Colorado House 2026 Legislative Day 085

Representatives Bacon.

Excused. Barone. Besenecker.

Excused. Bottoms. Bradfield. Bradley. Brooks. Brown. Representative Brown. Excused. Caldwell. Camacho. Representative Camacho is excused. Carter. Rep. Carter is excused.

DeGraff. Representative DeGraff is excused. Duran. English. Representative English is excused. Espinoza. Foray. Rep. Foray. Flanelle. Froelich. Rep. Froelich is excused. Garcia. Garcia-Sander. Gilchrist. Goldstein. Gonzalez, Hamrick, Hartsook, Jackson. Representative Jackson is excused. Johnson, Joseph, Kelty, Leader, Lindsay, Luck, Representative Luck. Excuse. Lukens. Mabry. Marshall. Martinez. Morrow. McCormick. Wynn. Pascal. Phillips. Richardson. Ricks. Representative Ricks is excused. Routenel. Rep. Routenel. Excused. Bryden. Sirota. Excused. Slaw.

Smith. Representative Smith. Excused. Soper. Rep. Soper. Excuse. Stuart K. Stuart R. Story. Sukla Representative Sukla Excuse He higher Taggart Representative Sucla excused Taggart Titone Valdez is excused Velasco Weinberg Representative Weinberg, excused, Wilford, Representative Wilford, Excuse. Winter. Woodrow. Woog. Representative Woog. Excuse. Zokai. Rep. Zokai. Excuse. And Madam Speaker. With With 49 present, 16 excused, we do have a quorum.

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

Members, good morning.

If there was ever a time to approve the House Journal, this is it. Yesterday, we took up all of 19 lines on one page. If you're a fan of limited government, this is the House Journal you want to vote yes on. So with that, Madam Speaker, I move that the journal of Tuesday, April 7th, 2026, be approved as corrected by the chief clerk.

Aye.

No.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Colleagues, today I invite you to the Human Trafficking Awareness event in the West foyer from 11...

Thank you, Madam Speaker. we're inviting you to the West Forer from 11 a.m. to 12 to 2 p.m. for a human trafficking awareness event. Human trafficking is not a distant issue.

The National Human Trafficking Hotline has identified hundreds of cases. Hello, everybody. Thank you. We know that many cases are underreported or unreported, meaning the true scope of this crisis is even greater. Trafficking impacts individuals of all age but disproportionately affect women, children, immigrants, and those experiencing economic instability. Today's event brings together survivors, advocates, and community organizations to share powerful stories, raise awareness and highlight the work being done across our state to combat human trafficking and support We will hear opening remarks and followed by stories and presentations from survivors and those working directly in that space This is an opportunity for us as legislators to listen, to learn, and to better understand how we can continue to strengthen our responses. I encourage all members and staff who are present to please stop by and please no press at this particular event. Also, Aerospace and Defense Caucus will be meeting today. Please come by to their event. It's in HRC 109. We will be discussing the scope of Colorado's aerospace and defense industry and hearing about the challenges and opportunities for continued growth in this critical sector. In addition to our discussion, I hope you all join us for a special splashdown celebration on Friday, April 10th from 3.30 to 6 p.m. at the Capitol Center located at 225 East 16th Avenue. So see you at the Aerospace and Defense Caucus meeting later today, 12 o'clock in the human trafficking event at 11 a.m. Thank you. Representative Barone.

Thank you. Welcome back. Seeing no further announcements or introductions. Members, please take your seats. We are about to proceed to business. Thank you. Madam Majority Leader.

Madam Majority Leader, I believe that was 1363.

Well done, and seek no objection and a lot of applause. The bills listed by the majority leader will be made special orders today, April 8th at 9.13 a.m. Speaker Pro Tem Basinecker.

Seeing no objections, Speaker Pro Tem Basinecker will take the chair.

House Bill 1410 by Representative Sirota, also Senator Bridges, concerning the provision for payment of the expenses of the executive, legislative, and judicial departments of the state of Colorado and of its agencies and institutions for and during the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2026, except as otherwise noted.

Rep. Sarota, I'm just going to pause you for one second. Members, members, please take your conversations to the side. Rep. Sarota, please continue.

Rep. Sarota, I am so sorry. Members, this is perhaps the most consequential bill we'll pass all year. It is our constitutional obligation to balance the budget. I would encourage you to take your conversations to the side or find a different space to have them so that the public and those in this chamber can understand what is being presented in this long bill.

Further discussion on House Bill 1410? Representative Brooks. I'm sorry. Let's let Representative Brown. Thank you.

Representative Tigert.

Thank you, Representative Taggart. Representative Kelty, we are to the bill.

everyone. Thank you. Representative DeGraff.

Yes, sir.

And if not, we can certainly talk about it later. House Rule 23D states clearly that when speaking or debating before the House, a member shall confine his or her remarks to the question under discussion or debate, avoiding personalities. I will ask you to do that for the remainder of your time in this well.

Representative Luck.

make the changes in the budget. And so some of us may look at this 660-page bill and say, we'd like to make a number of amendments. But as non-JBC members, unless we are going to run one of our five bills to cover that change, we can't put forth that orbital. And so we are limited in what we can actually suggest by way of changes and amendments to the budget to those line items and those structures that can be changed wholly within the long bill and not outside of it. There are also caucus demands or expectations that play a part, wherein certain members are told that unless they have the votes, they shouldn't run the conversation. I find that to be very unfortunate. Because, again, this is a document about priorities. And each one of us have different priorities because each one of us have different districts. The JBC has thought, and I genuinely believe and thank the members of the JBC for trying to recognize all of those different priorities and keep as many balls in the air that different members have asked. I do not dismiss that. But each one of us have our own sets of balls that we need to keep in the air, our own sets of priorities that we have as a result of serving different districts. And that's what the conversation about this bill boils down to. That's what the amendments boil down to, is us making our plea for our particular districts. I will say that, again, being one of the more senior members on the minority side, it does get discouraging year over year to put forth amendments and just to be told no again and again and again. So some of the conversation won't come. through amendments. Some of it will just come through discussion around particular departments. But I don't want any of that to be received as disparaging of the general work that was undertaken. I do not envy you all, but I do appreciate your efforts. And with that, I will withhold other comments until later, but hopefully for, again, those who are new to this, you have a bit more of an understanding of what it is that we are seeking to accomplish this day. And as was said before, let the games begin.

Chair, thank you.

I appreciate my colleagues' comments about just the bill in general, about 1410. I do have an amendment that I'm going to run. However, I also want to add a little context just to what my colleague was talking about, just in terms of overall budget gain that she has seen since her time here from Fremont County and the growth of the budget that she has witnessed. There's a statistic that I think is relevant when it comes to trying to put this all into context that just over the last year or two we experienced in Colorado a loss of nearly 15 private sector jobs Now we can point to you know what is that Is that because we have continued to place regulations on the businesses in Colorado? That perhaps is a discussion left for a different time. However, to my colleague's point, that while that loss has occurred, we've added over 15,000 government jobs. Lost 15, private sector, gained 15 in the government. It's not reflective of what's happening in Colorado. It also is not sustainable. the budget itself the numbers have grown and and i do like my colleagues want to make sure that i am giving a nod of deep appreciation to the work that the joint budget committee conducts it is not i nobody in this chamber is envious in any way shape or form of the time and the blood, sweat, and tears that you all put into this. We understand that we're looking for ways of being able to try to maximize the efficiency of the budget that policy has given you to work on. This isn't in any way an attack meant on the good work of our Joint Budget Committee. However, it is meant to just try to make sure that we are voicing for the state of Colorado and our constituency the concerns that we have and perhaps some areas that we might see where we can trim a little bit to ensure that good, hardworking families of Colorado, for me personally, the intellectually and developmentally disabled community, are supported. I am oddly honored to present the First Amendment. I move J034 to House Bill 26-14-10.

Sure, thank you. At this point, I'm going to invite anybody that has had at any point, especially recently, concern about the Office of Information Technology, OIT. I know that OIT has been a subject, and deservedly so, honestly, for a number of us, whether if you're on the Joint Technology Committee or whether you're on the Legislative Audit Committee. The OIT performance over the last several years, at least dating back to 2023, is something of concern. This amendment, I believe, speaks directly to that. This amendment reverses OIT budget action, R3, by rolling back part of the expansion, expansion, and I'm going to come back to this, for statewide IT accessibility program, freeing up general fund dollars while still leaving the core accessibility function in place. Again, back to my initial comments, trimming, not cutting, trimming, looking for some efficiencies. The amendment reduces the general fund appropriation for statewide IT accessibility program by just over million let call it million reduces total funds by million effectively undoing the incremental increase provided under OIT R3 The reduction comes out of a centralized IT initiative rather than agency program lines or direct services. Why? By targeting a statewide IT add-on rather than frontline program spending, the amendment argues that in a tight budget year, buckle up, I think we've got a few of those yet to come, enhancements to central technology service should not take precedence over core function like education, public safety, or care for vulnerable populations. Forgive me for telling you up front I'm going to be a little bit of a broken record when it comes to vulnerable populations. Forgive me when I tell you up front that you're going to hear me talk about the intellectually and developmentally disabled community, which we chose not to help in a bill that I ran earlier this year. Also, there is another bill that sought to try to put some accountability for state agencies that are horrifically out of compliance with the Office of the State Auditor. Friends, it's more than one. I'll tell you, it's more than just the Office of Information Technology. I will tell you, however, that OIT is clearly the leader in the clubhouse. That bill sought to say, you know what, if you are not paying attention, almost to a point of dismissiveness, dismissiveness to the recommendations that you have even as a state agency agreed to adhere to, then your general fund appropriation might need a little bit of an adjustment. Call it a shot across the bow. Call it accountability. The Office of the State Auditor does a fantastic job trying to ensure that our agencies are run in a manner befitting the constituency. When they find an error, the state agency has the ability to say, you know what, okay, we will fix that by this time. OIT, this amendment, lest I stray too far, has been months, years, Folks, years in ignoring the recommendations for the Office of the State Auditor. Years. You're talking about critical infrastructure deficiencies that are being ignored. Highly vulnerable IT systems that are exposed. First, by targeting a statewide IT add-on, we are in essence saying, okay, we understand that perhaps going after the agency's general fund appropriation might have been a little bit over the top, but however, why would we add on to a statewide IT function when they are in such horrific compliance to the point of, honestly, a stand-up routine. Thank you. This reduces the statewide IT accessibility program by $2.5 million in total funds, including that $1.3 million general fund reduction. For any member of this body that has expressed in interest a concern in the operation of that department, it might be a good idea to consider this as a very reasonable First Amendment, not just for being able to find additional dollars, but for holding an agency accountable when they are in a flagrant violation and exposing, honestly, the IT security of this entire assembly. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Speaker 4 Tem. And I, too, come up here in support of this amendment. You know, there's a lot of areas where we should be able to make cuts. And when you go into a company, part of my job on the outside has been going into companies and making things better. So one of the areas that's the easiest area, and that's why many businesses do this, is in the IT department. If you're going to trim, and this is not a cut-cut, it's a trim. And if you're going to trim in the IT realm is easiest and actually the area that makes most sense. You don't want to trim first from cybersecurity. You don't want to trim from, you know, making sure that things are secure. but there's many areas that you can trim, that you can hold off on, that you can delay when you're in a financial bind. And that's what we are. So what this amendment will do is just give Colorado a little haircut in their IT department, and it also will cause them to actually prioritize things over things that maybe they don't need this year. It separates the needs from the wants. So I'm up here to ask for a yes vote on this amendment because it makes sense and just gives Colorado OIT just a little trim and prioritizes things for all of us. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair Pro Tem. I rise in support of this amendment as the resident Luddite, not because I understand all that much about OIT, but because I do understand what our founders intended vis-a-vis creating three branches of government. When they created three branches of government, if you will recall, they were coming out of a system where the authority had been all centralized into the hands of a king. And yes, there was a parliament, and yes, there were different courts, but for all intents and purposes, there was a centralization of power. And they realized that freedom was most at risk when power was centralized. And so they separated the branches of power They separated the power not only between the three branches but between the federal government and the state governments and local governments and the people. They identified and divided the power base such that you would have competing interests at play that would push back, and in that pushback would hopefully create the best outcomes for the people, for the citizenry. Over time, we have seen a consolidation of power despite the three branches of government. In this state, we see it, as well as at the federal level, we see it in a consolidation within the administrative state. In fact, one can argue, and people like Philip Hamburger have argued, that unelected bureaucrats are, in many instances, more powerful than elected officials. They stay longer. They have more power and influence and force in particular areas. And there's limited amount of accountability. I rise in support of this amendment because I believe it helps to restore in a small way accountability back to where it was supposed to be. As legislators, we should get riled up when the executive branch does not fulfill the wishes as expressed in the statute books. We should get riled up when audits are done and then not heeded. We should get riled up. we should not just defer to the executive. We should not just say, well, is it really worth expending my political capital to go up against the governor and his people? We should push back. We should push back because that is in that system where the people are best protected, when there is that tension. If OIT has refused for years to comply with law that this body has made, if they have refused to come into compliance with the auditor's findings for years, we should push back. There are many ways to push back, but today, one of the ways before us is this amendment. Because under this amendment, we can say to OIT, if you continue to be obstinate, if you continue to go your own way, if you continue to move as you want to move and not as the people have said to move by their elected representatives, you will lose your funding. There will be consequence. and today it will be a little bit of a consequence but maybe next year will be a bigger consequence and that doesn't just signal to OIT to align with the rule of law and good governance that signals to all of the departments and all of the entities that get funded under this bill on its flip side on the flip side if we don signal using amendments like this then we can come to expect greater and greater levels of impunity I'm learning a lot in real time, in the tangible world, about the philosophies I've held for years as a result of having a two-year-old. Having a two-year-old tells me that my philosophy was correct. You allow folks to get away with a little, they will continue to get away with that and push for more. This body has allowed OIT for years to get away with what they should not be getting away with. So let us not be surprised that if we don't push back and say no more, that they will continue in the direction they're headed and get away with more. And they will signal to everyone else in all of the other areas that they too can do whatever they want because there is no repercussion. I appreciate this amendment and what it signifies, and I hope that we can all find our way to trimming, not getting rid of what has been decided by way of accessibility standards, but by trimming enough to let OIT know you're on notice and if you don't get into compliance, we'll be trimming even more. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, too, ask for an aye vote. and it's because we've got to stop this process of rewarding incompetence with funding. We have an agency, and I just looked this up. Yes, Colorado's OIT, Office of Information Technology, head, is an appointee of the governor. Makes sense. It's part of the executive branch. It's part of His Excellency's executive branch. And we're looking at sanctions. And sanctions is to reward an additional $2.5 million. That's the kind of sanctions that we're doing. So Colorado, these are your preferences. These are your priorities. So we could go back in. I didn't bring that book up. I mean, it gets a little bit weighty. But we could look at where $2.5 million was cut. Not by the fault of the JBC. The JBC, I mean, I think this is one of those things you call a Sisyphean task, right? It's just undoable. And we can look and find where $2.5 million is and what program has been cut. And it's not the JBC's fault. The JBC has to negotiate with the office downstairs on behalf of the people upstairs. And thank you for the people upstairs and people watching online that are engaged in the audit process the oversight process But this is the priorities that we talking about and the priorities of the government the priorities of the state the priorities of the governor are to award an office that has resisted audit, is looking at being under sanction, is being rewarded by the budget with an additional $2.5 million. So Colorado, those are your priorities. Those are the priorities that are being sent down on you. So could we use that $2.5 million someplace else as opposed to an executive agency that's not doing its job? could we maybe not trim so much away from the health care providers? Maybe we don't take the money out of the kinship care program. Maybe we prioritize the least of these from the grift of government because the solution to incompetence is not greater spending. If you're looking at an agency that can't sufficiently do its job, the answer is not giving it more money. And then the rest of this amendment, if you look at it, is just adjusting totals. Millions of dollars have to be adjusted. 72 million, 100 million have to be adjusted for that little trim. So, Colorado, I encourage you to look through the budget. Look and see what's being cut. We're going to hear weeping and lamentations about what is being cut, and it will invariably be blamed on the big, beautiful bill, not on the fact that our budget has nearly doubled, that our surplus is gone, that we are in debt unconstitutionally. and when you want to know why it's 2.5 million here it's 2.5 million there it's a couple of billion dollars here pretty soon you're talking about real money and that real money comes from the tax widgets of Colorado tax paying widgets of Colorado and this is details like this that we are encouraged to blow through this budget in two days. So you would get it without knowing what's in it. So I ask for a yes vote on this amendment because then we can maybe spend that money on something that is actually value-added for the citizens of Colorado and not just for the executive branch. I ask for an aye vote.

Representative Sirota. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Unsurprisingly, I ask for your no vote on this amendment. I do appreciate the challenges my colleagues find with OIT and what was demonstrated in the auditor's report, and I look forward to the audit committee doing further work to get to the bottom of what is happening I will say, though, that this budget actually contains a number of cuts to OIT spending. Within the long bill, we are decreasing $5.6 million of reappropriated funds from the IT Revolving Fund, which will save an estimated $2.2 million in general fund from payments from other agencies to OIT. We are also lowering appropriations to OIT due to streamlined service delivery through a consolidation of offices within OIT, which will save us $1 million of general fund. And you will find in House Bill 1405 transfers to the general fund, two transfers within between two fiscal years amounting to $11 million in fiscal year 26 and $10 million from fiscal year 27 from the IT revolving fund to the general fund. and there is a sweep of $10 million from the OIT Technology Risk Prevention and Response Fund. This is all because we have done a lot of work to lower the amounts that we are spending on IT from all the state departments to ensure that we are bringing OIT's budget in line with actual needs. So that work is ongoing. However, the result of this amendment would be to cut funding for IT accessibility across state government, which would open us up to hundreds of millions of dollars in liability costs if we do not continue to do the work that is required from House Bill some year, 1120 I believe was the bill that requires us to comply with OIT accessibility rules. And so these funds are used to ensure that all of the documents that are public-facing are accessible to the public, something that I think we can all agree is very important but does require resources and funds. That would be the consequence of accepting this amendment. And for that reason, I ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. and I think it's enlightening on just the way the money has moved back and forth, but still we're looking. If we have an agency that is not fulfilling its job, we're talking about four years. We're talking about things that have been going on for four years, and we're just saying that, yeah, this needs to be a hard stop. This needs to be full stop. You know, we can look at money that's taken from here, taken from there, going for office spaces, whatever. But if we're going to have an office, that is, if we're going to have an executive agency that is thumbing its nose at the legislative body, then figuratively or literally, I don't know, but if we're going to have that, then we need to exercise the power of the purse. We need to exercise the authority that we have and say no more funds for you. You need to replace the leadership. Whatever crony is in there at the time, we need to replace that crony and with somebody that can fix it within the budget that they have. Not rewarding with more money So we looking at more money here there wherever And we've got an agency that our auditors have said, we don't think they're spending their money wisely. So any money, any additional funds given someplace, I think is a mistake. because I don't think we can have any confidence that this agency is executing, as per the executive branch, those monies in a truly good faith manner. And the only thing that we have, the only recourse that we have as the legislative body is to say we're going to withhold funding. I mean, everybody's looking at cuts across here. So there should be no woe is me for the IT, the Office of Information Technology. Yes, they should have cuts across the board just like everybody else. And no, they should not be given extra money when they're failing their audits or refusing their audits and they're refusing to participate and we're looking at sanctions. The way we can do sanctions as a budget now, this amendment is a start, takes $2 million and gives it to somebody else's program. It's $2 million that can be allocated, $2.5 million that can be allocated for something else. $2.5 million. So if you're going to reject this, then don't clamor for $50,000 here or $100,000 there, because we could solve a lot of the cuts with this amendment right here. We can solve a lot of the cuts by taking this amendment and amendments like it. Taking that money, putting it in the general fund, and allowing it to be moved towards this, what we're calling a balanced budget.

