kirkmeyer, also Representatives Brown and Tigert, concerning the transition of residential treatment programs to the statewide managed care system for Medicaid members who are in the custody of a county department of human or social services.

Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 188 on third reading and final passage.

No, ma'am.

No, ma'am.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 78. Senate Bill 78 by Senators Maudele and Kirkmeyer, also Representatives Smith and Taggart, concerning modifications to certain statutes relating to institutions of higher education and in connection therewith, changing procedures relating to information sharing, data, and capital construction projects and making an appropriation.

Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 78 on third reading and final passage.

No, ma'am.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 186. Senate Bill 186 by Senators Marchman and Baisley, also representatives to Tonin Kelty, concerning updates to the Workers' Compensation Act of Colorado necessitated by technology updates.

Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 186 on third reading and final passage.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm going to move at the House stand and recess until later today so that committees can meet and then we will be coming back.

Thank you Madam Speaker. The House Appropriations Committee will meet one more time upon adjournment of state affairs and finance in the Old State Library. We will hear one bill, Senate Bill 45.

Thank you Madam Speaker The that was for you Rep Froelich the State Civic Military and Veterans Affairs Committee will meet also for the very last time in House Room or I sorry in Committee Room 107 to hear Senate Bill 192 only And we be meeting five minutes upon adjournment so try and hustle to get down there Thanks Thank you Representative Woodrow Thank you Madam Speaker It an honor to serve with you It is an honor to serve with you.

Madam Speaker, I move for the call of the House.

Representatives Barone. Caldwell. Carter.

DeGraff. English. Foray. Garcia. Garcia-Sander. Gilchrist. Gonzalez. Hamrick. Hartzuck. Jackson. Joseph. Leader. Phillips. Rootnell. Slaw. Stewart R. Story.

Sukla.

Weinberg. Wilford. Woog and Zokai.

Carter, DeGraff, English, Garcia, Hartzuck, Jackson, Leader, Phillips, and Rootnell.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Committee on Appropriations. After consideration on the Meritza, committee recommends the following. Senate Bill 45 be postponed indefinitely. Committee on Finance. After consideration on the Meritza, committee recommends the following. Senate Bill 183 be postponed indefinitely. Committee on State, Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs. after concession of the Mercer Committee recommends the following Senate Bill 192, be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. You know, this is our last special orders for you and I. Oh, I'm tingly. I'm just saying, in case anybody's feeling a little sentimental, I move that the following bills be made special orders on May 12, 2026 at 3.59 p.m. Senate Bill 192 and Senate Bill 169.

It is an honor to serve with you.

AML Bacon. Oh, you can do a side-eye now.

With your unanimous consent, the bills will be read by the title unless there is a request for reading a bill at length.

Senate Bill 192 by Senator Cutter, also Representative Soper and Joseph, concerning an appeals process for producers to contest the eco-modulated dues assessed against producers to finance the producer responsibility program for statewide recycling.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, I think this might be the last SOPR bill in the General Assembly.

But it's possible there could be more.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, this is a bill that is steeped in a long history, and it's important to lay the history before you today. So back in March, the Committee on Legal Services had an out of...

Oh, sorry.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 192.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Representative Joseph, for reminding me of those minor details. This bill was heard a long time ago in committee, so I'd like to refresh everyone's recollection on what has happened. So back in March of this year, there was an out-of-cycle rule review that was requested. And as members may know, when it's an out-of-cycle rule review, that goes before the Committee on Legal Services, which both of the co-prime sponsors here before you sit.

Thank you. In walking through this, our attorneys with the Office of Legal Services had one memo that said that the rule was ultra-virus or had exceeded statutory authority that was granted to the agency in granting them the ability to make this rule However the Attorney General Office who represents the agency had a different opinion and they said it was within the scope of their ability to write a rule It came down to whether or not they could delegate authority to an advisory board, or whether that had to be actual agency employees, people who were government actors versus being someone who's part of a voluntary board or commission. That went before the Committee on Legal Services, which was acting more like a tribunal. The Committee on Legal Services, after listening to it, was about a 90-minute hearing, voted, and it was a split vote. It was a tie. It was a 5-5 vote. So the tie meant that the rule stood. However, because of a court case within Oregon that had a similar producer responsibility program, a preliminary injunction had been granted in that case by the federal court. And that's because Oregon's law was set up very similar to Colorado's law, in which if there wasn't a clearly defined appeals process by an independent arbiter, then it fell foul of the Constitution. One thing that almost all of us said on the Committee on Legal Services was in light of now legislation before Colorado, the Oregon injunction, we wanted to see something within statute that gave us more confidence than split legal opinions by premier attorneys, one from the AG's office, one from OLS, a split vote on the Committee on Legal Services, which by the way are mostly attorneys. Whenever you have that many really smart people, really, really smart people who can't agree, it falls 50-50, that shows that you have a problem, and that no one in this room can say that it's clear on one side or the other. You could not be able to articulate what the state of the law was when it's that evenly split. We supported having a statute, and that's what's before you today. I will say for me personally, I would like to have seen this go more in the direction of the Administrative Procedures Act, which is what all of our other agencies except two fall with. And actually the two that are the exception, I would say, should also be with the Administrative Procedures Act. There was a disagreement on going that direction, mainly given the lateness of the session, given the fact that we are on the eve of Sinedia, which is some members' favorite day. We had a committee hearing today in state affairs in which we had a very robust conversation that included talking to two people on each side. Everyone was for recycling. They were for producers taking responsibility. But how the appeals process was really what it boiled down to and the difference. And I will say that having something in statute is perhaps better than nothing, but every member will have to weigh for themselves.