Chair, thank you. You know, we all, to the best of our ability, mark our calendars. knowing that this day is coming, give or take a week. But we know that this day is coming, and we know how important that this day is to this body and to the state of Colorado. We understand what our responsibility is with the people's money. We understand what our responsibility is to ensure that we're being good stewards and we're doing the best that we can. I am a little bit disheartened by the seeming lack of engagement with the conversation when it comes to this amendment. There will be a lot of ideas that are presented. Can we please not just dismiss them and take each one on its own merit? and because I wanted to give some context about my thoughts around that and the importance of what we're doing before I call for division on the vote of this amendment.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate my colleague from Douglas County passion and commitment to making sure that departments are performing and making good on their audit recommendations being implemented As a member of the Legislative Audit Committee, I have a different perspective than my colleague shared, not in that, you know, I do believe that our departments should be making good on implementing their audits in a timely fashion, but I'm not convinced that taking money away from them is going to make their job of implementing audit results any easier. And so I do ask for a no vote on this amendment and do want to share with everybody that the Legislative Audit Committee is very invested in holding OIT's feet to the fire and will be writing a letter to the Joint Budget Committee asking for additional oversight and check-ins throughout their next budgeting process. And we will continue to do our work in holding them accountable as well. But, again, don't believe that taking money from a department that's already struggling, specifically in this area, is the right approach. So I would ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Madam. I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Apologies. I do also want to say to my colleague who asked about engaged engagement on this, I want to also support my colleague who just spoke as well from Adams County. For what it's worth, many of us in legislative audit do believe that there are concerns with OIT. And I just want to reiterate that we actually spent time to meet to submit a letter to them. I have also spoken to my JBC counterparts to share what our expectations are for their spending. I will say, though, the portion of this amendment that concerns me is, you know, reducing appropriations around accessibility in some of the programs there. And so I do want to reiterate and support my colleagues who I have the privilege of serving on ledge audit with to recognize there is an issue with this department. However, I believe the approach of this amendment is not necessarily one that I could support. So thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. Members, it all leads to this. And I think we should acknowledge what got us here. And before I start my remarks, I just want to thank the JBC this year for a very tough job that they had. All six of them had to make hard decisions. And all of us here in this body are going to have to make these decisions as well. As you know, the legislature has power of the purse. We write the budget. We approve of the budget. And I think one of the things that I commend the JBC on is that they can tell the governor no. And ultimately, we have to approve of the budget, right? I also want to address some of the remarks that were said here at the swell earlier. First off, I'm so tired of hearing that it's HR1's fault because it's not.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. My colleagues have laid out a pretty good argument about long bills so far. This is possibly one of the most important things that we work on in the building. This is no different than the household budget that my constituents work on. And as they're trying to make a living and they're trying to make end meets, they have to pull their budgetary priorities together. I think one thing that's been said over and over is we don't have a revenue problem. We do have an over-committing problem. I think that we have definitely over-committed on a lot of issues, and I think that we have a priority problem. In this budget, you are going to see some belt tightening. That's a fact. When you look at the numbers, and our JBC member had explained this to us a little bit earlier, when you look at the number, there's been a huge increase, and the main increase has to do with commitments that are made that are outside of what they can project. And those are things that I understand that are going to create that This budget did see a decrease The issue I have is we ask Coloradans to tighten their belt We have tightened our belt but we just put the rung in the wrong hole of the belt We need to start making tougher decisions and decisions that affect all of the state. Now, I know every one of these decisions are going to affect different areas of the state, but it seems like a lot of these decisions affect, especially rural areas, a little bit more. I agree with my colleague from the Greeley area that I think special session was a good opportunity in the political world for some where everything came to a culmination and we stamped the budget crisis in this state on one person's back and said the federal administration did this. there were some things that definitely created some issues but I think to reject the idea that this isn't a structural deficit from over committing and over promising I think if we disregard that argument I don't think we've really looked at the budget because I think we have over committed and we have overspent so that's the part I want to talk about the nuts and bolts of the budget and I'll discuss a lot more of that when we talk about amendments the second part to this is as you're looking at a budget, it's no different than at home. So say you and your family, you have your budget, your spouse gets laid off or gets fired, and that money's taken out of your budget. Well, as the six most regulated state, as we drive businesses out of this state left and right from over-regulation and adding red tape in front of them, and then when we look at perpetual economic drivers such as agriculture and such as oil and gas, those also have an effect on the budget. And I think the people of Colorado need to realize that because those dollars are real dollars. And severance tax. Does severance tax go directly back to the people? No, it doesn't, but it goes to schools and roads and bridges, hospitals. But I think what people don't realize is the actual upstream effect of that is we all know that the dollar that the worker makes goes to the local economy about seven times. That affects these small businesses that we're talking about, especially in rural Colorado. So I want to make it clear that even though that we're in a structural deficit that I think is going to be something that we face in this legislature for years to come because of the overcommitting and the overspending, I think the other thing we have to look at is the business climate that we created and monies that would be coming into this state based off of the work and the labor of others, based off of the severance tax that comes in. And as we see businesses leaving, it does make a difference when we look at a budget like this, because it's no different than your spouse losing their job. When you pull money away from the budget and the ability to be able to fund the programs that you want to fund, then there's a crisis. So I think first and foremost, there's things in the budget that have created the bloat and they're self-inflicted. And on the second hand, I think the other arm of this problem is we're taking revenue drivers out of this state with over-regulation and red tape. And at some point, I think we're going to have to get to a nexus where, I say this all the time, we have to put the swords down and say, not everybody's going to get what they want to get out of this, but we're both going to have to take a step back, and we're going to have to look at our priorities, and it might mean stepping back from some priorities to make this work. I think that's one of the most important things that definitely needs to be said. So let's try to work together to get this state to thrive again. I think that we have that ability. let's try to find a way to attract businesses back into our state. That way we can look at this budget and at least know that we can keep the lights on. I think that in this building I learned a lot of lessons after especially in the last four years and I think there a way to move forward but we have to have real conversations I want to reference one more thing before I get off the dais I was chatting with a fellow representative out of New Mexico and they said pretty much the only difference between Colorado and New Mexico when it comes to policies is is the governor realized that there's two major gas producing counties in her state. to fund most of the state government in New Mexico because they're having some problems too, but when you look at our budget compared to their budget, not the same kind of problems. And I think the governor there realizes that she needs those dollars to run her state. She knows that if she kneecaps that industry, especially those two producing counties, her budget looks more like our budget. So I urge my colleagues, as we try to get the state out of this budget crisis, let us rethink some of the policies that we have passed in this building. Let us re-talk. If you want to talk about climate goals, let's push the dates back. Let's put the roughnecks back to work, let the money flow into this state, and let's actually try to create jobs that help them. In my district, I had oil and gas workers that were told, we understand that Senate Bill 181 passed and you're going to lose some jobs, but we're going to replace them with good-paying jobs. Well, that didn't happen. My constituents had to move out of state to keep those good-paying jobs. They were offered jobs, wilding windmills, for $17 an hour when they were making $185,000, $200,000 a year. And let me tell you what, not many people, well, other than farmers and ranchers, work as hard as oil and gas workers. I have a lot of friends that have done it. I mean, they work. We talk about work. They work for that money. It's big money, but they're away from their families. It's long hours. It's being in the field. It's really knocking your health down. Some of these guys work seven-day shifts. So they know what they're working for. So please, colleagues, as we talk about this budget, as we try to figure out how to fill the holes in this structural deficit, let us think about bills that will come after the long bill. And for those of us that will be back in the next couple of years, let's think about the legislation that we pass. It reminds me of the meme you see on Facebook where the guy's driving the bike and there's a problem and then you realize that he shoved the stick in the spokes of the bike and that's why it flipped over. I think we've got to take a step back and realize that we do that in here. And, you know, I always urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I believe I've done this in good faith, please let's sit down and talk about revisiting some of this. Let's try to look at a way to make this state thrive. And if that means bringing back some industries that have had that mark, let's bring them back, let's take the pressure off, and if the end goal at the end of the day, because this is a math game, that those industries need to go, which I disagree with, But if they do need to go, let's at least keep our word to them and find industry that puts that good paying dollar back in their pocket so they can spend that tax dollar that goes through the economy seven times. So I think that this is a way bigger problem that we're dealing with than just today. This is something that's been created. And just those are my opening comments on the budget. And I urge us all over the next day or two to have a good healthy debate. And let's really have discussions on how we're going to fix this because we know we're going to come back to the same type of problem next year. and probably a year after that. And I think that there's really some opportunities and some relationships that have been built in this building where we can start to come more of compromises. Like I said numerous times, if both sides of this chamber aren't 100% happy with a bill, that probably means it's best for the people of Colorado. So thank you for hearing me out. I appreciate your time, and I look forward to the spirited debate.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I like that analogy better. that, You know, taking somebody that's going at full speed and throwing a stick in the spokes. Maybe that's even better than tying the shoelaces together. Both of them work for the Colorado economy. The only reason that it's only seven times, and for the people of Colorado, just know that when we come up here, we're talking to you, because most of the seats in here are empty. And Reptograph, you know, you are not wrong. It is a bit loud in here.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I mean, we are doing this for the benefit of the citizens of Colorado, and they should know that we're talking to them. But to my colleague's point about the 7-to-1 advantage, it's really only because... So what he's saying is that $1 that is introduced by something real, like part of a real economy, like agriculture, mining, and manufacture, those real things, those things that built the state, the money from those goes around. But why only seven times? Well, it only goes around seven times because it's then taxed. It's taxed. A tax is a drain on energy. And so what happens is the government, every time that transaction takes place, the government takes a little bit. And it takes a little bit. And for every dollar that the government takes out and then pays back into the economy, only a fraction of it makes it back into the economy. So when we're talking about a $50 billion budget, near $50 billion budget, What we're talking about is taking money out of the economy that would have otherwise gone around. That $50 billion would have gone around 350 billion times and improved the lot of Colorado by 350 billion. And so the overall budget, you have to remember, is an overall valuation of that. And the government is saying that we value, because we want to do all the things that we want to do, but you just have to know that it's a seven-fold decrease on the actual benefit to the state of Colorado. So this is how the government creates homelessness, and this is how the government then monetizes homelessness. But if we want to get back on our feet and not keep throwing that stick in the spokes, we need to return to the things that are primarily attacked from downstairs, agriculture, mining, and manufacturing. Those things are all under attack. They're all under assault. The governor and the Chihuahua Clutch environmentalists send wolves after our agricultural community. to harass them into non-profitability so they can rewild Colorado. Same thing. Mining, drilling, oil and gas, coal, those things that are cut back, those are part of the real economy. Those are things that we need to support. We need to get, we need people in those industries. and we prioritizing everything else And as my colleague mentioned for climate goals does anybody in here know what any of the climate goals are Spoiler alert there are no climate goals Contrary to the 2019 I don remember the bill I find it the 2019 bill that required climate goals, and not only required climate goals, but that they be cost effective, the governor, the Charlatan Energy Office, the CDPHE, None of them have a single climate goal, nor do they have a means by which they could figure out if they're cost effective. So everything that is being imposed on the citizens of Colorado for the sake of the governor's green superstition is fraud. And we're losing billions of dollars to fraud. to prop up cronies, to eminent domain across the state, to force electrification, all with zero basis. And what we need to do is we need to get back to those fundamental economies like manufacturing, mining, and agriculture, so that we stop hindering our progress forward. so I think we need to reevaluate this entire budget and I think there's some good bills that are coming up to maybe help help us in the direction of encouraging agriculture mining and manufacturing at least agriculture because without food there is no economy

thank you Mr. Speaker Pro Tem chair it's all in there so a good representative from El Paso County, single county just spoke about the importance of agriculture and I want to preface this by saying I really appreciate the hard work that our JBC staff put in to the budget this year. I was able to sit in on a couple of the last bills they heard yesterday, and I could hear that there's a lot of emotion behind the cuts that have to be made. And that's hard because over the last six, seven years, a lot of our programs have been expanded to the point where they're unsustainable with the budget that we now have. I think to, again, my colleague from El Paso, his point was, I'm sorry, my colleague from Los Animas County spoke about oil and gas and how much we've cut back on drilling and the severance taxes that we're, the severance tax revenues that we're able to incur from that really funded so much of our state. And since that's been cut back so much, we are really in a budget crisis. To the point of agriculture being supported, I'm in Weld County, the number one producing county in our state, and Larimer County, number nine producing agriculture county in the state. And looking at the budget this year, looking for ways to support my ag community in Weld and Larimer counties, I found that although the JBC did a wonderful job with trying to find all the cuts they could I just looking for ways to support our ag community and our next ag leaders And so, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem, I am asking to run Amendment No. 3 in our budget packet.

Thank you. That's correct, Mr. Chair. Thank you. So I move Amendment J040.

So the purpose of this amendment is to increase the Agricultural Workforce Services line item in the Department of Agriculture by $300,000. And this reduces the state employee tuition reimbursement line item in the Department of Personnel by $300,000. The Agricultural Workforce Services Program is funded at about $434,807 with 3.5 FTE. And the NextGen Ag Leadership Grant Program received $1.5 million in applications, but only about $150,000 was awarded in 2025. The NextGen Ag Leadership Grant Program at the Colorado Department of Agriculture uses relatively small competitive grants, that's roughly $20,000 to $25,000 per award, to help commodity groups, nonprofits, and educational partners build the next generation of agricultural leaders. Funded projects create concrete leadership pipelines for young and emerging producers, things like regional leadership cohorts, youth boards, and intensive training programs that cover business skills, water and soil stewardship, policy literacy, and community engagement so new leaders are ready to step into roles on boards, co-ops, and in local government. This is overall in the big scheme of our massive budget and trying to figure out how do we fund the important things in our state. This is a relatively small ask to help support our agricultural workforce services program so that we can promote the NextGen Ag Leadership Grant program. And with that, I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate the background and the education. I mean, we're trying to solve, we are trying to balance the budget, and, you know, here's another thing that could actually be funded with actual priorities, and not a fault of the JBC. The JBC is tasked with making these very hard choices with the limitations that they have. One of the things that surprised me is just that there is no line item, no full line item transparency or resolution on all of these so that we can dig in. So even the JBC can't go into the budget and drill down to the minutia and see what's going where. And, of course, that's how some part of the government knows where all those line items are. Yeah some part of the government knows where all those line items are has that resolution could find all the fraud could prioritize and balance all of these but chooses not to Chooses not to. Now when I look at this, I think this is one of those tough balancing choices. This is not saying that whatever the money was going to be used for is not important, but it's certainly not as important as funding our agriculture. When we say we have a need that's ten times more, when we have young people that want to go into a foundational economy like agriculture, we need to support that. That is not a nicety. That's a strategic, that is a strategic worldview. That's strategic. You need to make sure that, and the college costs, the education costs that these kids are up against, because of the grift in education, because of the skyrocketing education costs, That is a self-inflicted headwind. That is tying your shoes together. That is throwing a stick in your spokes. So we need this money to come from someplace. We need these kids educated in agriculture. I know there's some billionaires out there that think that farming is easy because their pen is a plow. And so they look disparagingly on this foundational, fundamental part of our economy. So I ask for an aye vote on this. We need to not hamstring our future in our funding. So these are funds that the kids need. The state has a strategic interest in making sure that our agriculture community can deal and address. Some of what they need to address is just the unending taxation that comes out of this room, the unending regulation that comes out of this room. I'm sure there's a lot of farming. So that not just growing crops, not things that they can learn at home, but now they need to be CPAs.

Thank you, Mr. Pro Temp. Colleagues, this is a good amendment. Our whole purpose today as a group is to look at the work that's been done by the JBC, their good hard work over this past many months to try to fund everything that is passed out of this chamber and the other and across the governor's desk over the last few years that puts demand on our revenues. Yes. But, try as they might, they can address all the priorities for every district in this state. So, I've been up here many times over the last two years to talk about my district, largely agricultural. This is a foundational industry in our state. It is the heritage of our state, and if that doesn't move you, it is a $47 billion industry in this state. The average age of our farmers and ranchers is retirement age. What is suggested here is to take a small amount of money that we know returns greatly on that investment and get more of our young folks into a place where they can be the next generation of farmers and ranchers. I appreciate our state employees tremendously. And the incentives of having some tuition assistance is a great incentive for hiring. But as was mentioned earlier, we have grown more government jobs in this state than private sector. For a few years back, several months back, we were showing kind of neutral job growth for an entire year. We had lost a lot of jobs in the private sector and that had been matched almost equally by public sector employees. We don't have a problem bringing people into government jobs. but we are losing folks in the private sector. We are losing folks in agriculture, and every dollar that we put into training and preparing a young farmer or rancher to take up that mantle, our heritage, is a dollar that supports them. Every dollar they spend at a local feed store, every dollar they spend on fuel, on equipment, on seed, on fertilizer, builds that local economy, rebuilds our revenue streams, and may get us to the point where we're no longer missing our revenue caps. This is a good amendment. This is a good switch in priorities, and I would recommend that we support this as a body. Thank you. Representative Tigert.

Thank you, Rep. Taggart. Representative Sucla.

Thank you Rep. Sucla and just to clarify I don't think anyone was begrudging our farmers or our state employees just a budgetary question and so full respect for both professions and the work that folks do Representative Bradley Thank you Mr Speaker Pro Tem but I have to come up here and agree with the Oh, Rep. Bradley, I'm just going to, before you start, one second. Members. It could be the microphone or it could be the intense amount of conversation going on that could be taken to the side. So perhaps we can prioritize both.

Hey, how about winter?

Representative Sirota.

Rep. Garcia-Sander.

seeing no further discussion the question before us is the adoption of amendment j040 to house bill 1410 all those in favor say aye all those opposed no the no have it the amendment is lost Rep Garcia Thank you Mr Chair Speaker Pro Temp

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Speaker, pro temp.

See,

pay what we promise. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of J48. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. The amendment fails. Representative Bradley.

That is criminal. This is not a delay. That is denial. And there are thousands more. Over 2,000 additional individuals waiting for supported living services. These are not people that want plastic surgery. They need living services. Families waiting years, sometimes nearly a decade, just for basic supports. Now, let's come to the thing that I'm here to talk about. Provider rate cuts. First thing on the governor's cut. He cut our provider rates 1.6% last year. JBC fought really hard. This year, first thing on his budget. cut provider rates another 2%. Now, if you know a health care worker, you know that we are not raking in the money. Oftentimes we treat for free. And he is going to cut our provider rates again. So what will happen, Colorado, when we cut provider rates now 3.4%? We will not take Medicaid. We will not be able to take Medicaid. So Medicaid patients get ready to use the ER for all of your basic needs. It's called kicking the can down the road. Great job. Cutting provider rates means, guess what? No one's coming into your home to help out. No one's coming into your home to provide in-home care. No one's providing behavioral health care when we're in a mental health crisis for our children in our state. Because providers have to provide for their families, too. because we have families that we need to take care of as well. And we just keep spending and spending, and then providers pay the consequences. We didn't pay enough consequences in COVID when we continue to work. We didn't pay enough of the consequences last year when we cut our rates 1.6%. We're going to pay some more consequences by cutting our rates 2%, because we have such a bloated budget that we cannot get our hands around that now providers have to pay the consequences of that. So guess what really happens? Patients will pay the consequences because we will not be able to accept Medicaid, not because we don't want to, but because we have to keep the lights on in our own homes. That's what this does. Cutting reimbursement for the very providers who deliver. In-home care, behavioral services, disability support, we are already operating on thin margins so what happens they close programs they stop accepting medicaid patients or they leave the workforce entirely and i think my good friends from rural colorado can come up here and tell you about the maternal health deserts we have indian health deserts we have maternal health deserts we have cardiology specialty deserts we have in rural Colorado. Can you imagine if there's not a maternity health ward 45 minutes away from you that closes and you're in a snowstorm and you have to deliver your baby? And the hospital has closed down their OB ward because of policies in here. Because they're cutting provider rates and now they can deliver your baby And you got to figure out a way to get from rural Colorado to some hospital somewhere to deliver your baby You cannot cut providers and expect services to expand It does not work. We will not tolerate it. And then we get to homemaker and support services. Like these are luxuries. Like me helping my child shower and wipe himself is a luxury for me. Or feed him or cut his food. So let's cut those services. Homemaker services mean helping with bathing, cooking, medication management, basic daily survival. Cuts or restraints in these services mean a disabled individual loses the ability to live independently. they're going to have to go to an assisted living facility or be institutionalized. You're taking away their independence because you're taking away the ability for their parents to take care of them at $8 an hour. A senior is forced into a nursing home. Is that how we repay the people that work so hard to take care of us? We force them into a nursing home? A family member to quit their job to become a full-time caregiver? However, it's a domino effect of the decisions made in here. So let's connect the dots, Colorado. We expanded Medicaid beyond its original scope. At the same time, costs surged to unsustainable amounts, enrollment surged way beyond sustainable growth, and now budgets are tightening. So what happens? The system starts rationing care, not on paper, but in real life. Wait lists grow, services shrink, and providers disappear. And the people with the greatest needs, the disabled, the medically fragile, and the poorest are pushed to the back of the line. This is the hard truth. We are telling families in Colorado, wait seven years, maybe 14, hope a provider is still around when your turn comes. That is not a safety net. That is a system under strain and failing the very people it was created to protect. The disabled and the elderly poor do not deserve that. And let's just go through the biggest line item in our budget, health care policy and financing. The director just quit. There was so much fraud in this one department, $25 million just for ride share. And we have wait lists of 3,000 people for developmentally disabled just to get services in our state. I've already talked about Medicaid so what do we what does this department cover health and long term costs for serves people with low income and people needing long term care provides low cost insurance for children and pregnant women with income slightly higher than Medicaid health services for children lacking access due to immigration status which is a new state funded program that mirrors Medicaid and CHIP what are we going to keep this bill includes an adjustment to other programs that are not part of the categories above but operate like an entitlement program based on the february forecast of caseload and expenditures under current law and policy the net impact is an increase of 30 million general fund The two largest programs are the health services for children lacking access due to their immigration status The department provides health insurance coverage to children who would otherwise qualify for Medicaid or CHIP except for their immigration status. So $30 million, $16 million, $46 million for that. And what are we going to cut? Here's picking winners and losers. We're going to cut IDD youth transitions. The bill reduces funding to end automatic enrollment to the adult comprehensive waiver for youth aging out of the children's extensive supports. That's gone. We're going to reduce funding for the DD waiver wait list enrollments. Year one, 6.6 million gone. Year two, 18.9 million gone. Caregiving soft hours cap. Bill reduces funding to implement a phase cap on the paid weekly hours per caregiving providing these services. Year one, 0.5 million total funds. Year two, 2.8 million total funds. This implementation of the 56-hour-per-week cap will be rolled out over one year with full implementation planned for July 1, 2027. These are people that are taking care of their children. 56 hours. If you have a child completely disabled, guess what? You don't get a break. You're working 24 hours, getting paid about $8 an hour. This is going to require them to bring in a provider into the home to pay that provider, and there's not going to be any that are going to be willing to do it because we're all going to leave because you're cutting our rates. Not a scare tactic. This is truth. We're sick of it. Provider rate cuts, another 2%. This bill reduces provider rates by 2%. Provider rate decrease changes the projected expenditures by $222 million. First year. Second year, $242 million. How does that impact your districts and the providers in your districts? Ask them. Ask the doctors, the nurses, the speech pathologists, the OTs, the PTs, EMS, how that's going to impact them. We're going to exempt pediatric behavioral therapy from the negative 2%, even though that has been shown fraud after fraud. I mean, millions of dollars of fraud. But we're going to do statistical sampling to try to control the tens of millions of dollars of fraud of people that have billed and double billed for autism. Because we think that that's going to get a handle on that. Home health nurse rates. The bill reduces funding for modifications of the private duty nursing rate structure in the home health rate structure, as well as to develop and implement a new rate negotiation strategy for the DD waiver and the CHRP waiver. So we're cutting, oh, year one, minus 26 million total funds, year two minus 58 million, year three minus 58 million. So we're going to cut home health and nurse rates. We're going to cut provider rates. We're cutting funding to the IDD wait list. We're going to caregiving our soft cap. And we're going to cut funding to the DD waiver wait list enrollments. But we're going to give $46 million to people regardless of their immigration status. We are picking winners and losers. And that's unfortunate. because we created a system that started and was only supposed to be $20 million and has grown to $130 million, and the disabled community is paying the brunt of that, health care providers are paying the brunt of it, and the people of Colorado are paying the brunt of it. Thank God for Tabor. Thank God for restrictions on this budget growth. People in Colorado, wake up. I hope you're listening. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. so I am going to go back to my appreciation to the JBC staff and JBC members for trying to figure out how to balance the needs of Colorado but I am still speaking to the needs of my district and agriculture in general in Colorado. And I move Amendment 007 and ask that it be displayed properly.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment trims a modest amount from unnecessary regulatory administration funding and reinvests it directly into the Agricultural Workforces Services Program line for the purpose of bolstering the NextGen Ag Leadership Grant Program. It puts more dollars into training the next generation of Colorado ag leaders instead of leaving them unnecessarily in a regulatory body. This amendment reduces the appropriation for HB 25-1001 by $224,739, consistent with CDLE's own additional balancing options and shifts those dollars to bolster the NextGen Ag Leadership Grant Program. It is a budget-neutral reallocation that keeps total spending flat while reprioritizing within the existing envelope. HB 25-1001 permits but does not require increased investigations due to new misclassification fines and broader anti-retaliation provisions. This amendment would not appropriate general fund for 2.0 FTE for those functions, as indicated was possible by JVC staff. The bill broadened who can be personally liable for wage violations, all owners who have a 25% ownership stake. It sharply increased misclassification penalties and expanded state enforcement and private litigation tools. These regulations are poised to chill investment, burden small businesses, and invite abusive lawsuits in an already overregulated economy. The NextGen Ag program received $1.5 million in applicants, but only awarded about $150,000 in 2025. Agricultural Workforce Services Program line item, which houses the NextGen and related workforce grants, is funded at about $434,000 general fund with 3.5 FTE. The NextGen Ag Leadership Grant Program at the Colorado Department of Agriculture uses relatively small competitive grants, roughly $20,000 to $25,000 per award, to help commodity groups, nonprofits, and educational partners build the next generation of agricultural leaders. Funded projects create concrete leadership pipelines for young and emerging producers, things like regional leadership cohorts, youth boards, and intensive training programs that cover business skills, water and soil stewardship, policy literacy, and community engagement so new leaders are ready to step into roles on boards co and in local government This is a relatively small ask It reduces the appropriation for HB 251001 by and it shifts that to the NextGen Ag Leadership Grant Program, again, supporting small farm in Colorado so that we can fend off big farm. I urge an aye vote on this.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The JBC members asked for a no vote on this particular amendment. In our budget, we took in the labor standards subdivision at CDLE, we actually eliminated an FTE. So this division has already taken a cut, and I'm afraid that they wouldn't be able to do the work that they need to, were we to cut them further. I think it's also important to note that this particular division that is being cut does very important things like investigates wages and hours, so wage theft in particular. It investigates health-related whistleblowing. And it also helps to protect work conditions for agricultural workers. So if we're making a cut into this division, workers will get hurt. So we ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move J66 to House Bill 1410. It's number six. All right, that's a proper motion to the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, this is our attempt to keep mostly funded the auto theft task force that has been so successful in the state of Colorado. We have really been impressed with their performance. There is a cash fund that exists for them that keeps some of the state stuff shored up. One of the biggest things on this is making sure that we keep funding many of the local government entities that have police officers that have been hired to do this task, many under grant funds. Many of those local governments also match these funds. This has been a robust program. I will say that auto theft tends to lead to many other things. So when we're talking about auto theft, number one, for a family or for a person that has a vehicle stolen, it is an event over which many people cannot get. I know that if my car were stolen today, what I would get from insurance for that stolen vehicle, if it could not be recovered at all, would be a massive loss, and I could not replace anything close to what I drive for the same amount of money. But that's not even the whole heart of the matter of the issue. Many of the vehicles that are taken in Colorado and used are often used for other crimes. So they're related to many other things. So this is not one of those things where we're talking about the loss of an asset. We talking about just the loss of an asset that impacts a family that also very often gets used in the commission of burglaries very often gets used in the commission of human trafficking et cetera et cetera et cetera I don't want to take a program that is working so well, that has had such a drastic change in moving us from being one of the number one or number two worst auto theft states in the country down to hopefully number four or five and not continue that momentum. This is still not going to fully fund the program, but it will at least keep it from being broken.

AML Winner.

Rep. Ron.

Minority Leader Caldwell.

Rep Luck.

Rep Bradley? Rep Brown?

Rep. Black.

Rep. Sirota.

Rep DeGraff. Well, I think this is a great opportunity to actually discuss our state priorities. I mean, car theft went through the roof as the governor imported criminal cartels for auto theft. And it's going down as our current president repatriates them. And I think that's fantastic. And here we have a program that is, you know, doing good work and helping circumvent the governor's program of auto theft. so I think it's but now we have this conflict with these other programs that has been created but now we have to figure out what our priorities are in terms of actual funding and this is where I think it's insightful that where we're not taking money from because we're not taking money from things like the governor's choo choo that's not on the table that's not there That's not helping anybody. Another $5 billion to focus on, well, what, Fort Collins to Denver.

Rep DeGraff, I've given you a lot of leeway. Can we talk about this amendment?

Okay.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of J66. All those in favor say aye.

All those opposed to saying no. The amendment passes. Representative Ricks. Rep. Ricks. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Rep. Briggs, can you move your amendment, please?

Okay, that's a proper motion. The amendment is displayed to the amendment. RepRix. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We're up to graph.

So these are great conversations. So in 2025, $36 a ride, dropping down nearly, dropping two-thirds, dropping 66%. That's just not feasible, and you look at the actual benefit. And so here's something that I think we have. Now, I do have some issues here because also the per diem rate for private prisons, that was something that was negotiated. So we're looking at the health care. We're looking at the health of our citizens, and this is not a dig on JBC. JBC, again, has done the yeoman's work trying to balance this, but only allowed visibility on certain funds, only allowed access to certain monies. So they had to make the hard call. The money's not there because the priorities are not there. The priorities for getting people to and from medical appointments. And now we can argue whether or not is it the appropriate role of government to provide transportation. Oh, wait. No, government does provide transportation. There's a program called Reason to Drive, and that is the mobile mugging centers that are run throughout Colorado, that only 4% ridership, with only 4% ridership, less than 4% ridership. And then we give that organization an additional $24 million. dollars. And Mr. Chair, we are talking about transportation for the citizens of Colorado because we're talking about a budget for RTD. I just looked it up. I'm a little bit shocked. It's 1.5 billion dollars. It's 1.5 billion dollars and that reason to drive because people don't want to ride on the mobile mugging centers is about every dollar that is put in by somebody willing to take that risk is subsidized by the government with another 19. So a $20 fare is paid for $19 by your neighbors. It's kind of like the EV cars, right? That it's always bragged about that it's like $1 per gallon. No, it's like $17 per gallon. It's just your neighbors are paying for them through government subsidies and mandates. It's parasitical. And so here you have a budget of $1.5 billion, and where do we, for the state of Colorado, for something that only 4% of Coloradans use, and now we have to go and look at funding it by pulling it out of a per diem rate for private prisons. And so what's going to happen if you lower the per diem rate, if you tell people that, you know, if you make it to be not livable, to do a very difficult job in these prisons, then you're not going to have those. If you're not going to have those, then you're going to have to build state prisons, and you're going to have to run more state prisons. Especially as more people turn to crime, as taxes increase and they take away the incentive to earn and save money. It all goes together But previously per ride cut by nearly 66 down to and this is only taking it back up to I would prefer this comes out of RTD, because that's another appointee program. And where could that come from? Well, you know, $1.5 billion, and if you're going to be put in charge of a $1.5 billion program, well, then by golly, you need a $421,000 salary to run that. In order to run a $1.5 billion program that only 4% of the Coloradans want to use, you need a $421,000 salary. Total compensation was projected at $508,000. Started at $315,000 in 2020. So we're talking about transportation. We're talking about priorities. We're still talking about J80?

Because we're talking about the priorities of moving Coloradans around Colorado. And who cannot move themselves around? Well, when we looked at the Boson Bill a few years ago, twice in a year, twice in a row, we gave it an extra $24 million per year, unquestioned. That could fit, that could do this program, I think. We could fund that program. and the interesting thing when it comes out it's like giving every single rider in the Reason to Drive program giving them $300 a year $300 or $400 per year I'd have to go back and do the math I could do that for you here but it's a little cumbersome but the it's giving the equivalent of $400 a year to individuals who don't want to use it. Now, what does the private sector do? What does the private sector have to offer? It has to offer things like this, medical transport, because somebody who's doing medical transport is probably not so able to amble their way the quarter to half mile down the street in order to get to a reason to drive stop and then amble the however many miles that they're going to have to take, go to get to whatever facility they have to go to after they've bounced around the city for a couple hours. Ambling. Lumbering. Mostly in the wrong direction. So we've prioritized CEO salaries at over half a million dollars per year to provide a service that nobody wants, cutting a service that people need. And then the only place that we can find to deal with that is another needed service. So I have to see. And maybe JBC can tell me just how big of a haircut Reason to Drive took. Subsidized at roughly for every dollar paid into it So a fare you pay your neighbors pay And this year, the medical transport, which is something that people actually need, right there at $20. So you're going to lose that service. You're going to lose that service. you're not going to have the ability to, you're just not going to, at 1240, I can't even imagine these places are going to stay in business. And you're going to lose that opportunity. Now what are you going to do with the sick? We're just going to sequester them in their room, in their homes? So these are the priorities that we have. We've cut a service that people actually need. We've propped up a service that nobody wants, and we're at the cost of possibly making this society more dangerous in general. Because if there's not enough prisons, what happens? I mean, other than the governor keeping Tina Peters in jail as a political prisoner, they start releasing people.

Still talking about the amendment? Absolutely, because we're talking about private prisons. We're talking about private prisons. We're talking about prisons where people have to be put if they're unable to not violate the rights of others. But they're only kept there if they're a political threat. So we have this. This is for the citizens of Colorado. We have this conundrum. Do we provide a service? Do we keep a free market, as much as you can, a free market service that actually helps people, or do we prop up a service at $1.5 billion per year that nobody wants, as opposed to making a gig ride economy where you don't have a mobile traffic jam creating problems, snarling up the city? But we've prioritized that at the cost, at the expense of people who actually need this type of service. Actually need it. I mean, you don't want people that are sick, not feeling well, not at 100%, having to get themselves across many miles. But instead, we prop up crony salaries at over half a million dollars apiece to run a failed program. That is the priority of the Colorado budget. That is a government that is done to the citizens of Colorado, not for the citizens of Colorado. These are programs that people actually need, being pitted against each other, and Colorado deserves better. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would ask you to vote no on this amendment, and I'll try to give you as many specifics as to why we should be voting no. First and foremost, the change in the per diem rate up to $77.16 a day makes it equal with how we reimburse individuals that are in our local jails And we as a JBC want to be consistent We don want one group at a higher level than another group And we need to be aware that right now the state utilizes 3,000 beds in these private prisons. 3,000 beds. And if we cut this back or not give them the, they asked for an increase, I believe, somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, over $80. And we trimmed it back to $77.16 to be consistent with local jails. So we took a step to make sure that the payments were equitable between local jails and our private prisons. NEMT, non-emergency medical transportation, has been one of the highest areas of abuse in this state. Let me repeat that. It has been one of the highest areas of abuse. And one of the reasons is because of the fee structure that we put in place. The $12.40 that is in the long bill is based on 10 states in western United States. We didn't pick that number out of the sky. We made it again equitable to other states in our vicinity. I also want to talk about that is not all that they are compensated for. This is the pickup fee. They're also paid $3 a mile. So please don't present this that this is all they get. this is not all they get. Also, the agency that works with our local providers has the cost of the major dispatch fee. This is not to the local level. They already have this technology. That technology is, in fact, provided to the local folks that do this. Folks, I understand nobody would like to get more dollars into the medical services premiums, but we have to curb the abuse in this area. And one of the reasons for this abuse was this pickup fee of $36. dollars. The $12 is fair, as well as the $77.16, comparing that to our local jails, is also fair. We do not need to go beyond this. If anything, we need to continue, as you're going to see in orbital to in fact audit this size side of NEMT because it has been abused to well over $40 million and we're trying to reel that back. So please vote no on this. This is not necessary. Rep. Rex.

We are aware that there has been extensive Medicare fraud in this,

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Every year, the federal government establishes mileage reimbursement rates. And in 2026, that rate for businesses is 72.5 cents per mile. That rate for medical and moving is 20.5 cents per mile. And that rate for charities is 14 cents per mile. $3 per mile is well above those rates. And so I'm wondering if the JBC members have any insight into why that number was established and any history surrounding that would be helpful.

Thank you, Madam. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Representative Luck. The $3 per mile, similar to the pickup fee of $12.10, was compared with Western Geographic area to make sure that we were in the same vein, et cetera, et cetera. Certainly, there are more costs associated with these vehicles. Folks have to be compensated where we're not compensated when we're driving our own car. You know, so you have to put those things. Insurance is going to be higher, et cetera, et cetera. But again, I want to remind you, from audit information, this area had $40 million of fraud that we have clamped down on at this point. and some of that was created, a good significant part, with a pickup fee of $36 and some odd cents. That is just a pickup fee. I can't speak to when there wasn't somebody to pick up because that's a problem with the dispatcher. And the state, whoever is driving these vehicles, if the dispatcher is not doing their job, they need to have a conversation with the dispatcher, but we don't need to be compensating them because the dispatcher is not doing the job correctly. That's a third party. That is not the state of Colorado. Folks, we cannot go back to these higher rates. We have to get fraud out of Medicaid. Most all of you folks have seen these articles. This one was picked up by the Denver Post. We have to get this out of it. And one of the major causes in this particular case was a bad pickup fee to begin with. So please we need to be doing a similar cost structure to the states around us in the western United States and it and it and it more than fair Thank you Rep Rex

say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. No. The amendment fails. Rep. Garcia-Sander. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That is displayed to the amendment. Rep. Garcia, Sander.

ensuring that inmates who are working and gaining job experience are treated consistently with others who receive dress out. Basically when an inmate is released from incarceration they get plus some clothes unless they have a job when they were incarcerated within the system And if they are employed in their incarceration with their job within the system, they don't get that $100 and some clothes. And so this just is about equity for inmates who are being released, that they all would get the $100 plus some clothes when they leave. So I urge an aye vote for this really reasonable amendment. Thank you. Rep Brown.

Rep Black.

Okay.

Rep. Brooks.

Reb Jackson.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of J009. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed to say no. No. The amendment fails. Rep Luck.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Rep Bradley.

Rep. Brown.

Rep Luck.

Any further discussion? Representative Bottoms.

AML Bacon.

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion on J072? Seeing none, members of the question before us is the adoption of J072. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. The no's have it. J072 fails. AML Bacon.

Okay, sorry. Sorry, members. Thank you very much.

Representative Luck.

AML Bacon.

Any further discussion on J071? Seeing none, members, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment J071. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. The ayes have it. J071 is passed. Back to the bill. Representative Richardson.

Just give us a moment to display the amendment. Representative Richardson.

Any further discussion? Representative Brooks.

in that senior dental program. I applaud the idea, the efforts of my colleague in trying to ensure that that stays funded and would ask for an aye vote. Any further discussion on J064? Representative Kelty.

Any further discussion on J064? Representative Sirota.

Representative Richardson.

Any further discussion on J064? Seeing none, members, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment J064.

All opposed, no. No.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would move Amendment 13 in the packet. It's J024 to House Bill 1410 and asks that it be displayed.

All righty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. and I, having heard the discussion, I'm assuming I will not get support from the sponsors on this. I truly do feel that the dental program for seniors is a place where this money should go, but I'm one of 65, and there may be other priorities I'm missing, but we do have a public library system. putting money into a program that's duplicative in a year when we really are struggling to cover core services and we've had to cut other core services. I just don't think it's responsible to put $1.6 million into a program that could be served by our public libraries. So I'd still recommend this reduction and just return the excess for use in the general fund for other priorities and urge a yes vote.

Chair, thank you. I understand that the opposition to this amendment will be incredibly similar to the opposition to the last amendment. I get that However it gives my colleague an opportunity to reiterate and it gives me an opportunity to stand up and say you know I agree I actually came over and sat down next to him and said, wait a second, am I missing something? What do we have public libraries for? He goes, ooh, I'm actually going to mention that exact same thing. It was a little kumbaya moment, which we didn't share last night, but it was nice to be able to actually have that today. and know that we're on the same page with the public library. I believe that that serves a great function. I know that we're very, very proud of ours in Douglas County and Castle Rock. And, again, we need to be a little creative, not to say that there hasn't been creativity on display to this point so far from the work that has been done by our Joint Budget Committee. However, I would ask that we consider this as a way of being able to ensure that we are funding areas and perhaps taking from an area where we already have resources available to us that are doing the job for us. It's not that we don't want kids to read. That's not what we're saying. We're saying that the public libraries perform an amazing community service. mine, I know in Castle Rock, is a wonderful community gathering spot. As a matter of fact, there's a playground in the library. Relatively unheard of when I grew up. I didn't really like to go to libraries because everybody shut up all the time. My member of the Joint Budget Committee is looking at me with that same look. Perish the thought. I would ask for an aye vote.

Representative Taggart. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's not going to surprise you that I'm going to ask for a no vote on this, but I would like to clarify something. books to take home and to have within your family is a very different situation than a library. For young people that come from an underserved population, these books are absolutely critical. This is an evidence-based program that has proven out that kids that participate with the Imagination Library, their reading skills are significantly better. I think we all lost a lot of sleep over any cuts on the senior dental, amongst others. But please, getting kids reading early, getting parents reading with their children, provides for a lifetime of potential benefits. And just the opposite if we don't do that. So please, I agree we have libraries, but these are books that end up being in the family and owned by the family. In many cases they have comprehensive simple questions and tests to help those kids with their learning capabilities please don pit seniors against our kids especially underserved populations We really need these dollars for this imagination library, and we get a significant amount of match to help this situation. from a very famous, very famous country singer. So thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I just wanted to make note of two things. The first is it was my understanding that that famous country singer was really the primary support behind that particular program and the non-profit or private funds that she brought in, whether from herself or through other entities. I didn't realize, to be honest with you, that the state contributed as much as it does to this particular program. I will say that my son benefits from it, and we enjoy reading these books over and over and over again. And it's nice that there's a new one every month because then, you know, you get to memorize multiple books, not just one. So I want to put that on the record. I also have a struggle with paying for things that I think are outside the role of government. This would be in that space for me. So now I have this tension as it relates to our subscription and that. But in any case, that is a private matter. the other thing I wanted to take this moment to just speak into is the fact that the libraries in my district were very grateful to the JBC for not cutting their funding so a kudos to you all in the midst of otherwise challenging conversations

all opposed no

Chair, thank you. I gave you a preview at the very beginning of the day, and I just reiterated that preview just a few minutes ago about assisting with vulnerable populations. I am proud that the first bill that I was involved with that was signed into law, it might have been the only one last year, was for the intellectually and developmentally disabled community. I will continue to stand, as I believe we all should, honestly, for the intellectually and developmentally disabled community. Finding money for them within our budget is, I understand, not easy. I understand that there is no magic piggy bank left, as we've already done rated it. Yeah, we've already done rated the shards of the piggy bank that we've rated. I digress. There's not any real place to be able to easily go and pull from to be able to say that we are really going to try to protect a vulnerable group like the intellectually and developmentally disabled, I would ask that we give some consideration as I move J056 to House Bill 1410s be displayed.

Chair, thank you. 056 restores $3.3 million in general fund support for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities by paying for it with targeted reductions to lower priority post-pandemic health initiatives and executive branch overhead instead of cost shifting onto families and providers. It was mentioned earlier the exorbitant financial burden that parents face for individuals and their family with intellectual developmental disabilities. This amendment will reverse HICPF, budget actions, cost sharing of long-bill narrative. And here's the great thing. It's two for one dollars. Federal, I always, when I go to the grocery store, I always look for the two for one deals. I love the two for one deals. Whatever we're able to do to be able to combine up our money and make it more powerful, Always a big fan of that. First of all, we're asking to cut a million dollars from the immunization outreach campaign. One million in general fund that was added for an immunization outreach campaign in response to roughly 10% decline in routine vaccine doses after the pandemic. That campaign is aimed at routine childhood vaccines around the back-to-school calendar, respiratory virus vaccines, explicitly including both COVID and flu, looking for a million and a half from Disease Control and Public Health Response Administration. Administration. DCPHR runs immunization programs, disease surveillance and outbreak response. The Emergency Preparedness Network and the Public Health Laboratory currently over double its pre COVID funding. JBC flagged a modest reduction as being tenable. The state receives 50 million in federal funds for immunization programs. It's unclear honestly why we haven't cut it. Seeks to pull two and a half from the universal home visiting pilot program. It's a recently created pilot program. State already funds targeted nurse home visiting services for mothers and babies that are most in need. And then finally to the overhead out of the governor's office, $1.3 million. The governor has not prioritized cuts to administrative bloat nearly enough, at least I think in our opinion. I would say that from what I hear within this chamber about opinions around the governor's office, I would venture to say that perhaps the governor not cutting enough would be something maybe we'd all agree with. I don't necessarily know that favorability polls are really tilting in the favor there. Administration has prioritized cutting services to program recipients instead who rely on services. So again as an overview this amendment draws a sharp line on priorities Direct services for Coloradans direct services for hardworking Colorado families those with intellectual and development disabilities are protected while temporary or lower value items, pandemic era outreach, remember the fake-demic, expanded state-level administration, a pilot program that never became a core program, and part of the governor's own staffing budget. are asked to absorb the hit instead in order to fund hardworking Colorado families with an exorbitant cost structure they have to bear for their family members with intellectual and developmental disabilities. I would ask for consideration of realigning some funds in order to ensure that we're protecting some of Colorado's most vulnerable.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the commitment to supporting our folks with intellectual and developmental disabilities. We ask for a no vote on this amendment. I will say that the sources of funding that the good representative from Douglas County is taking are particularly problematic. The Universal Home Visiting Program has already received a $280,000 cut in the previous fiscal year, which reduced the program's reach by about 400 families. A $2.5 million cut eliminates all state support for the program. and this is a critical first step in the state's prevention continuum. You want to reach families universally at birth, and the program identifies maternal and infant health risks early. In the PETI program, the PETI, the cut we're talking about here in HICPF, I think it's important to note that other residential Medicaid waivers also require this, and this change brings consistency across all of the waivers, and that the department is going to provide a full evaluation of the person's finances, and obviously we're not going to be taking money from folks who cannot contribute to their care in some way. It's also important to note that this change on this particular waiver was made administratively years ago. It was because the process to do this was administratively burdensome. That is no longer the case, and changing this brings equity to the DD waiver with the other residential waivers. It will not be required for individuals who are working or who are eligible through the Medicaid buy-in for working adults with disabilities. And then to the vaccine portion, I will say that CDPHE plays a critical role in expanding access to vaccines and supporting local public health agencies. And as we have talked about, the division has already seen pretty significant cuts in their immunization funding, including million from the federal government and a 50 general fund reduction last year And in my community we have seen outbreaks of measles and our measles our vaccination rates across the country and in Colorado are falling And that puts all of us at risk. So we'll ask for a no vote on this amendment.