Because this is an incredibly important and legal issue, it's one that I actually don't believe is a very easy issue. This is actually a very, very difficult issue. And I want to just take another minute longer to tell you why, in my opinion, we need something in place for an appeals process.

And we need to be able to have that in statute because there's major question marks. And if the appeals process is struck down, the entire producer responsibility organization is struck down, the pros struck down. The question whether you support the bill we're presenting before you or not, That's up to each individual person to decide. I don't believe that we should be browbeating anyone to decide one way or the other. But it is steeped in very legal issues, which are, yes, the rule has been upheld, but is there questions of retroactivity? We don't know. The courts will probably decide that. Is the board biased because it's not fully within the government? It's actually still volunteer laypeople. those are still major questions whether the board is the appropriate tribunal for hearing appeals because whether or not they're sufficiently separated is another question but I will say listen to your conscience having something obviously keeps the program in place and we'll leave it at that and I'll turn it over to my co-prime sponsor. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I'm happy to present Senate Bill 192 before you today. I wanted to talk a little bit more about the background for the bill and how it came about today. and you will also hear from other colleagues who sit on the Committee on Legal Services and possibly the colleague who brought the challenge, I would say, to the rules. And I'll keep some of my comments after he offers his assessment to you. But the Producer Responsibility Program, as codified in Section 25-17-701 to 716, creates a statewide program for managing recycling that is funded through annual dues paid by producers of packaging materials and paper products. Producers pay dues to a nonprofit organization called a producer's responsibility organization, PRO, and the PRO increases or reduces dues based upon ecomodulation factors set in the Act and regulations. the act give the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment oversight of the program and creates an advisory board to review program documents and make recommendations to the department the rule provides an adjudicatory hearing or adjudicatory hearings process for producers to appeal the PRO's equal modulation decision to the As part of the appeals process, the rule requires the advisory board to hold a hearing administered pursuant to Section 105 of the EPA and to then make a recommendation to the department. What you will hear from a representative from Denver is that the rules was improperly promulgated because the commission lacks authority to authorize the advisory board to conduct a hearing and to it conflicts with section 24-4105 of the EPA because the advisory board is not an agency that may preside over an evidentiary hearing. and we received a memo from the Department of Law and I agree with that memo. There are many reasons why I agree with that memo and the way that agency is defined and also to their point on whether the advisory, whether the commission may delegate some of its duties to the advisory board. And I'll stop right there and just pass it on to our colleagues who have an opposing view as it relates to the bill. And also I wanted to note what we're trying to do in this bill or this particular advisory committee is not the first of its kind. We have the Domestic Violence Program Advisory Committee, which is an advisory committee that reviews appeals regarding restriction placed on program funding and funding denials. and we also have the Foster Youth Successful Transition to Adulthood Grant Program Advisory Board, which assists the Division of Childhood Welfare with administrative hearings. So what this particular advisory committee has been doing is not new. I'll stop right there and pass it on to my colleagues. Rev Camacho.

Rep Winter.

Rep. Espinosa.

Rep. Espinoza, please hold. Members, please keep it down. Take your conversations off the floor.

Rep. Espinoza.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay, the amendment has been properly displayed. Rep Luck.

Is there any further discussion on this amendment? Is there further discussion? Okay, the amendment. Okay.

Okay. All those in favor? Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Okay. The question before us is the adoptable. Oh, Rep Silper.

Is there any further discussion? Rev Camacho.

Is there further discussion? Rep Luck.

Rev Espinosa.

The committee will go. Okay.

The amendment will be withdrawn. Back to the bill. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Majority Leader.

Say aye. The bill will be laid over. All those opposed, please say no. The bill will be laid over until Thursday. Ms. Oshibo, please.

Okay, who wants to go first? Rep Luck to the committee report. Please move the bill.

Okay. To the committee report.

Is there any further discussion on, okay, Rep. Garcia-Sanders.

Okay, seeing none, the question before us is the passage of the Judiciary Report to SB 169. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. The committee report passes to the bill. Oh, I forgot what it was. Rep. Luck.

Is there any further discussion? Rep Camacho.

Hold on a second. Okay. I guess it's okay. Okay. Aww. There we go. Okay, the cell phone has been displayed. What are we looking at?

Okay, the rep Garcia Sander or rep luck.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Today, I rise in strong opposition to SB 26169, the so-called

Rep. Rooks.

Thank you, Rep. Brooks.

Rep Luck.

Rep. Martinez.

Okay. Rip Bradley.

Rep Soper.

Okay, seeing the representative... What's his name? Rep. Richardson.

Rep Brooks.

Let's wait for the amendment to be displayed. Okay, the amendment has been properly displayed.

Hey, that's fun. Okay, Rep Clifford.

Rep Brooks.

So the question before us is the adoption of L02 to SB 169 All in favor

Okay. L02 will be withdrawn. Okay. So in conclusion, are there any final?

Oh, we are going to a division now. Okay. The committee will go into recess for a division.

Okay. We'll call them.

Okay. The amendment has been withdrawn. So would we go back to the bill? Okay. And right now, the question before us is the adoption of SB 169.

We are on the bill.

Yes. Okay, and she's yelling no. That's what's happening right now.

Okay.

Now we're on the bill.

Okay. We're back to the bill. Rep luck.

The bill will be moved over. What do you want? Representative Luck.

Is there any further discussion on Senate Bill 169? Seeing none, the question before is its passage. All those in favor, please say aye. All those opposed, please say no. 169 passes.

Seeing no objection, the committee will... Thank you.