Aye. All opposed, no. No. No.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Amendment J026 to the bill. It's Amendment 15 in your packet.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know we just heard a little bit about this as part of the previous amendment, but this amendment would reduce spending by $2,528,842. It ends the universal visiting pilot program. I understand the desire and the stated importance of reaching out universally to every family to provide this service, but we are straying a little bit beyond probably what the role of government needs to be here. It's absolutely nice to do, absolutely likely very beneficial, but we can't afford to do everything in this state. We certainly can't afford to do everything for everyone. The Universal Home Visiting Program was designed as a broader, very light-touch model, But we already fund visiting services for mothers and babies most in need. This doesn't eliminate that. It just eliminates, again, providing a service to everyone because when we're spending other people's money, we don't seem to want to discriminate in any manner about who's deserving and who's not. But we've got to decide at some point who's deserving of other people's money, and it can't be everyone in every situation. So it pains me truly to bring this amendment because this is a good thing to do. But our job isn't just to try to do good things for everybody. We've got to focus on our core services. That's how we got to a point where we're constantly a billion dollars in the hole every year. We just keep expanding programs. Since 22, the Department of Early Childhood's budget has risen from about $340 million to nearly $780 million, largely driven by investing in programs like this that we just can't sustain. We've got to do better. And I know that every decision that was made has some justification behind it. I know every program has been looked at and we've decided, at least what's been presented, is the best work of some very good people, and I appreciate all that work. But we can't just keep expanding and starting new programs that cover everybody in a state where we have folks that are truly in need. and we're just cutting into services for those that truly need the help by trying to serve everyone I would urge a yes vote on this ML Bacon Thank you Mr Chair and thank you to my colleagues

I was visited by people who particularly utilize this program. They are not only my constituents, but they work in partnership with a large early childhood provider in my community. And I wanted to share the words that were shared with me in regards to this program. The ability for folks to be able to provide early childhood support for their own children in their own home, to me, seems like it walks in the veins of how we've been talking about parents wanting to further connect with their kids. The use of this pilot program has helped parents be what we know to be true, which is their children's first teachers. Our littlest learners can deeply benefit from the ability to work with their family members who, in turn, become early childhood providers. And so on behalf of the constituents who came to speak to me about this program, they said the mentorship that they get from this program is invaluable. When teachers and with other people in the space come and visit them to figure out how to best support their children through their learning needs, it is priceless. They cannot get it from elsewhere. And if they could, they would be paying for the child care. And we also know that investing in our littlest learners, whether they are just turning one or all the way up to four, it shows so many, so it creates such better outcomes for their learning when they are in school. So on behalf of those constituents who said how they were supported not only with the means to do this work in a space in which they financially couldn't, but also the impact it has had on their children for when they show up in kindergarten ready to learn. Those are children that we do not have to remediate and worry about down the lines. For the price of this program, I do believe we see immeasurable outcomes. And so while I understand that budgets are difficult, what this represents to me is what we talk about in regards to investments, where we see the returns show up in their families and our kids. And it's perhaps maybe $100,000 we don't have to spend 15, 20 years later when we're talking about the importance of getting kids to a place where they're literate by the time they're in third grade. So I just, again, shout out to those constituents. Thank you to JBC. I know you didn't keep everything. This isn't even a lot, but just to see a plane strike, I would urge a no vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I totally respect my colleague and his concern about government getting involved in areas. and an expansion. But I will say something on this particular program that didn't exist for my kids and early on with my grandchildren. I had a grandchild, still have that same grandchild, that looked into my eyes as an infant and locked his eyes on me for 10, 15, 20 minutes at a time And I remember saying to my wife, something's wrong with this young man as an infant. My wife started to notice the same thing. And then our daughter-in-law also had been curious about other behaviors. Because of that, we got that young man to a specialist very early on in his life. And by that time he was 18 months to 24 months, we knew he was autistic. Because he got care very early on, because we noticed something, because he got that care, he is a fully functioned young man at this point, still autistic. but because it was caught so early. He's fully functioning. He's finished college. He has a great job. And if we, through this pilot program, can catch through nonprofit providers that can help us as parents when we see something but we don't know exactly what it is to get care early on, that can alleviate a lifetime of suffering. I realize this is a pilot program, but for those families, and I think we're now down to 400 families that we can service in this area, for those families, that is the difference between that child having a lifetime of pain mental pain, potential physical pain, potential learning disabilities, if we can catch that early and help that person, that youngster, become a productive citizen, I don't want to cut that service. Thank you. Please vote no.

Chair, thank you. I had committed to coming up and speaking about this prior to my good colleagues' comments. And I did consider sitting back down and pulling off because those are very – that's a great example. That's a great story. And I have stood here on more than one occasion today and advocated for IDD community, you know, and will continue to do so. We have vast differences from that side to this side. and they're not just always you know just straight line political you know there are things that touch our families that have impacted us personally that are unique and that particular instance that you shared that's that's that's unique and this is what i know that if we were here with an extra 10-15 billion dollars we would be fighting each other over good ideas what the best idea let prioritize what are the greatest ideas down to what are just you know just good ideas that maybe we can implement later We not short in this chamber on good ideas and that fantastic. We are short, however, on funding good ideas. And then that's where I'd already committed to stand up, because for something with a pilot program, I understand there is a great story to be had there. And there is another great story likely behind it. And there are other likely great stories that we will not ever know because we don't have the ability to fund more programs right now that can create more great stories. So at some point, despite how much we really want to fund great ideas and how much we really want to be able to do more, because we do. we do all want to do more we want to do more for the families of Colorado we want to do more for those with intellectual and developmental disabilities catch them early, do all these things but for a pilot program, a nascent program that is part of a department and a budget that has been ballooning at some point, we have to say where can we at least pause for a pilot program in Puppy Dogs and Roses budget years if those ever were to exist in our future again. Makes sense. Pilot programs, when we're struggling, I don't know that they rise to the tried, tested, and true kind of level that we need to be looking at for when we have to decide on where to cut, irrespective of how great of an idea it is. We have to find a way. We have to figure this out, no matter how great the idea is. So I very much appreciate and very much in line, our hearts are aligned for the IDD community. I have no doubt about that. There are things that I've tried to do this session for that community that have failed. And it hurts. They say don't ever get attached emotionally to your legislation. good luck man when it's the idd when it's an idd piece of legislation yeah good luck with that i look old and cranky but i got a feeler or two left i i believe that this is a pilot a nascent pilot program is an area that is not unreasonable to look at. And I would ask for consideration to do that as difficult as it is. And as much as I

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I absolutely respect your point of view on this. I just really want to point out as we're working through all these numbers, there's about 61,000 children born in this state every year. If this is providing value to 400 families, that's great, but that's 400 kids born every three days If we looking at this as a pilot for a universal program we can never get there We will never have the money to make this a universal program in this state I don think it right to dangle a promise we can never achieve in front of the people of this state

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, I come up here, and I've said this plenty of times during the session, that we need to prioritize spending in the state. And I'm bringing forward an amendment that really does prioritize the spending in the state. I hope I can earn your support to be able to pass this amendment. So I move J-008 to the long bill, and that's to be properly displayed, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is amendment number 16 in your packet. What I'm trying to do here is I'm trying to reduce the Colorado Equity Office appropriation by $480,000. Now, stick with me here and move that money to the Family Resources Center and Child Maltreatment Prevention. This is a great organization, great program that we can prioritize in this state. Reducing that fund and putting that fund into that program, it really does make a difference. It really does help. So to come up here and speak on prioritizing to good programs, so something that's actually going to help, not to say that DPA doesn't help. I'm just saying we should be able to prioritize something over the DPA department. So I urge and I vote on this amendment, and I hope I can earn the support of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for this one. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I respectfully ask for a no vote on this amendment. The amendment would result in the layoff of nine state employees who are leading work for the entire state and all of our respective departments, doing work on accessibility and accommodations, community engagement, and equity resources for agencies and employees and the supplier diversity program. I will add, if it makes you feel any better, over the last couple budget cycles, the Budget Committee has denied additional FTE to specific departments for these roles because there is this statewide effort through this office. And these cuts could undercut efforts to ensure that we are complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act and other state and federal laws. The general fund reduction in the child maltreatment prevention line actually is an impact to the family resource centers that receive grants from CDEC for this work And the reduction was identified by the department due to historic underspending in the line. With the reduction, the family resource centers, their total budget for the coming fiscal year is still $4.1 million. And those centers also receive philanthropic funding, so they are still funded. They're not being cut completely, just a partial cut due to our need to balance

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to my colleague, Rep. Sirota, for the explanation there. Now, I'm going to ask one question for you, Rep. Sirota, and you can come up here if you want to come up and respond, that's fine, but I want to go along to see if I can probably get some ideas, bounce some ideas off your head. And first of all, I want to come up here, and I just want to thank our JBC members. I understand the hard work that you are doing. I understand you're doing what you can with the budget. You are presented by the legislation that's passed through this House. So I'm not attacking either one of you. I'm not attacking any of you. I'm just trying to bounce some ideas here, like some of my colleagues said earlier, that we're trying to put our train of thought, our ideas into what you're doing. So is there any way that we can reorganize the FTEs in that department? We don't necessarily fire them, but just put them to do something else. And also, I understand that you came up and you explained that philanthropically this program is receiving money. But the way I hear is that the philanthropic donations have been drying out and lowering over the years because of the high prices it costs to live here and stuff like that. So when business and people are thriving, philanthropic donations thrive as well. It goes the opposite way when people start struggling. So that's my concern, is that those donations probably won't be coming. And I hope you can come up here on either side, Rep. Seroza, and I'm sorry, a good representative that came before me, I'm sorry, can explain if those FTEs can be reassigned somehow. Oh, the FTEs.

Representative Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I do appreciate, thank you so much, JBC members. This has been a very hard task to balance the budget with all the programs and picking ones versus needs. I move J-038 to House Bill 1410 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this amendment trims $50,000 from the Parents Encouraging Parents Conference Line in CDE, asking the program to tighten its travel, lodging, and event costs so higher priority needs can be funded first, asking that these $50,000 then go to prioritize the Rural Behavioral Health Voucher in the orbital amendment of House Bill 26-1378. We have seen a huge mental crisis in our state. Rural is not exempt from that as we see higher costs across our nation. We know that this is hitting our farmers, our ranchers, our agricultural communities hard. And so we're asking that we put from a want of conferences to the need of mental health support by trimming this 50,000 K from one area so we can show that we do support behavioral health, especially in rural areas. And I would urge a yes vote.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Members I rise in opposition to this amendment You might see that this is a relatively small appropriations, but the appropriations has a huge impact on families with children with disabilities. Oftentimes, families, when they go to school and when they're in school, they don't actually understand fully what they have access to. These funds support the navigation in schools for parents to understand what benefits the students get, how to go for IEPs, how to go for 504s. this program is already in a limited number of schools, but in those schools, it's necessary and it must remain. Please vote no on this.

Any further discussion on J038? Seeing none, members, the question before us is the adoption of J038. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed no. No. Noes have it. J038 is lost.

It's J023 AMO Winter.

Just give us a minute to a moment to display the amendment.

Representative Barone. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in support of this amendment. Veterans are very important to me and everybody in House District 48 as well. I have a lot of veterans in my district, and suicide prevention is very, very important to the veteran community, and not just the veteran community. I'm sure a lot of you colleagues can share the sentiment that we want to protect our veterans. We want to protect everybody, but our veterans who went through very traumatizing times, and that's something that we want to be able to help. And we're taking bits and pieces out of different departments here, with this amendment to be able to help that. And in my opinion, this is a good way of prioritizing this money. And I will be coming, when I do come up here today for these amendments to speak on them, it is going to be to prioritize the money because I truly believe these amendments that are really moving this money to prioritize is truly a good thing. So I urge an aye vote on this amendment.

Representative Hartsook. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And also in support of this, you just heard some very sobering numbers from my great colleague from Elbert County. It would empty this chamber. And that is something, if we are looking at a statistical difference, a program that makes a difference, has a great ROI, return on investment, saves lives, achieves things, then that is worthwhile. We have debated countless things here so far today, but now we're talking about a direct way with a proven track record that saves lives. I urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Representative DeGraff.

DeNada.

the funding that they need. Representative Kelty

Representative Sirota. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I respectfully ask for a no vote on this amendment. I very much appreciate the desire to put more funding toward these veterans' mental health services and the program that was started some years ago. I am glad to hear that the funding that they have been allocated is being used And it is to the benefit of our veterans who have, I think, used beyond the capacity that they are able to access in their veterans health plan. And so it's not a judgment on the worthiness of that program, but rather it is a challenging cut to take to these different offices. The governor's office has already reduced their total appropriations by 1.5% this year and their personal services appropriations by 1.5% and have cut back millions from several cash funds in order to support our budget balancing. And the same can be said for each of these departments where these cuts would be taken from. We've already talked about the employee state tuition reimbursement program. And just for your awareness, the Department of Revenue has already offered up half a million dollars in fiscal year 26 and another million in fiscal year 27 for budget balancing purposes. So this would do significant harm to these various state agencies that are tasked with work, statutorily tasked with work that they have to perform, and will be unable to meet those obligations if we take these deeper cuts. So I do respectfully ask for no vote.

Representative Weinberg. Thank you. Good afternoon, fellow colleagues. I'd like to move J32 to House Bill 1410.

Thank you. Very simple. This amendment reduces the general fund appropriations in the office of the governor, the Governor's Office Division by $3 million with no offsetting increase elsewhere in the bill. The reduction will have to be absorbed through lower staffing levels, trimmed consulting and communication contracts or other executive branch overhead cuts This is a very simple amendment I own a business If my business is not working out if I lose a client I have to make cuts I have to fire employees I have to take a decrease in pay. Why cannot the same thing happen to the state? I do not understand why we're not running this as a business. We don't have the money. There's no reason to push this forward. Cut the fat. I have a dry vote. Representative DeGraff.

Chair.

Representative Bottoms. Thank you, Chair. I do support this amendment.

I, too, stand in support of this. You know, we're expected to make so many cuts. Our JVC is working, you know, night and day to try to come up with a balanced budget, and everyone needs to tighten their belts. And honestly, I think the governor would also approve this. I can't see why he wouldn't. Everyone has to cut. Everyone has to tighten their belt. And why should he be any different? And I'm sure he agrees with that. I'm sure he would see this as a challenge. What can I do with less? What more can we do with less? And I think that if he were here today, he would probably agree with this amendment just like we do. because everyone has to make cutbacks, including him. So I think that he would actually approve of this amendment, and I think the JBC should know that I really do think that he would because he, along with all of us, has to understand we're all going to suffer a little bit, and if anyone's going to make cuts, why not be the leader? Why not be the leader of the cuts? Show by example. Lead by example. Cut by example. And I'm asking for a yes vote on this amendment. It's a good one. Thank you.

Chair, thank you. Unlike the last time I came up and spoke after a very emotional story, this one would seem to be a little cleaner. Talking about administrative bloat cutting from an administrative line that will not in any way whatsoever potentially have an adverse impact on a grandson $6.6 million. Cut three. Still have $3.6. I can hang some new wallpaper with $3.6. I can afford some new paint, carpet, rug, lamps. Cutting the $3 million, there is not an emotional story to attach this to. And not to in any way diminish the emotional story that I heard prior to speaking last time because there is a demonstrated need there. I would challenge you to tell me there's a demonstrated need here. I would challenge you even more to then attempt even, because you shall not be successful, but even attempt to tie it into an emotional benefit. Administrative line. Everybody's got to give. If we don't want to give from a nascent pilot program, perhaps we ought to give from the governor's lamp fund. I think that this might be a place that we all ought to agree can be trimmed back for Colorado, for the hardworking families of Colorado that deserve more than to just pay into an annual fund to support the governor's office and the plush rugs that adorn it. I would ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate this. We asked for a no vote on this amendment. It's shocking, I know. I will just say that the governor's office has already reduced their total appropriations by 1.5% this year, and they have also reduced their general fund by 2.5%. In fact, each of the offices within the governor's office, even CEO, Oedit, OIT, have reduced their general fund by at least 2.5%. As much as I have problems with the governor's office many times, and I do, I had a bill vetoed last year, I also know that they do serve an important function, and that is supporting the elected head of state of Colorado, liaising with this branch, appointing boards and commissions, executive branch cabinets, and other things. And I will just say that a $3 million reduction in this particular line would be almost a 50% cut to the entire governor's office and would probably result in the loss of about 20 jobs. So as much as I appreciate my colleagues trying to save money, we ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Rep. Brown. I'd just like to remind the governor, since he decreased so much money, a whole whopping 1.5% general fund, 2.5%, that he also cut provider rates 1.6% and tried a 3.6% this year. So, I don't know, maybe we hit him where it really counts at his residence. and maybe we do to his residence line item what he's doing to provider rates and go after him for 5.2%. I think that's only fair. I think that's only fair. So I would ask for, I would ask for, I know, but he argued to cut them for 3.6% and the JBC fought really hard not to have that happen. And so maybe the JBC should fight hard to allow this amendment so the good old His Excellence can understand what cutting rates feels like. Honorable, sorry, not His Excellence the Honorable. Thank you.

Yeah, I just think since we're continuing this conversation, it's a great time for the governor to lead by example. and the cutting of rates for providers, 1.6, and then wanting another, then suggesting an additional 2% for a total of 3. And now we're talking about this important function that the governor serves. You know, I think that maybe the Rockies will do okay if the governor's not there watching. I think maybe not manning a booth at the county fair, that he'll be okay, that the state will be okay. I don't, I'm not really sure, I'm not really sure what would happen. Maybe, but 3.6%, but 3.6%, if he's going to suggest that, then why are we limiting, why are we bulking at 1.5%? Because if the governor can see 3.6% as a needed trim on providers, I'm going to say providers are a much more essential role to the state than the governor. I think our medical providers are a lot more critical to the state. So if the governor, so now I was in favor of this, and I still am, but now it's looking a little paltry when I realize it's only a 1.5%. I mean, this should be well over 6 million. I mean, if we want to do anything like equitable, if we want equitable, if the governor considers himself to be on par as an essential service with our health care providers, then a 3.6% cut is in order. But now for the citizens of Colorado just know that the JBC fought very hard against his excellency to keep that cut down low keep that cut lower than the governor wanted But this is a matter of priorities. This is a matter of priorities in the state of Colorado, because this $3 million could have been used, just going back into the backfield, could have been used for several of these programs, could have funded at least partially some $500,000, could have funded six of those. Maybe. So I'm in favor of this amendment, but for the citizens of Colorado, we'll see. does the General Assembly consider His Excellency to be more vital to the state than medical providers? Or is His Excellency willing?

Thank you for noticing, Madam Chair.

But when we can't, when the governor can't just willingly accept a 1.5% cut, then I fear that he did not get that memo. I think he didn't get the memo. So, yes, the Honorable Governor should be not considered more vital to the state than our health care providers. So I ask for an aye vote on this amendment, unless you consider him, his excellency, and certainly more valuable. Unless you consider the governor more valuable than health care workers, then this is a good amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I seem to recall last session we passed a bill to give the governor's office $4 million to defend itself from President Trump's lawsuits. Back then I found it funny that it went directly to the governor's office instead of the attorney general's office. But $4 million I went to the governor's office last session. I'm pretty sure we remember that. This is taking away $3 million out of that $4 million. I don't think that we had to defend ourselves from President Trump. So why not put $3 million out of that $4 million? We should have made this $4 million. Why not put $3 million out of that $4 million that we put in the governor's office last session back into the general fund? I urge an aye vote. So any further discussion on the amendment?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to move J33 to House Bill 1410.

Well, fellow colleagues, you won't save us $3 million. Let's try for $300,000. This will draw directly from the March 24th additional balancing options. the amendment reduces operating appropriations in the Governor's Office, the Lieutenant Governor's Office, and the Office of State Planning and Budgeting. The identified reduction totals $293,534 from the General Fund taken from travel, contracts, and other operating costs rather than from core program lines. Again, I'm just going to reiterate from my previous amendment. I'm a business owner. If I lose a client, I have to incur the cost. I have to take the hit. We need to start budgeting this state as a business, like a business, and stop hurting the regular citizen. 293,534. Appropriate this to a proper place that our citizens actually care about. I urge an aye vote.

Chair, thank you. My colleague just mentioned business. If you run a business, if you own a business. If the profits are not where they need to be, you're operating underwater. Let's just pretend for a second that each of us are running a business, that we're contributing to ideas that affect a business, that we're making decisions that impact directly a budget or a business. If we're not profitable or if we're underwater, what's the first thing that you want to do? Are you going to go and start lacking employees? and start taking away their dental plans, their senior dental plans, and start taking away the care for their IDD members, and start burdening them so you can continue to run a business that is not profitable. Or I would like to think the right answer that we would turn to would be to look at the administrative lines and look at where we might be able to gain efficiency. Notice that I avoided the word intentionally cut. Let's not use the word cut and instead just look at the ability to gain efficiency within our business, within our budget. The last amendment was based on a $3 million cut. This is a de minimis cut. of $300,000 out of the office of governor, lieutenant governor, office of state budget and planning. Administrative cuts should not be immune. And I understand a very fatty 1 points off the governor budget You know 1 points off of Hickpuff budget might mean something. I don't know. A point and a half out of the budget for the governor. I mean, that means that there's a lamp that he can't replace when the cat knocks it over. Lieutenant Governor, Governor, Office of State Budget and Planning, $300,000. I think it's $292,000 if I remember it. Let me turn around. $292,000. We should be experiencing some administrative cuts. We should be looking at some administrative cutbacks. We should be looking at perhaps some of the areas. Honestly, I would like to think if I were in that position, I would be looking at my own expenditures and thinking, you know what? We are woefully upside down on this budget. Why would I ask, as a governor, lieutenant governor, why would I ask the good folks, the hardworking folks of the Joint Budget Committee to go pull all the weight to allow me to be able to keep my budget the same? I think, I don't remember who said it. Lead from the front. Right? Lead from the front. Set an example. come forward would be fantastic and say, hey, look, I want to look at a place I can make this cut. Since that did not happen. Unfortunately, that did not happen. Fiscal clarity did not happen. Fine. So through an amendment like this, we're encouraging perhaps a little fiscal review, a little fiscal clarity, a little responsibility, a little accountability. let's all chip in. Grab an oar. Man, Lieutenant Governor, Governor, grab an oar. Let's go. Let's pull in the same direction here. I think it's a fantastic amendment. It's a de minimis ask. But as Depeche Mode once said, everything counts in small amounts. It's a terrible song. And I'm going to have to deal with the fact it's going to be stuck in my head for the next 10 minutes. However, still going to encourage an aye vote for this and finding just even a little amount to be able to put back into the kitty to help Colorado.

Be an example to your men in your duty and your private life. Never spare yourself and let your troops see that you don't in your endurance of fatigue and privation. Always be tactful and well-mannered and teach your subordinates to do the same. Leaders, lead. It's in my back pocket. Leaders, lead. Leaders lead by example. So what's really surprising to me is on these last two amendments that it's not the governor's name on this amendment as a presenter because the economy is upside down. Okay. The economy is in crisis. We have entrepreneurs going without salary, making cuts, going out of business. And now here we are, the General Assembly, protecting what I think is the chief instigator of most of our problems in this room. and I like Thomas Sowell's take on this it is hard to imagine a more stupid or dangerous way of making decisions than putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong he expands on this theme the fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to impose decisions on others without ever paying any price for themselves be an example the lieutenant governor could give up one of her full-time salaries I mean we're all here working more than full-time getting a partial not even getting a salary but the lieutenant governor pulls in two full-time salaries I think this would just take her down to one Our business, the businesses that are trying to stay in Colorado hoping for a turnaround are often taking no salary. So I think if the governor, the governor's name should be on this bill suggesting drastic cuts to his office. And here we are, after the show of a change from His Excellency to His Honorable, elevating back up to untouchable. So to the citizens of Colorado, this is the funding priorities that you have seen. Are you the priority? No. No. The tax widgets of Colorado are not the priority. The tax widgets of Colorado are the basis for creating programs of which they will receive some benefit. But when you look at the expansion of government, 15,000 employees, and the chief executive, the chief executor, the executor of Colorado, and a 1.5% cut, too much, because this figurehead office and a figurehead, if you don't know, it's that carving on the prow of a ship. It leads the way. It just has no idea where it's going. We need to cut a lot more than this. The budget has grown, nearly doubled. We've blown through our surplus, and now we're saying the governor can't take a 1.5% cut, or actually in this case a 0.15% cut. I just hope the citizens of Colorado understand where your priority is, where you are on the list of priorities for this General Assembly.

Thank you, Madam Chair. You're welcome. You're welcome back. Back at you. So I running a bill and the bill is from a county in my district that can afford they going broke So they're asking me to run the bill that they could lower their wages, the county commissioners. So they're the leaders of the county, and they asked to run a bill to lower their wages so that they can make their budget balance. We just had a bill, an amendment before this. It was at $3 million. Now we're asking to just cut it by $300,000. And why this is so important is I'm trying to figure out this whole process because when I was the county commissioner, we had 28 departments. And with those 28 departments, we spent three weeks going. We'd bring in a department in. They would give us their budget. We'd bring in another department in. And then the commissioners sat there and they negotiated with the departments. and moved money around to make the budget balance for the year. That was a $50 million budget. We're talking about $46 billion. I want everybody in this room to know that the authority that you have, our main job is to balance the budget. That is our number one main job by the Constitution. That's the number one job for the county commissioners is to balance the budget before anything else. Now, the way that it worked in the county is we had staff, a department, that worked on getting the different agencies in order, which would be similar to our JBC. But in the end, it is the 65 people in here. There's nobody in here that has more authority. we all have the same amount of authority we're all responsible for this budget when we push that button nobody's button is bigger than the other button and so we need to take that yeah this isn't like that this isn't North Korea which one has the biggest button we all have the same size button we have to take this serious this 46 billion dollar budget we all have a say in what should be cut, what should be transferred from one agency to another. And it's very disheartening to watch. We're on the 20th Amendment, and we've had one amendment passed. And it's very disheartening for me to be told, well, we've already got the budget figured out, and if we make any adjustments to the budget, you're going to throw everything off. That's actually what our job is. Our job is to move things around which we think is best for all of the constituents of Colorado. This is a good bill. It's $300,000. I would suggest a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will renew my call for a no vote on this amendment which is similar to the last one again the governor's office has already taken a cut and this particular cut would be more than we can than we can sustain at this point so I ask for a no vote Is there any further discussion on the amendment Seeing none the question before us is the adoption of Amendment J

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, as many of you may know, or perhaps you don't know, there's a prison within my district. It's a minimum security prison. It's been there since 1964. It's also sometimes referred to as the honor camp because it is a minimum security prison. There is no fence around the prison. One thing that was discussed earlier this year was whether or not to build a fence around the Delta prison. There was also conversations about buying a private prison to the tune of like $200 million, crazy amounts of money. We have space within DOC, but we don't have the right beds available. It's the medium security beds that we need within our DOC to be able to be effective. We have the ability to turn Delta into a medium security prison simply by adding a secure fence. It would be just shy of $14 million to include. We would propose removing this from the Department of Early Childhood from the $14 million. this is something to where we're on the brink of a crisis and if we don't do something in terms of creating the right prison beds we are likely to start seeing a scenario where we just have to release individuals from DOC and given the fact that DOC with their risk assessments can't even tell you if someone is legitimately high risk or low risk on how to even monitor that person on parole. How can we trust them to make the right decision on an early release? Plus, for many individuals, it's not just about rehabilitation or correction of a certain behavior that society has said is wrong. It's also about punishment and saying that that is an act that society does not tolerate. And if someone is immediately let out of DOC because we've run out of space and they're immediately kicked out, that actually undermines a lot of the values that our state is built on and a lot of our criminal justice system as well, that if there's no real sanction because there aren't beds available. This is a common sense solution to be able to avoid spending eventually $200 million. It would be spending just under $14 million. It would be a great way to be able to turn minimum security beds, which are available, into medium security beds. And it's a win-win for the state, and I would ask for a yes vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would ask you to vote no on this amendment we had numerous conversations with the Department of Corrections on the 941 beds that they requested Of that were 288 beds for Delta. And those 288 additional beds are, in fact, still in the budget. The Department of Corrections had many opportunities to come to us and say, we can't use those 288 beds without this fence.

Merci, Madam Chair. And thank you to my good colleague from Grand Junction. I do appreciate hearing that on the record. You know, this is part of our frustration with the Department of Corrections is in many ways it's kind of like getting information out of the Kremlin. It's very, very, very difficult. And I would just like to say that while I appreciate knowing that those 288 beds are still in the budget and still the plan is to utilize them, because that's going to be a relief to a lot of individuals within my community, But we need DOC to communicate better with the General Assembly, with our Joint Budget Committee, because we need to see what they are thinking, because we are still on the brink in this state of running out of prison beds, or at least running out of the right prison beds. we have other prison beds out there. So I guess I would lay this on the record that we need DOC to be a little bit more forthright and a little bit more transparent. Thank you.

Aye.

No.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So we are here debating the longbow. And I have an amendment that I think everybody should get behind because it really is about saving people money. I move Amendment J041 and ask that it be displayed properly. Guess what? Just...

You can proceed, Representative Garcia-Sander. Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment shuts down the Office of Saving People Money on Health Care, eliminating its FTE and the entire appropriation, so those dollars no longer fund a standalone policy shop inside the governor's office. This change repeals the Office of Saving People Money on Health Care to the maximum extent allowed under long bill rules and zeroes out both staffing and operating funding, an estimated $485,275 in the general fund. With the office repealed, any remaining work on health care affordability would be handled by existing departments and programs rather than a separate governor-level entity. Since the founding of the Office of Saving People Money on Health Care, health care costs have only continued to worsen. An analysis by Connect for Health Colorado found the percentage of customers eligible for financial help could decrease from 81% in 2025 to 65% in 2026. Marketplace customers who currently receive financial assistance will experience average net premium increases of 100%, with some rural areas seeing increases of over 200%. Customers in Montrose County, for example, will see an average 246% increase in net premiums, while customers in Crowley County will see an average 223% increase, and customers in Garfield County will see an average 200% increase. Marketplace customers ages 55 to 64 who currently receive financial assistance will experience average net premium increases of 144%, or about $235 more per month. Marketplace customers who currently do not receive financial assistance will see average gross premium increases of 27% or about $122 more per month. With the expirations of EPTCs, about 36,000 marketplace customers with incomes above 400% of the federal poverty level will lose financial assistance, leading to average net premium increases near 142%. This amendment reflects skepticism that a small office in the governor's suite is the right vehicle for lowering health care costs, especially when HICPUF, DOI, and other agencies already have statutory authority and staff working on coverage and affordability issues. By removing this duplicative layer, it trims visible political overhead and signals that if the state is serious about affordability, it should demonstrate results through existing agencies and the broader budget, not by funding another branded office with its own staff and communications operations. So this is a really practical amendment. It actually will save people money. I encourage an aye vote on this amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's an honor to serve with you. And an honor to serve with you. Okay, so this is actually one of my favorite amendments here because we're actually talking about repealing stuff, and I think in a time when we have to make cuts substantially, this is something that we should be cutting because as my sponsor of the amendment just said, costs for health care are continuing to increase. When we talk about saving people in mental health care, I know a way we can do it, and that is through deregulation and a free market approach to healthcare. Right now, we don't have that in Colorado. We continue to have more regulations on healthcare We continue to have burdensome rulemaking here in the state that make healthcare more expensive I actually gone back to my district and told people about this specific office And if you do a poll on it I don think it polls very favorably at least in my district And so when we want to talk about cuts and when we're talking about cutting Medicaid and other provider rates and for community health centers, this is something I think we should be considering because at a time when we are facing a budget deficit, This is something that the status and this number show has not been proven ineffective. Last year, I came up and I also spoke about my truth about the lieutenant governor getting an extra salary just for running this office. And it should not be fair that state employees get two salaries. But I do have concerns with this office as being ineffective. And so I would encourage everybody to support this amendment because, again, we can redirect funds to fund things that are more critical, are more essential, more important to provide for the people in need here in Colorado. And so I encourage a strong yes on this amendment.

Representative Bottoms.

Representative DeGraff.

Representative Sirota Brown? Okay, or Sirota. Brown.

Representative Garcia-Sander.

Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of J41. All those in favor say aye.

All opposed, no.

The no's have it, and Amendment 41 is lost. Representative Kelty. Representative Kelty. And actually, before you get started, Representative Kelty, Members, we've been on a little bit of a roller coaster. Things have gotten kind of quiet, and then they get really loud again. So I'm going to invite you to take your conversations off the floor and turn your attention to the well, please. Go ahead, Representative Kelty. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Your amendment's properly displayed. Go ahead.

Members, I asked very nicely. Now you're about to meet Quiet Coyote, mouth closed, ears listening. Thank you, Representative Barone.

Representative Kelty.

Is there any further discussion on Amendment J-53? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment J-53. All those in favor say aye.

All opposed, no.

Amendment J-53 passes. Representative Richardson, my sincere apologies for missing you and excellent tie. Why, thank you very much. And there's a lot of patient waiting today. So I know we were about a third of the way through our amendments and now we going to go backwards one but that all right I don think we were done with that topic yet so I move Amendment J002 to 410 and ask it to be displayed. It's Amendment Number 22 in your packet. Thank you.

This amendment simply inserts... Okay, now you can proceed. Thank you. They're just trying to get the focus right so people can read it. It's good to be very focused today. Indeed. This is important work. Please proceed.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment J-2. All those in favor say aye. Aye.

No.

Representative Sucla. Thank you, Madam Chair.

And I would like to do something a little bit different here.

Representative Taggart. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Representative Luck.

Representative Tackert.

Representative Sucla

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Representative DeGraff.

Is there any further discussion? Representative Sucla.

Is there any further discussion on Amendment J-25? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment J-25. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. No. The no's have it and the amendment is lost. Representative DeGraff.

Please proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment J-14. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The no's have it, and J14 is lost. Representative DeGraff.

Thank you for covering all of your bases, Representative DeGraff. Just a moment.

Okay. Please proceed.

Is there any further discussion on J60? Seeing none, the question before us is its passage. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say no. No. J60 is lost. Do you believe that might be you, Representative DeGraff? Representative DeGraff.

Okay, it is displayed to the amendment.

not to the wealthy areas that have been not impacted, but we want to make sure that these monies go in a priority to those just transition communities, those communities that the governor just said, you just need to transition. Just transition to something new. Just transition to an enterprise that's going to be replaced by AI. Just transition. That's what they said. You just need to transition. You just need to adapt to the boot on the face. So this is just saying that all of these programs need to prioritize those impacted communities. So instead of focusing an electric vehicle cash grant fund on the wealthy donors in the foothills here of Denver, those monies need to be prioritized to go to the impacted communities where they told them to just transition to something new So all of these it a fiscal note It just a statement that the Colorado General Assembly intends to prioritize those communities that have been devastated by the superstitions that are promulgated by the governor through the Colorado Energy Office onto the citizens of Colorado, costing us billions and putting our very lives at risk, and then displacing some of the finest people and foundational economic underpinnings of this state that we need to actually focus our recovery money on them and not on wealthy donors. I ask for an aye vote. Is there any discussion on Amendment J-61? Seeing none, the question before is its passage. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say no. Amendment 61 is lost. Do believe, again, it's Representative DeGraff. Looky there, looky there. All right, I move J55 to House Bill 1410, a.k.a. Amendment number 28, and ask that it be displayed. It is properly displayed. Representative DeGarraff. Okay. It's wafer thin. Amend printed bill line page 110. Very disappointed to find out that these people that Colorado told to just transition are not a priority. Column strike $7,939,128. Substitute $7,836,528 in the general fund column. strike and substitute, adjust affected totals accordingly. Purpose, to reduce the general fund appropriations to the Colorado Energy Office in the office of the governor by an additional $102,000. So this is where we talk about what are the priorities of the state. I already talked about how the Colorado Energy Office has devastated the state economy by promulgating the governor's superstitions about carbon dioxide, 0.04% of the atmosphere, four parts in 10,000. That's why we have spent an additional $17 billion to enrich corporate donors like BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street with a rate of 9% to 10% on your money, on the citizens' money. This is done through the Colorado Energy Office. they make it happen. They make it happen that you need to have all kinds of untenable things like installing charging stations that exceed the limits of most homes, requiring that they then have their electric boxes refit, $5,000 to $15,000. They're the ones that have the mitigation for, like, gas stoves. Why? Because gas stoves emit carbon dioxide. You can get rid of that with a plant. The damage that been done to the state economy by the Colorado Energy Office at the behest of the governor is probably calculable but it a lot It a massive amount And what do they get for the devastation that the Colorado Office and Dr. Tour wreaked on the state of Colorado? They get more money. They get more money to do it all over again. because they prop up the investor-focused, they direct the investor-focused utilities, the IFUs, they direct them to enable their investors to make 9% to 10% on your investment by raping their way across Colorado with eminent domain. That, Colorado, is the focus of your green energy program. It is truly government being done to you and not for you. Because what did you get for the $17 billion that you invested? The $17,000, the roughly $4,000 per person in every one of your home, family of five, how much did you pay? To lose 40% of your dispatchable energy, you paid $20,000. What did you also pay? Well, you probably paid the Marshall Fire because it, apparently coming from high voltage lines, they get more stress during the summer. the damage by the Colorado Energy Office at the behest of the governor with the rubber stamp of this General Assembly costing every single family in this state $20,000 to lose and put the lives of their loved ones at risk. It should be disbanded entirely. It is truly government done to you and not for you. It is truly a priority of this General Assembly, the majority party of this General Assembly, to continue doing government to you, not for you. And the Colorado Energy Office, to execute the superstitions of the governor of Colorado and the Chihuahua Clutch environmentalists, that is the priority. And this proves it. I ask for an aye vote. Is there any further discussion on Amendment J55? Seeing none, the question before us is its passage. All those in favor, please say aye. All those opposed, please say no. No. J55 is lost. Representative Hartzuck. Good afternoon. Thank you, Madam Chair. Hold on one second. Members. it's just our reprieve we got to bring the noise down we can't hear up here don't want you to explode representative heartsuck thank you madam chair what up representative heartsuck to the amendment all right now we have everyone's attention i move the heck is the amendment number it's uh well it's amendment number 29 it is J44. All right give us a second. Oh it a multi Okay this is a multi amendment but it is displayed to the amendment Representative Hartzell Thank you Madam Chair It might be multi but we make this kind of short and sweet I want to first of all give thanks to the JBC I mean, they did a lot of hard work, and they had about a billion and a half they had to cut. They did a great job doing a lot of cuts. And that's what today's been about. We've been arguing for, I don't know, the better part of seven-some-odd hours now on cuts. I want to shift gears here. Let's try a different tack because cuts kind of – we haven't had much success up here. And I've already talked to my JBC colleagues, and they're laughing over here. But one of the things that I'm a fan of is I like incentives. I like investing in getting more money, more revenue. I know a lot of us in this building would like to have more revenue to spend on some more things, and that we can have a debate about. But what this amendment is going to do, what I'm proposing here, is right now, I'll edit, when we're looking at Office of Economic Development, they have a great ROI on what they do with businesses. Small businesses, medium businesses, things across the state, economic renewal, rural counties, city counties, mountain communities. when they get out there they do things that have great investments people go to work there's more revenue coming in there's more taxes coming in so that allows more more things that we can decide what we want to do within this building but the difference is is we are now incentivizing to get revenue versus how to cut our tax base which don't get me wrong there's lots of things we need to cut but we also need to figure out a way to increase our revenue and so what What I'm proposing is straight across is we're taking a little over half a million, $528,964, from the Colorado Equity Office, where I will argue that there's no ROI there, there's no metrics of success, and shift that to the Office of Economic Development that has a proven track record of economic success, bringing in revenue, and helping businesses grow. So this is a much better tack to go on where we can increase our revenue, support our businesses, support our consumers, and put more money in the pockets of the people that are out there working hard than just trying to figure out how to cut what we're spending here. Alibi, we need to keep working on the cutting and spending, but this importantly helps us grow our economy, grow our jobs, and grow our small businesses. I urge an aye vote. Thank you. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of Amendment J44. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say no. No. J44 is lost. Boo. Boo. Representative Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. and again really do appreciate the work that our amazing joint budget committee members have done I know you spent at least five months on this and I really appreciate what you're doing I do want to move though J068 to House Bill 261410 and ask that it be properly displayed Okay, it is properly displayed to the amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair. So this amendment trims back a 2025 bill appropriation and uses the freed up dollars to reopen shuttered Oedit small business and rural development programs while still sending a all amount back to the general fund. The proposal reduces appropriations for House Bill 25-1001 by approximately $224,000 as identified in the CDLE's additional balancing options and redirects approximately $222,000 of that amount to partially undo Oedit's R2 by restoring seven targeted lines which goes into the Office of Outdoor Recreation, Leading Edge Program Grants, Small Business Development Centers, Colorado Promotion, Colorado Welcome Centers, Colorado First Customized Job Trainings, Rural Jumpstart, and the Rural Opportunity Office. The remaining dollars then go back to the general fund as net savings. Looking at this long bill, I know we did have to trim back some of those net savings, so this puts it back in so we can have those. for small businesses, for rural development areas, I would urge a yes vote. Okay, is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of Amendment 68. All those in favor, please say aye. All those opposed, please say no. Amendment 68 fails. Okay, Representative Marshall. Never mind. Okay. Okay, first of all. Representative DeGraph. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move J051 to House Bill 1410, aka Amendment 32, and ask that it be displayed. 31 was skipped. Okay, it is displayed to the amendment. Representative DeGraff. Thank you, Madam Chair. So the purpose of this, it reduces appropriations to the office of the governor by $200,000, general fund for the office of film, television, and media, and $100,000 general fund for tourism promotion increases appropriations to the offender treatment and services line item to the Judicial Department, men footnote 46, the State General Assembly. The intent is to dedicate $300,000 general fund to increase offenders' participation in veterans' treatment courts. So again, we talk about we support our support for the military, and now it's time to support the military. Now, why the governor has an Office of Film, Television, and Media is beyond me. You know, to me, when I look at Article 5, Section 34, the government's not going to give anything to any money, to anything over which it doesn't have absolute control. To me, that just makes the Office of Film, Television, and Media the Office of Propaganda. So I would like to take money from... I move that we take money from the Office of Propaganda and we move it into the veterans courts to help those people, those individuals who have laid it all on the line for us. Now, that does not take away all of the funds from the Office of Propaganda, unfortunately, but it does. Representative DeGraff Yes ma I can appreciate speech but if we are going to refer to something that has a proper noun and a proper name please do so Some of us can follow because it an opinion so please talk to us about the actual agency The Office of State-Controlled Media. On behalf of these United States of America, I would ask that you refer to the agency properly, sir. Okay, you want me to refer? This is of the record. I do need to know what you are talking about, and that's why I'm asking you to talk about it. You would like it referred to by name instead of by function. That's what you're saying. You know what? I won't answer your question. Let's do name. I do believe I said name. That is a proper noun as well. Name instead of function. Got it, Madam Chair. I'm good. Thank you, sir. God bless America. Of the Government Control Office of Film, Television, and Media. Film, Television, and Media. that engages, that is willingly under the absolute control of the government, that I move that we move $300,000, as previously described, into the veterans' treatment courts in order to help those who have put their very lives on the line for us and take a small bit away from the grants that are given to a big social function in Boulder. Now, if I'm going to prioritize my funds, it's going to be to supporting the veterans in the Veterans Court and not the State-Controlled Office of Film, Television, and Media. I ask for an aye vote. Representative Marshall. Thank you, Madam Chair. It's an honor to serve with you. It's an honor to serve with you, friend. Colleagues, this is actually a serious amendment, and we had a lot of joking about it. But a lot of what we do here is kabuki theater. What this was last year was the entire Veterans Caucus down here in the well who asked for $250,000 from the film office and $250,000 from the tourism office, and it was unanimously passed because no one in the light of day would dare vote against something like that. It was stripped out in the dark of night by the JBC. So we're back here now asking for just $300,000. $200,000. Well, and when I went to ask the JBC, how would you take something out that was unanimously put on, I was told, you just don't understand the budget, Bob. It's very complicated. I find that very insulting, especially when you say take money from this part and put it in this part. And in this case, we're taking $200,000 from the film subsidy office. They have $1.6 million. And we're setting it to the veterans' treatment courts. If you ask the people running all the specialized treatment courts, they will tell you the best ones that have the best success are the veterans' treatment courts. And they're hurting for money, especially in the rural areas. And we have a disproportionate number of veterans in the rural areas. And last year, as I pointed out, I've run this in honor of a colleague of ours who would run one of these amendments every year to remind people that when they did the Fort Logan land sale about eight years ago and sold about 12 to 15 acres of Fort Logan to the Veterans Administration all that money was supposed to be sequestered to a trust fund for veterans issues and mental health issues But it was swiped during COVID and it was supposed to be returned. It's never come back. And our colleague would run an amendment every year, two or three, to send money to veterans causes or mental health causes. and they would always be defeated, he would never point to where to get the money. He would just say, spend the money. We're pointing to where to get the money. So you are making a choice. It is a black and white choice. $1.6 million in the Office of Film Subsidies, which if you read the New York Times articles, which are objective studies, they are very wasteful for something that isn't wasteful. So when we count this amendment, you're going to have the choice. Do you want to help the veteran population that needs help? Or do you want someone to make a documentary about some poor veteran who can't get help? The choice is yours. Representative Kelty. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I am in support of this amendment. You know, as everyone knows, I'm all things veterans. And I love my veterans very much. And I know a lot of Coloradans honor them as well. You know, this is really a small amount of money out of the $1.4 million that is in this fund. And to be honest with you, in Colorado, there's anywhere, well, actually, there's well over 1,000 homeless veterans just in Colorado alone. And then you talk about the ones who are incarcerated right now. Veterans have a different type of life that they have been raised up in. And a lot of times, our Department of Defense they do a really poor job of they can convert you into being a soldier, they can convert you into being a warrior, but there is no conversion and becoming a civilian again. And sometimes that gets our veterans into some trouble. And these veterans courts are so, so important because they're not dealing with the average Joe. And that is what our veterans should be seeing as individuals that need to be understood. And that's what these veterans courts do. They actually have veterans in charge of the veterans courts. Veterans get veterans. And this money going towards this court process and the program that's involved with it is so, so important. And I do know that the Office of Film, Television, and Media, you know, everyone has to be trimmed. and I don't know that if anyone in those departments would actually disagree with what we're trying to do here. The money was promised to be put back. It wasn't. This is a way to get the money where it does and it belongs and to help those who we need. Again, 22 a day. Think about that. I ask for a yes vote Is there any further discussion Sorry Minority Leader Caldwell Thank you Madam Chair Members, I want to show support for this amendment as well, and I appreciate the sponsor for bringing it. And I also, as I always want to say, I understand the difficult decisions that the Joint Budget Committee has to make. I used to serve in the JAG Corps as a paralegal, and a lot of these military members who were serving active at the time would come in. They would make mistakes, and in today's military, a lot of times it's one mistake. It's a one-mistake military. You make a mistake, and then they get kicked out, and then they get set on this course in life, especially if they got some kind of under less than honorable discharge or dishonorable discharge. And they get caught up in the system, and they need help. Just a few weeks ago when we had our, I guess a couple months ago now at this point, when we had our Armed Services Day, Armed Forces Day here, I met with some members down in the foyer there, and this is what they do. They help veterans who have made mistakes trying to get back on their feet, and they get caught up in the justice system. A lot of times it involves drugs and alcohol. And I think, again, when I say this time and time again, and I'll say it again when we're on thirds here, but a budget is a reflection of a state's priorities, of the people's priorities. and I think moving it from the Office of Film, Television, and Media, putting it into these veteran treatment courts makes sense, and I think it shows our veterans, even the ones who are down on their luck, who have made mistakes, maybe continue to make mistakes, that this is what we're deciding to prioritize. And so I very much, again, appreciate the work of the Joint Budget Committee. At the same time, though, I think this is somewhere where we can move some of the money from one program to another. So definitely support this. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Carter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to level set. For those who don't know what my day job is when I'm not here, I am a criminal defense attorney. But I'm also a veteran. and I know I come up here and I tell you guys, third generation Army veteran, just had another member of my family join as another veteran. And what I need for you to understand is, for a long time, when we came home, nobody cared. And what these courts do is they care about those veterans who come home who become justice involved. 8% of the incarceration population in the state of Colorado are veterans. One in three of individuals who get out of the military in the state of Colorado will have an arrest. Over 200,000 veterans in the state of Colorado have been justice involved. We know that veterans courts work. We know it. Every veteran here will tell you that we have a different way of communicating. We have a different way of understanding. One of the things I did in Arapahoe County, I was part of one of the first veterans courts. And while I cannot. Do a push up for you now. If my drill sergeant showed up, I'd give it a try. Veterans are different and we need to be treated differently and we need help. And what this is asking for is that help. I commend the JBC, but I have to level set and make sure you understand when we're talking about justice involved veterans, you are about as close to me as possible. So I am asking for yes on this amendment. Representative DeGraff. Thank you, Madam Chair. And so in all seriousness, this is a serious issue and this is a serious demonstration of priorities. And I appreciate everybody coming down and weighing in on this. When we had a bill earlier this year that said the citizens of Colorado, if they're going to have a petition, they need to go through the budget process and say where the money is going to come from. This bill does that work. And it says where that money can come from. And so now we have to make a priority statement. We have to make a priority judgment. This is one of those times where there are no solutions. There are only tradeoffs. And we have to make actual decisions. And your decision, and when your decision here is between 12.5% of a film budget, a film festival budget, A film festival budget, 12.5% of it. To benefit a very, very focused part of Colorado, to benefit Boulder. Let's just be honest, that is to benefit Boulder. Is that what state representatives do? So our choice today is between 12.5% of a film festival budget or veterans courts. That's the choice. It is in black and white. As my colleague said, it is in black and white. It's right there. Office of Film, Television, and Media or Veterans Treatment Courts. with two very good descriptions as to why those are so important. It's really a fund that should not exist, to fund a fund that should not have to exist but does. The hard work was done. the sponsor found a source for the money to benefit the Coloradans that have benefited Colorado and the entire country. Not just a handful of festival goers and it's only 12.5% of that benefit to those festival goers. So this is that part of that long slow struggle where there no immediate visible foe Your choice will be hard indeed So I ask you to have your priorities on the veterans. Do this thing that helps them, the veterans courts, fund the veterans courts at least a little bit more, at the cost of 12.5% of a film festival subsidy. I don't think that's a hard choice. I don't think it should be a hard choice. I ask for an aye vote. Representative Titone. Thank you, Madam Chair. It's an honor to serve with you. It's an honor to serve with you, my friend. Thank you. Members, I just want to make a couple observations here, because I don't argue for one minute that supporting veterans is an important thing. We should definitely support veterans. And to show how much we should support veterans, the fund that this $300,000 is going into is supplementing. You can see it on the amendment on line 13, page 266. I'm sorry, Representative Detone. We cannot hear up here. Please take your conversations to the side. Thank you. Thank you. So, the fund that this is going into, $300,000 going into, is funded with $22,496,000. And we're going to add $300,000 to that. And, you know, to quote my friend from El Paso County, it's like a couple drops in a swimming pool. But that's what it is. It's a very small amount of money. Now, what are we taking it from? We're taking it from the film office. It's not from the subsidies. That's not what this is. We're taking it from the office of the film and television office, and that only gets a general fund of half the amount that they're showing there, $742,000. So it is a huge amount taken off from the film office. This is a huge amount of money for a very small budgeted program. What does the film office do? It does not just do the film festival thing. That is one part of their function, but a lot of it is actually economic development, and a lot of the economic development comes into a lot of the rural areas. Film projects, 2024-25, they approved over $13 million in projects, which hired 554 locals across 19 locations. and rural film theaters are supported by this program. Prior to and during the pandemic, the Film and Television Office partnered with five philanthropic organizations and the EDC to support 34 theaters in Colorado through $320,000. This program successfully kept community theaters open throughout Colorado. And Colorado Creative Industries, which is part of this, they are supporting the film industry through multiple grants, technical assistance, leadership development initiatives. Since 2024, Colorado Creative Industries has invested over $300,000 into 30 projects spanning urban mountain report and rural communities. $8,500 change leadership activation grants supporting film projects in Steamboat Springs. Colorado Creates grants, $300,000, which was in Carbondale, Delta, Peonia, Breckenridge, and more in the Folk and Traditional Arts Grant Program between 2024 and 26 They do workforce development and they partnering with local partners to serve 133 students and operated three in Mesa County schools and Delta County schools and one in Montrose and one in Summit County, also in Pagosa Springs and with the Ute and Mountain Ute tribes, Southern Mountain Ute tribes. They're doing a lot more than just a film festival. Now, if this place where we're putting the money into the Veterans Office was so important, and this was a big priority, why is in all of these amendments this is the only one? Out of all the places that money could have been taken from, everybody hedges their bets to try to get money from different places. That's not happening here. It's only this one particular office which someone has an axe to grind against, and that's really why this is happening. It's to put people on the spot to say, we don't want to support veterans. We want to support the film office. But there's $22 million where this money is going. There's only $700,000 where the money is coming from. This is completely inequitable. it's costing us money with economic development and it's going into a pot of money that you're not even going to really notice it. So with all due respect, I ask you for a no vote on this amendment because the film office has a lot of value and we have to keep that value going in Colorado as we start to grow this industry. The veterans office in the courts, they have millions of dollars already. Millions and millions of dollars. This is not going to add up to very much extra help. And why should we gut a whole entire division that's actually making the state money to do something that's not going to have a lot of impact? I ask you for a no vote on this amendment. Representative Richardson. Thank you, Madam Chair. fascinating discussion if we're going to place values on things I would place value on our veterans ahead of anybody else we just heard that there's 22 million already where this money is going we also heard and I'd remind you this was money that was promised to our veterans when land was sold several years ago It was money that we voted to provide to our veterans last year. It was not given. It's two times at least we've broken promises to our veterans. This should not happen a third time. Governor is a person that has quite a bit of discretion in what he does. Yeah, we've targeted or identified a source of funds within his overall office, which is funded in this coming year at nearly $557 million. He can probably reprogram a little bit or come forward and ask for a little adjustment. I mean, earlier this year, in supplementals, we provided that office an extra $13.7 million over what we had budgeted. I think we can afford to move a little bit of money and take care of our veterans It not going to break anybody It very clear with the supplementals we see every year that the executive branch overspends the balanced budget regularly and we find money to cover it up for them. So let's use some money and put it where it was promised, not once but at least twice, and take care of our veterans. Vote yes on this. you can do so with your head held high, and we can deal with other small offices as needed. Thank you. Representative Bradfield. I have Bradfield. Thank you, Madam Chair. El Paso County had the first veterans court in the state of Colorado, and it's been a huge success. And that has spun off into various organizations and dealing with the veteran mental health, and they are having great success. What we do in El Paso County can easily be replicated across the state and should be, but the stopping factor is money. And here is a nice amount of money that could get some other veteran courts and veterans' mental health centers started in the rural parts of our state. I encourage a yes vote on this. It's important for the people in my district and the people in your district who could benefit. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Hartzik. Thank you, Madam Chair. So my colleague a moment ago from Elbert County was just talking about what has been owed to veterans and what has been turned down and basically squelched for the last two years. And then I heard an argument up here about the film industry. So let me see if I get this straight. We're talking about the hypocrisy of a film industry that is not short on money, is not short on people, is not short on jobs, is not short on cash flow, is not short on anything. And we're complaining about taking a couple hundred grand from them. That's pure hypocrisy. veterans not only signed up and the government said we'll do the right thing for you but i've been involved these veteran courts for years dating back to when i was still on active duty they serve a phenomenal service to veterans to get them the counseling they need get them to the right places and you're to stand up here and and tell me that we need to worry about the film industry i give a damn about the film industry i care about our veterans I care about that we take care of them and get them what we said we would do and we ignored going on three years in a row so you'll have to excuse me if I'm not interested in what the film industry feels but I am interested in what our veterans feel I urge an aye vote, thank you Thank you Representative Herzog I would caution us in regards to getting close to language that might be expletives I know that's not what you meant, but I just wanted to put that out there. Thank you. I have... Okay, I had Representative. I'm going to go Representative Titone, then I'll go Representative Black. Thank you, Madam Chair. This office is not the industry. This is not the film industry that we're talking about. We're talking about the Office of Film and Television that gets $750,000 from the general fund appropriation to run a program that has a huge return on investment. And if, again, if this were such an important issue, if this, getting that money back was so important, then why are out of these 73 amendments in this book, only one has been run to do this? where there's been multiple amendments run to do the same thing in different amounts from different pots of money all throughout these amendments. But this particular issue, it's only targeting this one office because there's an axe to grind. Representative Detone, I would also caution by way of motives. Thank you, Madam Chair. But this is singling out a single office. And if this were such an important issue to get more money to this program for veterans and get the money back or whatever it is that you're saying, where are the amendments to do that? I ask for a no vote. Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I am not understanding where the dollar amounts that are being thrown around are coming from. As I'm looking through the long bill under the Judicial Department, I have found problem-solving courts. 266. Okay, right there. Offender treatment services. Offender treatment and services. Okay, $22 million. So that doesn't have to do with respect to the problem-solving courts. But that's in the whole thing. That's in the whole thing. This is all in there. It's a portion of it. Okay, thank you. So the footnote for the $22 million says that it is the General Assembly's intent that $624,877 of the appropriation for offender treatment and services be used to provide treatment and services for offenders participating in veterans treatment courts, including peer mentoring services. From my quick search, I don't see any other reference to veterans themselves. And so I am curious because $624,000 into this is not obviously the same as $22 million. So perhaps someone on the JBC could clarify how much the veterans treatment courts are actually receiving because there are many different types of courts that are referenced in here and not all of that money is going to that one pot. If that could be answered, I would be grateful. Otherwise, I will come back up here and have a comment on the general amendment. Representative Bradley. Thank you, Assistant Majority Leader. And thank you to the representative from Penrose. And I think that that's why everyone's getting a little heated right now Unfortunately, again, it's budget time and we're picking winners and losers. I think this is a very good amendment. I don't think that we're asking for a lot, but when I talked to the representative from Adams and Arapaho, because I wanted to understand what he was saying when he came down here because I come from a long line of veterans My husband only uncle did essentially a suicide mission in World War II They did not have enough fuel to get back to the ship. He was 20 years old, and he is gone. He was 20. My father-in-law was an admiral in the Navy. My dad served in Vietnam. They come back different. They are not the same when they come back. They selflessly serve their country. And when the representative from Adams told me that 8% of our total prison population are veterans, what are we doing? There's never enough money. If 8% of our total prison population are veterans, what are we doing? Because my dad has told me stories, and we cannot give them enough. There is never enough money to give these people that miss birthdays and births and all the things that we get to do. I just watched my son play baseball last night. I cannot imagine the selflessness of a veteran. And I can't imagine serving your country and 8% of them being in the prison population. So please don't come up here and say that giving veterans more is too much. that is going to offend a lot. This is a great amendment. 22 veterans every day commit suicide. The fact that the good representative told me that veterans treatment courts are veterans that hold other veterans accountable instead of having just another judge, where a veteran has to go in front of a judge that doesn't understand anything that that person is going through, doesn't have any empathy or compassion for what a woman or man has come back from, what they are experiencing on a level that they cannot understand. And this is why veterans' treatment courts are so important, especially when 8% of the population are veterans. They shouldn't just have to go in front of a judge that knows nothing about what it's like to serve. So I think we should be asking for more money, to tell you the truth. This is a great amendment. And I had to come down here. As a daughter to a dad who selfishly served and a grandparents who selfishly served and a father-in-law and an uncle-in-law I never got to meet that died when he was 20. Our veterans deserve way more than we give, and $300,000 is not nearly enough to give to them. Thank you for bringing this amendment. Representative Marshall. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, colleagues, people come down here all the time and basically in some ways try and have group therapy and talk about lived experiences. I won't talk about my lived experiences. But I know this is an item that helps because I know people that were used and would otherwise be tossed to the side of the road. Why are we targeting? one industry, one office? We're not. No one else has come up here to defend the 100,000 we taking from the tourism office So it certainly not one office being targeted And why would we do this Last year last year on the long bill we took unanimously from the Office of Film from the Tourism Office to the Veterans Treatment Courts But we didn't get the money. Years ago, millions of dollars from the Fort Logan land sale for mental health and veterans issues. Where's that money? So we're down to begging, begging for $300,000, which is the number one priority for the United Veterans Coalition. from the millions that was supposed to be set aside, we're asking for $300,000. $200,000 from the film office that has $1.6 million, $100,000 from the tourism office that has like $3.2 million. And when they say, oh, the treatment courts, veterans' treatment courts have $23 million, look at the line item. That's all the treatment courts in the entire state. The drug treatment courts, domestic violence treatment courts. You saw the one little footnote, 684,000 to the treatment courts for veterans. We know the rural areas are having problems, and they have a disproportionate number of veterans that need the help. And again, defending the film office, that's fine. But we've had these discussions before. subsidizing film is not the big economic boom they're like oh the majority of the studies say oh we get so much back the majority of the studies are paid by the film industry the objective studies say they're a waste and just look at what happened to the French film industry when they started to subsidize them Government film subsidies, you know, I understand my colleague who went first, calling it the Office of Propaganda or the Office of Government Film. That's not where good art ever comes from. So again, we're giving you the stark choice here. We gave it to you last year, and we explained it, and we got a unanimous vote. This year, for some reason, everyone's so worried about Sundance. Sundance. And again, two offices, the tourism office and the film office. We're not picking on one. And why should we run multiple amendments? Why? If we're right, we should get the money. And we're right. So please vote. Thank you. Is there any further discussion on J-65? Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Chair. Sorry, J51 we are discussing. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I can't really say anything that hasn't already been said, except for I can say it in my own words. And I want to do that because I believe that this is an important issue. it's been hard for me to talk on some of the other amendments because of my view on the role of government and taking money from certain places and putting it to other places that i don't think is the role of government in either case is a challenge but this amendment is easy for me to talk to because the role of government is largely as relates to justice it is the process of administering justice We are the ones responsible for the courts We are not primarily responsible for entertainment. Whether that's tourism or film, that's not our responsibility. And I understand that it helps to bring money into the state. I understand that it generates economic value. But again, that is not the role of government. The role of government is to administer justice. And we have a population who sacrifice for us, who are willing to sacrifice all the way to their lives, their very ability to breathe, who benefit greatly from this particular program. We've heard veterans talk about it with such passion because no doubt in their mind's eye they have friends or fellow soldiers that they can picture. And they're fighting for those individuals. it's unfortunate that in this 660 page bill we don't have a thorough breakdown of the 22 million dollars that is designated for offender treatment and services the line item that this money is going into 22.4 million dollars we don't have the breakdown we have a footnote a footnote that points us only to the allocation of $624,000 of that. And that money is set to go to these veteran treatment courts. We haven't heard that these courts are fully funded. Nobody's come up and said, hey, we are good to go. They have all the money that they need. If that was the argument, then I think we'd sit down and say, well, you know, that's good. I'm glad we're fully funding them. But if we're not fully funding them, we need to try to do so. And taking those dollars from Hollywood, from incentivizing producers to come here and make a film, when the mountains, Pikes Peak incentivizes many to do it on its own, similarly with the tourism office Colorado is a self-seller we're not Nebraska no offense to anyone who's from Nebraska but we're not Nebraska we have beautiful terrain we have natural opportunities for activity, outside activity people love to come to Colorado colorful Colorado diminishing the amount of money we spend to attract folks to come here either to make their films or to spend their dollars in hotels and activities in order to ensure that our veterans are taken care of. For me, that's not a hard choice. Again, if there could be evidence that says that these courts are fully funded and we're good to go, the conversation shifts for some. For me, I still believe that we are taking from pockets of money that are not the role of government and ensuring that the role of government is fulfilled. and is fulfilled in the best way possible. I ask for an aye vote. Representative Carter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I just want to level set. One of the things that came out was regarding veterans, and we already receive enough. Share a story with you real quick. On the way to work today, I was in a mood. So I put on something called Cadence. And every veteran in here knows what I'm talking about. and cadence is what you do when you're marching and it gets your mind right and so I put that on so I could come here to get my mind right when you thank us for our service how about you keep that thank you and take care of us when we get here the idea that we already have enough for someone who has chosen to die for your cause and your country, whew, that is impressive. That is impressive. I want to level set. I want you to understand the numbers. I want you to understand what a justice-involved veteran looks like, and I want you to understand I'm about as close to a justice-involved veteran as you're going to see on this floor. it's never enough for someone who chose, chose, this is an all-volunteer army, for someone who chose to give up everything for a cause in the country. I'm not here to fight about the film office. I'm here to make sure that we show the veterans the respect that they deserve. When we come back, we're different. When we come back, we deserve a little more. And if it means a veterans court, which is staffed by other veterans, volunteers who know how to talk to veterans. I don't want to see another veteran in court next to me. I don't. And if $25 million is too much to ask, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I don't want to see that. And I'm begging for $300,000, and I was told we already had enough. I'm asking for a yes vote. Representative Detone. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to just give you a little bit of context for this. Last year, from this fund, Judicial reverted $223,000 in personal services to the general fund. So last year, Judicial gave general fund back from the program. So why would we want to take money away from the film office and put it to a program that gave money back last year in about the same amount, by the way? The is the minimum amount that could be spent on this program Out of the million they have discretionary funding and authority to spend more money if they need to on this particular program $660,000 is the floor, not the ceiling. And they gave money back from this program last year. So are we giving them money just to give it back later? Because that's what might be happening again. So I ask for a no vote. This is not necessary. The $200,000, even from the film office, and then the tourism office also brings in a lot of money too. But the combination of this, it's not necessary. They're probably going to give it back next year. So I ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Chair. Very rarely do we have an opportunity to do an exact exchange here. and this again comes back to what our priorities in this room are. So this is a direct exchange. Do we give this money to music and film, or do we give this money to veterans? To me, that's where it comes down to. It doesn't change the bottom line of the budget. We know that because of what we're doing here. So we're either going to give to veterans or we're going to give to the media industry, music television, I mean television stuff. And so that's, when you say it that simple, which I'm sure that'll be, some people will put that online later that that was the choice, but that really is the choice. The TV industry, veterans. This is a direct exchange. Let's move it away from the TV industry, which is irrelevant in my opinion, and let's give it to veterans, which is the opposite of irrelevant.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it. I just would invite you all, so over the last few years since I've been elected, I go to the Trinidad Correctional Facility and I celebrate Veterans Day with them in the morning. And to hear the struggles that they go through and the hurdles that they have encountered, it's eye-opening, if anything. And a lot of them, when you sit and talk to them, they're not saying they're innocent. by any stretch of the imagination. They're not making excuses. They just said that they're different. And they run a program called Mamba. And they work together, and they go to church together. And I think that that goes back to what the representative for Denver and the representative from Douglas County and the seven other veterans that came up to discuss this is, it's a brotherhood and it's a sisterhood. And they rely on each other because it all comes to lived experience, and they all share something. they share that lived experience and they know how to talk to each other and they know how to conversate with each other and how to resolve these problems and sometimes you have to look within your own pack to get these things done. I think it's ultra important. I thank you. I really thank the representatives for bringing this and I look forward to chatting with the veterans that I see next Veterans Day at Trinidad Correctional Facility and letting them know the work that you did here for them today to try to make sure that they keep their brothers and sisters out of jail and try to make sure that their brothers and sisters lead a productive life after willing to put their life on the line for this great nation. So I support this 100%. Thank you.

Madam Chair, I move Amendment J-65 to House Bill 1410.

All right, colleagues. Since you pick films over disabled veterans that are in their treatment courts, how about disabled kids? So this amendment takes $271,790 from the general fund from the Office of Film. which has $1.6 million and it offsets so we can delay for a year the cram down from 112 hours that we were paying the severely disabled people for the IDD program that we're at 112 hours that we're going to cram down to 56. To the credit of the JBC I think they heard a lot of the screams and tried to taper it a bit. So July 1, they're not cramming them down to 56 hours, but by July 1, I believe it's 84 off the top of my head. That's still 28 hours a week. And these people rely on this. It's not like you can tell them, well, make up the income and go get another job. If they do, they have to hire a health care worker to take care of their disabled kin. That's their choice. And it's not their choice. They've been dependent on this. They've bought homes. They have mortgages. They have a budget based on this. And yet, as soon as the governor signs it in May, two months later, we're pulling the rug out from under them. That's not the way we should operate. That's something I've been very much against, whether it's with businesses or whether it's our workers, is pulling the rug out of someone rather than tapering it over time. So this money will just delay for a year so they get notice to prepare, and they can continue at that level throughout the year. And it's only $271,000. The Office of Film gives out $250,000 grants to make documentaries. So when you're up there at Sundance watching the films, hopefully maybe there'll be a documentary on the poor family that has to drop off their disabled relative at the emergency room because they can't take care of them anymore. And don't think, gee, I wish someone would have done something about that because you could have done something about it. Thank you.

Representative Brown Okay Representative Brown Thank you Madam Chair I want to say that I appreciate while I do not necessarily appreciate his tone, I do appreciate the passion that my colleague from Douglas County brings to this conversation. I also want to say that these are incredibly difficult cuts that we are having to make in a department that serves the most vulnerable. I have been quoted, my colleagues have been quoted, as saying that we have shed tears over this budget. It is true, and it is specifically over the provisions that we are talking about today. I take no joy in any of this. I will say that I appreciate my colleagues' suggestion about a glide path or a delay. The original proposals that came to the JBC over this would have moved this caregiver hour soft cap down to 56 hours immediately. Through the hard work of the JBC and working and listening, we were able to come up with a glide path that does delay these hours and implement them over time. So over the next few months and over the next year, the number of hours will step down from 112, roughly where they are today, to 56 by July 1st of 2027. Case management agencies will begin to tell people of the upcoming changes beginning in April of this year. By July, the requirement will go down to 84. By January, the requirement will go down to 70 hours. And in July of next year, it will be 56 hours. These are incredibly difficult times that we have. We also know that LTSS services, long-term services and supports, are roughly 45% of the entire Medicaid budget. And as you all know, the Medicaid budget represents about a third of our entire general fund spending. So as painful as this is, our constitutional duty means that it is incredibly hard, if not impossible, to balance Colorado's budget without taking steps to deal with the ever-increasing and unsustainably increasing increases in our Medicaid budget and specifically on long-term services and supports. I know the JVC, including myself, we have appreciated the partnership of folks in the disability community to try to come up with cuts that were painful but workable. We heard testimony in the Appropriations Committee to that effect. And so, while I appreciate the intent of this amendment, and as much as it pains me, I ask for a no vote. Representative Bradley.

I appreciate, again, that we have been debating this for hours now. And again, you know, unfortunately, I feel like we have kicked the can down the road. And so this amendment that the representative from Douglas County is bringing, I think is fair because we are cutting provider rates again. So delaying this implementation a year will let us know what is going to happen to providers in the state of Colorado. Because providers that provide in-home care are not going to be able to provide care to Medicaid. We are not going to be able to provide care to Medicaid in our 300 clinics in Colorado. Pretty sure. So what is going to happen is you're going to have this ripple effect of providers not being able to take Medicaid anymore. And we need to understand what is then going to happen to those providers that are giving care to people experiencing the LTSS services a year from now. So delaying this is the only thing that we should be able to do right now. The step down that he was talking about, April 1st of this year, they should have already, the case management agencies and provider agencies should already be communicating the upcoming changes beginning July 1st so families can make plans. I have received hundreds of emails from caregivers. They are panicked. They cannot afford to bring providers in to take care of their kids. and these are people that are providing almost 24-hour care. And so when I asked HICPF, what are these caregivers going to do, they literally said, no one should be providing 24-hour care. These parents need a break. And I looked at them like, what did you just tell these parents? That they need to take a break from taking care of their disabled children? And what, bring a provider in? At the cost of what? They can't afford a provider in the state to come in and provide care to their children, so they do it. Oftentimes, one of two parents has to quit their job and make serious budget cost cuts in their household so that they can take care of their child. There is a single dad that comes to testify in front of Health and Human Services with his daughter who is in a wheelchair. She is nonverbal, and he has to take complete care of her. That is a 24-hour job. And what is happening with our budget is so serious to him that he drives down here and he spends time parking, getting her out, and testifying. You guys, this is serious. I mean, I only get a glimpse of this with a son who was in a wheelchair for three months and has a completely paralyzed arm right now. My heart is breaking for these families And I don know that you guys understand these consequences And we act it seems as if a slide out is like the solution It not These parents, I don't know what they're going to do. And we found funding from other places. It's not like we're operating on a $1 billion budget. Billion, billions of dollars. And we are not protecting the most vulnerable whose parents are changing what they're doing to take care of their children. These are not multi-million dollar families. These are parents that unbeknownst to them, their children were born with intellectual and developmental disabilities. disabilities and they just want to be able to take care of their children because they can't afford to bring someone in. And if they could afford to bring someone in, now we are cutting provider rates so that those people are not going to be able to afford to take care of these people in our state. I'm trying to wrap this up in a pretty little bow for you guys. I can't keep coming down to this well until I am blue in the face to talk about the most vulnerable people in our state and us keep shutting down amendment after amendment. Unfortunately there are going to be winners and losers but these should not be the losers. This is not fair to them. So at some point we have to say yes. And a slide-out doesn't cut it. 56 hours a week does not cut it for this community. It might cut it if you weren't cutting provider rates and they could actually get providers to come in because I guarantee you some of those parents would like to go to work and maybe take a break because the work is their children and they love it. I've never met a parent of an IDD child that It said, I want to just go to work and I'm done. They love their kids. They don't want a provider to come in. But this is going to cause them to try to find a provider to come in. And we're going to be in a provider shortage because we already are. We're already in a provider shortage in the state. These people have already come to testify and told you they can't find people to come in. So if you're capping it at 56 hours in almost a year from now, what is the solution? It is certainly not cutting provider rates, and I know the JBC worked hard to get us to where we are. We certainly don't need, if we are trimming the fat, the office of film. when caretakers just need to change their kids' catheter and dressings. For goodness sake, what are we doing in this state? I cannot. I have been calm. People have told me I have been low-level today, but this is the stuff that just irritates me and is the Office of Propaganda. If we cannot fund the caregivers in our state that are just taking care of children that were born with disabilities, And I will call a division on this amendment, and you better stand for the developmentally disability community. Representative DeGraff.

So, like I said this morning, we're talking about priorities. We're going to put our priorities in black and white. Black and white. and here we have before us a set of priorities. No offense to the JBC. I know they were largely handcuffed in what they could do and certainly not allowed. We certainly haven't sent anybody into the depths, into the bowels of the budget and figured out all the fraud that's there, all the fraud, the waste and abuse. so now we're left to making these hard decisions because I'll bet based on the fraud, waste and abuse that's already been found we could find the money to cover a lot of these programs because now we're talking about this soft cap of 56 hours a soft cap of 56 hours for somebody who's caring for their kids 56 hours maybe they sleep for I don't know, seven, eight hours a night. What is that? Seven nights a week? 128 hours per week. There's a big delta there. And the families are left to make up that gap. Now, can they go and get a job to help offset that? Well, it's probably unlikely because a caregiver, by the time you go through all the roles that make the caregivers like a CNA, cost $60-plus an hour when that CNA is only making maybe $15 to $20 an hour themselves because of the rules and the regulations that are promulgated. So it's not like the family can go and leverage their time, get a job and maybe pay for two hours of care for one hour of work or anything like that, because I don't know. I don't know where they're going to find a provider that would actually offset the income loss. They would end up paying more for the provider than most people are going to make per hour. So these are difficult times due to self-inflicted injury. We could have given you, you could have had $26 million by taking the foot off the neck, off the face, the boot off the face, per Orwell. The boot off the face. $26 million away from the governor's appointees that have cost the state $17 billion to prop up the owners of the governor. unsustainable increases in Medicare cuts per our colleague earlier that we are facing unsustainable increases in Medicaid costs. Yet for people here illegally, we've capped that $14.7 million program at $95 million in one of the few displays of fiscal integrity. that $14.7 million program has been capped at $95. But we don have to take from the film And these are priorities right These were painful cuts. I get it. But right now, it still stands. It still stands right now that the priority is funding any part of the Office of Film Festivals above these are most valuable who are relegated to the margins of society. We have the most vulnerable people among us and our job is to secure their rights, to secure their ability, to secure what we can for them. Our job is not event planner. We should not be in the business of event planning. But we're taking money from the most vulnerable and relegating them deeper, relegating them from the margins into the shadows. I think that's wrong. I think anybody I think that should put I think that should cast a shadow on the film festival to understand that participating in the film festival is in this case by here by the choices we're making in black and white that the choices that we're making here are relegating the most vulnerable from the margins to the shadows we have priorities We prioritize $26 million for the Charlottesville Energy Office to gut the economy, to prop up investors. And then we can't find $271,900 out of the office, out of event planning, out of the Office of Film Festivals to help those families who, like all other families, are struggling under the load that this General Assembly places on them every single day. More load, more pain, more boot on the face, stomping forever. That is socialism. And I think people should be starting to look at this and say, this is the cost of socialism. No, you're cutting the services of people because you're running, because ultimately you run out of people's money. The defense to my side is for socialism, the advocacy for socialism. But eventually you run out of other people's money. and you've made these people dependent on this money because property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, they all pay that money. And instead of unwinding and instead of unlacing the boot, it spiked so yes this is the cost of socialism this is the cost of a citizen that is dependent on government money. Now that government money is tax-stracted from the pockets of the citizens of Colorado, and then it's wasted and it's passed through lots of funneling for grift and passed on to non-profit, non-audited government organizations.

So $26 million is our priority to gut the economy. Yes, socialism is the control of the means of production. Yes, people are the means of production. Socialism is about the control of the people. just to answer the question of the individuals to my side. So anyways, today you have a stark reminder. Today we talked about the beginning of the day that we are going to have a display of priorities. The display of priorities is propping up investors. For investor-focused utilities, priority. Film festivals, priority. Those are our priorities. So I'm not going to say they're the JBC's priorities. I'm going to say they're the General Assembly's priorities. They are the majority party's priorities. They are the governor's priorities. Because nobody is going to cross the governor on his priority funding. So I ask for an aye vote to prioritize the citizens of Colorado, to prioritize the most vulnerable citizens of Colorado. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's an honor to serve with you. It's an honor to serve with you. When I spoke earlier about the fact that there were long evenings and a lot of tears, this was one of the programs, the IDD, that was extremely difficult. During the time that we were discussing this, there were both children and adults in wheelchairs that I had to drop my head. numerous times. And my colleagues, I could see, were doing the same thing. I'm not going to talk about the amendment, but I am going to talk about their testimony, the family's testimony, and how seriously we took that testimony. Immediately after the testimony from several of the parents of children with IDD and adults, my colleagues will tell you that I pulled together a meeting to talk about this even further. Apologies, members.

I pull together this community, several of the non-profits, the individual that's responsible for this program, within HICFA and one of our major raise. The department understood how concerned we were as a JBC about changing the hours. that led to reducing or extending, I should say, that time period. But it also added a couple of other key items. One, that there would be a very robust exception process, that families that could not find a provider, and by the way, we are not asking families to pay for those providers unless they're at very significantly higher incomes. Those folks qualify from a Medicaid standpoint. So please let's not talk about this from the standpoint that we're asking those parents that have stepped away from careers to take care of their children, that we're asking them to pay for providers. We, through Medicaid, are paying for them. So A, we talked about that with this group that I asked to be pulled together. Secondly, as I already said, we got an assurance that we would have a robust exception process. So if parents were in a situation where there were no qualified providers, they could, in fact, get an exception to the process. and as we were talking about that you know what the non-profits in this business showed me and I hope some of you folks have seen this there are individuals out there right now in this program advertising that they can get $100,000 for a family do you want to see ads like that? because they exist and I can assure you the coalitions of the nonprofits in this IDD community showed them to me. You want to hear another thing that's going on? We have agencies taking 30 to 50 percent off of the top of the dollars of Medicaid at the expense of the providers. Do you want to take action on that? Well, then I'm all ears to that kind of situation.

This is to the amendment, and this is to the IDD community. We listened intently to this situation We modified the IDD program and the phase with them in mind We also provided additional people within the department to police the abuse and misuse. So when I say, as a JBC, this was one of the most difficult discussions, we all put additional time into this for this particular purpose. I can't speak to $273,000 because this is well over a billion dollar program. But I can tell you, of all the subjects that we had to tackle, this was one that we worked and worked and worked and worked to find solutions. And I will tell you personally, the tears I shed over these kids and adults is very, very real. And so to tell us that we didn't work our butts off on this, we did and we still do, but we need your help. We can't have people out there abusing these families. And everybody that's worried about this, I hope you'll put the energy into supporting me to get the damn abuse out of this program. Excuse my language because I don't use that word very often. that will more than offset this amendment of $273,000.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Representative from West Slope, Grand Junction. I agree with him 100%. I'd like to see these people put in jail. I really would. I don't know that our laws would go there, but I would. And I actually am in this space in a few ways. I'm in this space as a pastor, but I'm also in this space because I have family members that fall into these categories, very close family members. And so this is a big deal for me, and I think it's a big deal for JBC. I'm not arguing any of that. I would like this question answered because there does seem to be a disconnect for me because of these things. because I do believe this is important and was important to JBC when they were doing this. Could one of the JBC members explain to me why? Because this is not just this amendment alone. This is the Third Amendment that's like this. Why is this film, television, media thing so sacrosanct? I mean I had people on both sides of the aisle tell me why they think and it originates with the governor but why is the film television media I mean this is why is that why is it off limits for the I mean to me we we provided some real legitimate conversations as OK That doesn't it doesn't affect the film, television, media at all. Zero. It doesn't affect them. I mean, they've got so much money there. Why would we not move some of these to like the veterans or this right here? Why would we not do this? Why is the film, television, media thing so important that we've got to defend it to the tune of $271,000? And I'm not being tongue-in-cheek. I'm confused. This doesn't seem to match up. We've provided some very legitimate things to something that, to me, is a flip to begin with. I didn't think that the whole Sundance or whatever was important in the beginning. I think it's a big fake sham on our state. So why is this such a big deal? Is it because the governor's, that's his thing? I mean, I'm asking the question.

Chair, thank you. Again, I said it several times that I would be up here several times today to speak on behalf of the intellectually and developmentally disabled community. And I'm back to do that yet again. However, I want to be very specific about how I frame my comments. That it isn't necessarily to say that JBC did not do the work to protect this area. Because even when our JBC member from Boulder Broomfield came up, you could hear with a deep sense of regret and pain, honestly, the reduction here that has triggered an amendment like this. These folks have, and I recognize it, they have worked very hard to try to protect that group of folks, the IDD group. in a way, yeah, it seems like this conversation's a little upside down, that the conversation started turning to making it feel like we were saying that why have you made these cuts instead of saying, hey, look, with this amendment, we can try to do something. We can try to help out. We can try to put a little something back. and I can't help it sometimes I sit here and I listen to comments I don't necessarily come up with anything specific that I have to say and then all of a sudden somebody will say something and it will trigger some ridiculous analogy in my head that I can't get rid of and regretfully I'll come up here and speak about it because it's ridiculous and that's about to happen but you know as a parent when you're doing a project like let's say planting a garden in the backyard you got a little kid that wants to help You got a little boy or girl that wants to help with a gardening project. And really when it comes down to it, you're going to do the heavy lifting as the parents. You know you're going to do the heavy lifting, and what you do at the end is they come in and they plant, you know, one carrot seed or whatever it is, and you look at them and you say, you know what, good job, you helped out. In many ways, I feel like that's what we're doing here. I understand that the health care policy financing budget is enormous, and I understand the relative insignificance of a couple of hundred thousand dollars. But we're just trying to help out. It's just one little seed in a vast garden that maybe we're just looking for a little pat on the back and a little love saying, you know what, you're doing your part. We're not saying that JBC ignored the IDD community. Hardly. That is not what I'm saying. I don't believe that is what I have heard said here. What we're doing is we're saying that this amendment allows us to route a little bit of money, relatively insignificant as it is, to a vulnerable population that quite honestly, I mean, at what point does it become irrelevant? Is it irrelevant at 2 million? I don't think so. Is it irrelevant at 200,000? I don't know that there's a point that anything that we can contribute towards that population becomes irrelevant as insignificant as it seems against the entire budget of the department. 56 hours is tough. We talked here. It has been said here today, the overwhelming burden of health care, the hours, the need that members of the intellectually and developmentally disabled community require. We all know 56 hours does not cover that. We all know that the hearts are in the right place to try to protect as best as possible that community. We all know that anything more we can do to help. This is not a chastisement in any way, shape, or form that Joint Budget Committee didn't do enough. This is just our effort to try to do a little bit more. Just to try to add a little bit more to an area that we know will not be solved with this amount. The last time that I came up and spoke about moving money from one program to another, a pilot program, there was an emotional story that was attached to it, a success story that was attached to it. And then I was arguing that perhaps because of the pilot program, I might be better served elsewhere. This is an entirely different conversation where we're saying that there's no heartbeat to this. There's no blood behind it. Taking money from this program to add to an area that needs help is entirely different and conversations that we've had here today as far as trying to trim here and add back. The Office of Film and Media a couple of hundred thousand dollars Honestly what are we fussing over What are we fussing over? If it can help, you hear it all the time, if we could prevent one person from this, if we could help one person in this area, wouldn't it be worth it? I don't know how far a couple of hundred thousand dollars goes, but I know that it is something that can be meaningful in the overall scope of this conversation. I would ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So just a couple little extra items, and I realize it's late in the day and we don't have much attention spans, but we're constantly being told we are having to make hard choices, that these are hard choices. Look at the amendment. This is your choice. Your choice. I say it's an easy choice. Not only is it $260,000-odd, it's doubled with federal matching funds. You see the line item where it says federal funds? Yet we're going to pass that up for a discretionary program for films. And let's remind people, It's $1.6 million in the Office of Film Subsidies. They just hired a brand new head at $130,000. As an FTE, that means about $150,000. That's 10% of the budget for the person to run the office. That doesn't sound very business efficient at all. And those who say, oh, we absolutely need it because of Sundance, Do you all remember or have read the bill for Sundance? We are going to farm out and contract with an auditor with very specific items to look for. There is nothing that needs to be done by the governor's office once that audit is brought in. They do all the work. We just have to verify that everything is in there. So again, this is a very, very easy choice. You have a scale, and it's your choice. And I don't have a real dog in the fight. Most people who come down here, they have some lived experience with the IDD community or the like. I don't. But I come from the district that pays far more of the taxes than anything it ever gets back, and my people want to make sure where that money goes to things that they think are appropriate. This, as a choice, we're not going to get a lot of IDD money back in my district. We're not going to get a lot of money from the film office, But I can tell you my constituents prefer taking care of disabled kids over film subsidies and I hope you do too Thank you Representative DeGraff Thank you Madam Chair And I don think any of the conversation is meant to be a slight on the JBC I have a great respect for the JBC, and I have a great dread of ever having to do anything that they do. And we do recognize the position that they're in because they are unable, disallowed, to make... They're not even allowed to see the entirety of the budget. They don't see line by line. You know, when offers like to find that fraud, that's, I think, one of the lawsuits against uncovering that fraud. So our current state government is in the active position of preventing that fraud from being discovered, just like the Secretary of State, preventing the fraud from being discovered. Now that fraud in that case, let's just look at it. Four million ballots go out. That's $32 million per election cycle, wasted, trashed, before it's even sent out. We know that $32 million that goes out from the Secretary of State at the Secretary of State's behalf, on behalf, forced on all of the counties, is going into the trash before it even goes. $32 million could be fixed like that. Why isn't it fixed? Because the Secretary of State values the fraud over the integrity. But that's $32 million, and we could, and I'm all with you. I'm with you. Let's find the fraud. Let's do what we should be doing here in a budget deficit year. we should not be passing bills that have these imaginary zero dollar fiscal notes on them that we're going to find out just how much they cost later on when we get to supplementals. But even with the imaginary cost of fiscal note of zero dollars, unless it happens to be the poor counties on which they're imposed as an unfunded mandate. But day one, we should have started by pulling apart the budget and finding that fraud, doing a cost-benefit analysis. We need to be doing the hard accounting, and this is just part of that hard accounting. We understand that this is a governor pet project, and the governor does not want you to cut this project. The governor is willing to cut provider rates and gut our medical services in the state, but the film festival subsidies, that's a pet project. And so the citizens of Colorado should understand where the priorities of the state are, where the priorities of the governor are. It's not you. The taxpaying widgets of Colorado, it's not you. It's definitely not you. The taxpaying widgets of Colorado are just mostly an excuse to generate programs from which funds can be skimmed. Yeah, we should find the grift in these programs, but the governor the majority all of those things are set in place to not discover the fraud that in the budget that we should be finding So I agree I don think this is your fault I think we should be taking apart the budget, bolt by bolt, nut by nut. But we're not allowed to do that. So instead, because socialism ultimately runs out of other people's money, instead we start whittling away at the dependence that's been created and harming the people that are most vulnerable. And that's the choice. The choice the governor has made, the choice the AG has made, the choice that the majority has made, hide the fraud, hurt the people.

Thank you, Madam Chair. and I move J012 and ask for it to be properly displayed. Or I'm sorry. Yes, 012. Yes. Yes. A-1-2, otherwise known as Amendment No. 34.

And I am bringing this amendment to us. Basically, we're looking to make cuts. And as we know, in any type of business, one of the easiest places are tough, but I shouldn't say easy, but it's a tough decision, but it's a well-thought-out decision, would be in the IT department. And so what this amendment does is basically it suspends. It doesn't take away. It doesn't get rid of. It just says we are going to, in this time of need, in this time of financial crisis, that we're going to suspend any software, any new software purchases or any upgrades that really we can make do without anything above $50,000. So for us, that means right now we spent, actually in this department per year, we spend well over $400 million. $400 million in OIT. So we have the ability with this amendment to actually make wide cuts, not really cuts, suspensions saying that we're not going to spend any money above $50,000 per software that we actually can do without for at least three years. After that, we'll have a better grasp on our financial situation in the state, hopefully. And that way we will be able to upgrade when we need. But at this point in time, we don't have the money. We shouldn't be spending the dime. So I'm asking for a yes vote. Thank you.

Representative AML Winter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to move Amendment J-28 to the long bill. and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate you and members. Please listen up on this one because I think the one thing a lot of us can agree on is HICPA is a mess right now. This amendment cuts the HICPA Executive Director's Office of Personnel Service by budget by 10% and redirects roughly $10 million to Medicaid provider rate reimbursements, putting money back into the frontline care instead of headquarters and overhead. The amendment reduces general fund personal services funding and HICPA Executive Director's Office. between 2018 and 2024 medicaid enrollment rose only by 7.6 percent well hick was total fte employment rose by 72 percent which comes out to about 339 additional full-time staff i'll say that again to those of you that weren't listening 339 additional full staff well i said providers so i knew you be here Over the same period spending by HICPA Executive Director Office doubled from million to million up 101 despite only modest enrollment growth CSI notes that HICPA's 101% spending growth over the decade exceeded the combined growth rates of Medicaid enrollment, medical inflation, and obesity used as a proxy for overall health need. CSI estimates that HICPA has grown only with a caseload. Inflation and health status trends, fiscal year 2025 spending could have been about $10.8 billion instead of $16 billion, roughly $5.1 billion less. I think those are a lot of good reasons to make a cut to this department. I think now is time for us to make a cut to this department, and this is a true cut. I've given you the data on why we should do this. I think it's pretty solid data, so I urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I respectfully ask for a no vote on this amendment. we actually, there was a third party study of HICPF that discovered that we have very low administrative costs within the department under 5%, which is, I guess I would ask any insurance company out there what their admin costs are, and I wager it's far greater than 5%, but if you cut these dollars, what is it that you don't want HICPF to do? Is it you don't want them to do the fraud, waste, and abuse work that they have to do? What is it that you don't want them to do? Do you not want them to have the funds in order to do the reviews of the appeals that folks are making for those caps that we just talked about? That is what this does. This funds those folks who have to do the work of running these programs and being able to be responsive to people in the community who utilize the services. Is there any further discussion on the amendment?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move J-021 to HB 1410 and ask for it to be displayed.

I am going to reduce the general fund for general administration and HICPF by 10 percent. And since we just tried that one, I think I know what's going to be talked about. 19 million total funds. And since we just said, do we not want them to find fraud? We do, but they're not. So there it goes. Maybe if we reduce the general administration, maybe a smaller amount of people might just actually do the job. Since the director of HICPF just stepped down, what happened? 2024 to 2025, I don't know, 48 million in waste, fraud, and abuse efforts. 2023 to 2024, another 4 million identified. And then guess what? The federal government, in an audit that they did, so let's not pretend that HICPF is fine in this, okay? Because the federal audit found $285 million in improper or potentially improper Medicaid payments in Colorado from 2022 to 2023. And guess why that number is significant? Because that the number of provider rate cuts you making this year to the providers that are providing for all the patients in Colorado million They found million in improper payments and fraud in our state and that was the federal government. So maybe we just let the federal government do it, cut the administrative costs to HICPF since they're not doing their job, and save provider rate cuts for the state, pass the amendment, give another $19 million to the providers that are actually doing the job and treating the patients, and let's call it good. I ask for an aye vote on this amendment, do good diligence in our state, and pay for the providers that have worked tirelessly through COVID, and now again through yet another provider rate cut in our state, providing maternal and health care deserts, not only to the Indian tribes, but to rural Colorado. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We have had lots of discussions around CDPHE. I'm sorry, sorry, sorry. Let's get them. Yeah. That's a lot of fraud discovered. That's a lot of fraud hidden. I mean, they could certainly go and find that fraud. I think it was offered. Is that yet another one of our dauntless AG going after the administration to make sure that that fraud stays covered, hidden? And then we use then that fraud costs, and then we have to cut health provider rates? $285 million, and now we're talking about $105,000? I mean, it sounds like HICPF needs to be cut by a cool $285 million right off the bat because they can find that money. They've obviously been operating their budget just fine without that money. But we're not cutting $285 million out of HickPuff. Even though they have demonstrated the ability to operate, that they have been, that they don't need that money, that they are being overfunded by $285 million. By the fraud, that was discovered. So what is the priority? The priority is keeping that budget intact, making sure the fraud can continue, making sure there are no audits. That's the priority of the state. And to balance the budget, not the JBC's fault, But to balance the budget, now you have to cut provider rates. So what's the priority? What's the HickPuff priority? To me, it looks like fraud, waste, and abuse is the priority. The programs are an excuse for it. This is a ridiculous amount, a small amount. to trim. But it should be no problem in consideration of the fraud, waste, and abuse that is endemic to the program as a whole. But this is where we should be making these choices. We should be making the choices. We should be digging into these programs. We should be asking the hard questions. We should be using the computer tools that are available to us now to dig into these instead of trying to hide them we know why they hidden We know what that money goes for It doesn go for Coloradans It's just another opportunity for the caucus to exploit the citizens of Colorado. So I think this is way too small a cut for what it should be. I think we should start with $285 million, and then there should be punitive on top of that. But this is at least a step in the right direction. I ask for an aye vote.

Representative Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair. We ask for a no vote. You need staff to fight waste, fraud, and abuse. And unfortunately, this cuts into the ability of the department to administer these programs, which serve vulnerable Coloradans and make sure that we are fighting the waste that often happens in Medicaid. So we ask for a no vote. Representative DeGraff.

Okay, so you need a staff to find the fraud, waste, and abuse.

Representative Graff, I have allowed you to speak about fraud and fraud prevention. Let's be careful not to insult public servants.

Representative Bradley.

Is there any further discussion on J21? Seeing none, the question before us is its passage. All those in favor say aye.

All those opposed, no.

The amendment fails. Representative Gilchrist.

That is a proper motion. Give us one moment. And it is before us. Please proceed.

Representative DeGraff.

Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the passage of Amendment J. 30. All those in favor say aye.

The ayes have it. Amendment J. 30 passes.

That is a proper motion and it is before us. Please proceed.

Is there any further discussion? Representative Sirota.

Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the passage of Amendment J79.

All those opposed, no. The no's have it. Amendment fails. Representative Marshall? If you'd like. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Let me repeat, it will be doubled with federal matching funds

Is there any further discussion?

Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the passage of Amendment J-76.

Aye.

No's have it. The amendment fails. Rep. Flannell.

Please proceed.

Seeing Rep. Bacon.

Seeing no further discussion, the question before us, Rep. Funnell.

Thank you We were concerned about the efficacy of the office and since that article leadership has changed and I still have advocated to keep it open to get to the goal that I just mentioned And so I will say that in the earlier years, we did have many conversations with the office. And again, if you weren't aware, there have been changes made in that office because we felt like the goal that we were pursuing was worth the investment. Another thing that the office does is work with community-based organizations across our state because we know that those community-based organizations know our neighbors better than most to help them and to help our neighbors understand that with these tools come certain responsibilities. And so while I'm the first one to say I did have criticism, of which I've made publicly to move that office to change its behavior, and I believe that it has done so. Thank you.

Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment J-003. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The no's have it. The amendment fails. Representative Bottoms. Thank you, Chair.

the amendment is before us please proceed this is to to take money from funds for reproductive

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think like a previous amendment where we're talking about people being removed from Medicare, blaming it on H.R. 1, and then you kind of get the hint that, yeah, they're not eligible for Medicare because they're not here legally. And so here we have $1.5 million from the General Fund Health Care Policy and Finance from the deproductive health care. I think you spelled that wrong. Because that whole program is about averted births. The death by mechanical dismemberment, exsanguination, suffocation of pre-born persons for individuals not eligible for Medicaid. So I'm really baffled in our state budget priorities. When we've taken our seniors who have paid into this system, who have basically signed contracts with the state, which we know the state is not good for the money, but they've signed contracts. They've operated in good faith with a non-good faith actor, which would be the government. And then we're going to say we have to have an amendment to take money from people who are not eligible for it to give it to the people who paid into the system. I know what I said this morning, when I said we're going to have discussions about our priorities as a state, and I know the state priorities of the majority party anyways are inverted. valuing death over life, valuing illegals over legals, valuing corruption over good governance. It's all inverted. Well, you just voted to maintain $400 million worth of fraud.

Absolutely. I was just responding to the sidebar. So we're talking about, and maybe my colleague can correct me if I'm wrong, but we're talking about removing it from a program for people who are not eligible for the funding for the depopulation when we have this. So the ramifications are stark, and that's why running out of the population, when we have a population, when I looked at it the other day, it was significantly less than one. The birth rate was less than one. You need 2.5. Somehow we're having to build houses to house all the people that will never be born. But that we have to have an amendment to take money from people who are not eligible to fund people who literally built the state is, like I said, I know we were going to talk about priorities. I know the priorities are screwed up. It just baffles me with every amendment how screwed up those priorities are. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Representative Bottoms.

This is about abortion That why I standing against it Seeing no further discussion the question before us is the passage of Amendment J All those in favor say aye All those opposed no The no's have it. The amendment fails. Representative Bottoms.

that's mostly proper please proceed

Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the adoption amendment J78. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The amendment fails. Representative Garcia.

That is a proper motion. And please proceed.

Representative Sroda.

Is there any further discussion? I'm at J77. Seeing none, the question before us is its passage. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The no's have it. The amendment fails. AML Winter.

That is a proper motion. And it is before us. Please proceed.

Representative Bradley.

Madam Majority Leader.

Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment J37. All those in favor say aye. The House will stand in 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. . Thank you. Thank you. The committee will come back to order.

Amendment L-37 will be withdrawn. Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to lay over House Bill 1410 as amended until tomorrow. House Bill 1410 as amended will be laid over until tomorrow.

Representative Taggart. Thank you, Madam Chair, if you'd bear with us for just a moment. House bill 1348 Representative Taggart can you move the bill I move House bill 26 Thank you To the bill To the bill This bill is all about broadband infrastructure changes for our Department of Corrections Over a period of years here we have authorized through the legislature

Is there any further discussion on House Bill 1348? Seeing none, the question before is it's passage. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say no. House Bill 1348 is passed.

Thank you. Representative Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1349. To the bill. This bill authorizes a swap of general fund and cash fund appropriations between the Nurse Home Visitor Program and the Safe Care from the FY2627 through FY2930. The swap allows the Department of Early Childhood to leverage safe care to increase federal fund revenue. We ask for an aye vote. So any further discussion on House Bill 1349? Representative Sucla.

The committee will go into brief recess. Thank you. The committee will come back to order. House Bill 1349 will be read.

bill 1349 uh we're not in recess we weren't in recess yeah because the bill is red We did all of that on the microphone. Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of House Bill 1349. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say no. House Bill 1349 is passed.

House 1350 is about the legacy school food programs that we have had prior to HSMA, Healthy School Meals for All. And this bill allows for the Healthy School Meals for All Cash Fund to fund these programs. I'll just read them quickly. State matching funds for federal National School Lunch Act, the Start Smart Nutrition Program, the Child Nutrition School Lunch Protection, and administrative costs for the summer electronic benefits transfer. So this, we have significant funds in HSMA that can pay for this, but also within this bill, it is left as optional. If for any reason in the future we need to use general fund, it is in this bill as well as an option.

I'd like to have this bill read at length, please.

Introduced. LLS No. 26-529.02 Jacob Boss X 2173 House Bill 26-1350. House Committee Senate Committee's Appropriations. A bill for an Act. 101 concerning appropriations related to school food. 102 programs, and, in connection therewith, making and 103 reducing an appropriation. 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.colorado.gov. Joint Budget Committee Under current law, the General Assembly is required to appropriate an amount to comply with matching requirements under the federal Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. The bill makes this appropriation optional and allows the amount to be appropriated from the Healthy School Meals for All program. House Sponsorship Brown and Taggart, Sirota Senate Sponsorship Amabel and Bridges, Kirkmeyer 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 Cash fund Under current law, the Department of Education is a designated partner agency for the Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children Program summer EBT program, created in the Department of Human Services, and is required to administer the summer EBT program. The bill allows money for administration of the summer EBT program to be appropriated from the Healthy School Meals for All program cash fund. Under current law, the General Assembly is required to appropriate $700,000 to $1.5 million to the Start Smart Nutrition Program cash fund, cash fund. The bill makes the appropriation optional, repeals the cash fund, transfers the cash fund balance to the general fund, and allows an appropriation to be made from the Healthy School Meals for All program cash fund. Under current law, the General Assembly is required to appropriate money for the Child Nutrition School Lunch Protection Program. The bill makes the appropriation optional and allows an appropriation to be made from the Healthy School Meals for All Program cash fund. Under current law, the Department of Education administers a local school food purchasing program and a local school food purchasing technical assistance and education grant program legacy local school food programs that are distinct from the local school food purchasing program and technical assistance and education grant programs within the Healthy School Meals for All Act, HSMA local school food programs. The bill states that the General Assembly may appropriate an amount for the legacy local school food programs if the Healthy School Meals for All Program Cash Fund does not fully fund the HSMA local school food programs The bill makes and reduces appropriations to the Department of Education for the affected programs 1 be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado 2 Section 1 Legislative Declaration 1. The General Assembly. 3. Finds that. 4. A. Prior to the approval of propositions FF, MM, and LL. 5. Concerning the healthy school meals for all program, the state maintained. 6. A number of mechanisms and programs to subsidize meals for students. 7. Each with required appropriations, and 8. b. The voter approval of propositions FF, MM, and LL 2. HB 26-1350 1. Concerning the Healthy School Meals for All program is anticipated to be 2. sufficient to fully support school nutrition programs. 3. 2. Therefore, the General Assembly declares that it is necessary to 4. eliminate the requirement to appropriate money to the Legacy Meal 5 mechanisms and that the Healthy School Meals for All program may be 6. used to support school nutrition programs, if necessary. 7. Section 2. In Colorado Revised Statutes, 22-82.9-211, amend 8, 3, A, 7, and, 3, G, and add, 3, A, 9, 3, A, X, 3, A, 11, and 9, 3, A, 12, as follows, 1022-82.9-211. Healthy school meals for all program cash fund 11, creation, uses, reporting requirements, legislative declaration, 12 definitions, repeal. 13, 3, A, subject to annual appropriation by the General Assembly, 14 money may be expended from the fund that is not in the account for the 15 following purposes 16 7 beginning july 1st 2026 providing outreach related to the 17 supplemental nutritional assistance program and 18 9 beginning july 1st 2026 complying with the 19 requirements for state matching funds under the federal 20 richard b russell national school lunch act 42 usc sec 21 17 51 eat seek 22 x beginning july 1st 2026 administering the start smart 23 nutrition program created in section 22-82.7-103 24 11 beginning july 1st 2026 administering the child 25 nutrition school lunch protection program created in section 26 22-82.9-104 and 27 12 beginning july 1st 2026 administering the summer dash 3 hb 26-1350 one electronic benefits transfer for children program pursuant to two section 22-2-149 3. g. if, upon awarding money according to subsection 3. f. of this 4 section, the department determines that awarding money pursuant to this 5 subsection 3. g. would result in a reserve calculation amount equal to 6.35% or more, then money may be expended from the fund, 7. including money in the account in accordance with subsection 3. a.5. 2. 8 of this section by awarding and distributing amounts from the fund as 9 described in subsection 3. f. of this section and then funding the 10 implementation of the supplemental nutritional assistance program in 11 manner that supplements and does not supplant the state's expenditures 12 as of July 1st 2025 to implement the supplemental nutritional assistance 13 program outreach related to the supplemental nutritional assistance 14 program and community-based nutrition education the requirements 15 for state matching funds under the federal richard b. russell 16 national school lunch act 42 usc sec 1751 e seek and the 17 summer electronic benefits transfer for children program 18 pursuant to section 22-2-149 19 section 3 in colorado revised statutes 22-54-123 amend 20 1 and add 1.5 as follows 21 22-54-123 richard b russell national school lunch act 22 appropriation of state matching funds definition 23 1 for the 2001 to 2002 budget year and budget years thereafter the 24 general assembly shall may appropriate by separate line item and amount 25 to comply with the requirements for state matching funds under the 26 federal richard b russell national school lunch act 42 usc section 27 17 51 ed seek The Department of Education shall develop procedures to 1 Allocate and disburse the funds among participating school food to authorities each year in an equitable manner so as to comply with the three requirements of said Act. 4. 1.5, pursuant to Section 22-82.9-211, 3, A, 9, subject to 5 annual appropriation by the General Assembly, the Department 6 of Education may expend and amount from the Healthy School 7 meals for all program cash fund to comply with the eight requirements for state matching funds under the federal nine richard b russell national school lunch act 42 usc sec 10 1751 e seek 11 section 4 in colorado revised statutes 22-82.7-102 amend 12 the introductory portion and repeal 2 as follows 13 22-82.7-102 definitions 14 as used in this article article 82.7 unless the context otherwise 15 requires 16 2 fund means the start smart nutrition program fund created 17 in section 22-82.7-105 18 section 5 in colorado revised statutes 22-82.7-104 amend 19 1 and repeal 2 as follows 2022-82.7-104 program funding appropriation 21 1 the general assembly shall may annually appropriate by 22 separate line item in the annual general appropriation bill an amount of 23 not less than $700,000 and not more than $124,500,000 to the fund created in section 2522-82.7-105 to the department for distribution to school food 20. 6 authorities to allow school food authorities to provide free breakfasts 27 to children participating in the school breakfast program who would. 5 HB 26-1350. 1 otherwise be required to pay a reduced price for breakfast and to offset 2 the costs incurred by facility schools in providing breakfasts to students 3 who are placed in the facility and are eligible to participate in the school for breakfast program. The appropriation to the fund shall be Department May 5 be in addition to any appropriation made by the General Assembly 6 pursuant to section 22-54-123 or 22-54-123.5, 1. 7, 2, the department may seek and accept gifts, grants, and 8 donations from public and private sources to fund the program, but 9 receipt of gifts, grants, and donations shall not be a prerequisite to the 10 implementation of the program. All private and public funds received 11 through gifts, grants, and donations shall be transmitted to the state 12 treasurer, who shall credit the same to the fund. 13, section 6. In Colorado revised statutes, 22-82.7-105, amend 14, 1, introductory portion and, 1, a, repeal, 1, b, and add, 4, and, 5, as 15 follows 16-22-82.7-105 Start Smart Nutrition Program Fund, creation 17 administrative costs, repeal 18, 1, there is hereby created in the state treasury the Start Smart 19 Nutrition Program Fund The fund shall consist consists of 20 a such monies as are money as is appropriated to the fund by 21 the general assembly pursuant to section 22 dash 82.7 dash 104 1 and 22 b any gifts grants or donations received by the department for 23 the fund pursuant to section 22 dash 82.7 dash 104 2 and 24 for a notwithstanding subsections 1 2 3 of this 25 section on June 30 2026 the state treasurer shall transfer all 26 unexpended and unencumbered money in the fund to the general 27 fund. 1. B. Notwithstanding subsections, 1, 2, 3, of this section, 2 on August 31, 2026, the State Treasurer shall transfer all free unexpended and unencumbered money in the fund to the General Four Fund. 5. 5, this section is repealed, effective September 1, 2026. 6. Section 7. In Colorado revised statutes, amend 22-82.7-1067 as follows, 822-82.7-106. program procedures 9 the department shall develop procedures to allocate and disburse 10 the monies in the fund the money appropriated to the department 11 program among participating school food authorities and 12 facility schools each year in an equitable manner and in compliance with 13 the requirements of the federal richard b russell national school 14 lunch act 42 usc sector 1751 ed seek 15 section 8 in colorado revised statutes 22-82.9-105 amend 16 1 as follows 17 22-82.9-105 program funding 18 1 for each fiscal year the general assembly shall may make an 19 appropriation by separate line item in the annual general appropriation 20 bill to allow school food authorities to provide lunches at no charge for 21 children in state-subsidized early childhood education programs 22 administered by public schools or in kindergarten through 12th grade 23 participating in the school lunch program who would otherwise be 24 required to pay a reduced price for lunch and to offset the costs incurred 25 by a facility school in providing lunch to students who are placed in the 26 facility and are eligible to participate in the school lunch program the 27 appropriation to the department for the program must may be in addition dash 7 hb 26-1350 one to any appropriation made by the general assembly pursuant to section 222-54-123 or 22-54-123.5 one the department may expend not more than three two percent of the money annually appropriated for the program to offset for the direct and indirect costs incurred by the department in implementing five the program pursuant to this part 1. 6 section 9. in colorado revised statutes 22-82.9-302 amend 7 3 a as follows 8 22-82.9-302 local school food purchasing program creation 9 rules 10 3 a in october 2024 and each october thereafter subject to 11 annual appropriation in a state fiscal year when appropriations 12 from the healthy school meals for all program fund created in 13 section 22-82.9-211 do not fully fund the award of local food 14 purchasing grants pursuant to section 22-82.9-205 the general 15 assembly may appropriate an amount for the department shall to 16 reimburse each participating provider at least 5 cents for every school 17 lunch that the participating provider prepared in the immediately 18 preceding school year or a minimum of $1,000 whichever 19 is greater except that a participating provider is not reimbursed for the 20 amount of value-added processed products that exceeds 25 21 percent of the total of the colorado grown raised or Processed Products 22 it purchased and that the department may prorate these reimbursements 23 as necessary. 24 Section 10. In Colorado Revised Statutes, 22-82.9-303, 25 Amend, 2, Introductory Portion as follows, 26-22-82.9-303. Local School Food Purchasing Technical Assistance 27 and Education Grant Program, Creation, Report. Dash 8, HB 26-1350. 1. 2. Subject to available appropriations I.N. A state fiscal year 2 when appropriations from the healthy school meals for all three program fund created in section 22-82.9-211 do not fully fund for the local school food purchasing technical assistance and 5 education grant program pursuant to section 22-82.9-207. The 6th general assembly may appropriate an amount for the non-profit 7 organization May 2 award grants for the following 8th section 11. Appropriation adjustments to 2026 long bill 9.1 except as provided in subsection 3 of this section to implement this 10 act appropriations made in the annual general appropriation act for the 11 2026 to 27 state fiscal year to the department of education for use by school 12 district operations are adjusted as follows 13 a the cash funds appropriation from the state public school fund 14 created in section 22-54-114 1 crs for state match for the school 15 lunch program is decreased by 2 million 472 644 dollars 16 b the cash funds appropriation from the state education Fund 17 created in section 17 for a of Article 9 of the state constitution for the 18 child nutrition school lunch protection program is decreased by 19 see the cash funds appropriation from the Start Smart Nutrition 20 Program Fund created in section 22 1, CRS, for the Start 21 Smart Nutrition Program is decreased by $296,484, and 22, D, the general fund appropriation for summer electronics 23 benefits transfer for children is decreased by $229,097, and the related 24 FTE is decreased by 0.9 FTE, 25, 2, for the 2020 FTE, the 26 to 27 state fiscal year, $3,001,741 is appropriated 26 to the Department of Education for use by school district operations. This 27 appropriation is from the Healthy School Meals for All Program Fund. 9, HB 26-1350 1 created in section 22-82.9-211, 2, CRS. To implement this act, the two department may use this appropriation as follows, 3, A, $2,472,644 for state match for the school lunch program, 4. b. $235,000 for the Child Nutrition School Lunch Protection 5 Program. 6. c. $65,000 for the Start Smart Nutrition Program. And 7. d. $229,097 for Summer Electronics Benefits Transfer for Children, 8. Which amount is based on an assumption that the department will require 9 an additional 0.9 FTE. 10. 3. Subsection, 1, of this section does not require a reduction of 11 in appropriation in the Annual General Appropriation Act for the 2026-2712 state fiscal year for the Department of Education for use by School District 13 Operations if. 14 a the amount of cash funds appropriation from the state public 15 school fund created in section 22 54-114 1 crs made in the annual 16 general appropriation act for the 2026 to 27 state fiscal year for state match 17 for the school lunch program is less than the amount of the adjustment 18 required in subsection 1 a of this section 19 b the amount of cash funds appropriation from the state 20 education fund created in section 17 4 a of article 9 of the state 21 constitution made in the annual general appropriation act for the 2026 to 27 22 state fiscal year for the child nutrition school lunch protection program is 23 less than the amount of the adjustment required in subsection 1 b of 24 this section 25 c the amount of cash funds appropriation from the start smart 26 nutrition program fund created in section 22-82.7-105 1 crs made 27 in the annual general appropriation act for the 2026 to 27 state fiscal year dash 10 hb 26-1350 1 for the Start Smart Nutrition Program is less than the amount of the 2 adjustment required in subsection 1, C, of this section, 3, D. The amount of the General Fund Appropriation made in the 4 Annual General Appropriation Act for the 2026-27 state fiscal year for the 5 Summer Electronics Benefits Transfer for Children is less than the amount 6 of the adjustment required in subsection 1, D, of this section, or 7, E. The Annual General Appropriation Act for the 2026-27 state 8 fiscal year does not include an appropriation to the Department of 9 Education for use by School District Operations 4, 10, 1. State match for the school lunch program, 11, 2, the child nutrition school lunch protection program, 12, 3, the start smart nutrition program, or 13, 4, the summer electronics benefits transfer for children. 14. Section 12. Effective date. This act takes effect upon passage, 15 except that subsections, 1, and, 3, of section 11 of this act take effect. 16. Only if the annual general appropriation act for the 2026-27 state fiscal. 17 year becomes law in which case subsections 1 and 3 of section 11 of 18 this act take effect upon the effective date of this act or of the annual 19 general appropriation act for state fiscal year 2026 to 27 whichever is later 20 section 13 safety clause the general assembly finds 21 determines and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate 22 preservation of the public peace health or safety or for appropriations for 23 the support and maintenance of the departments of the state and state 24 institutions

House Bill 1351 by Representatives Brown and Sirota, also Senators Mavelay and Bridges, concerning the use of state education fund money to fund the Healthy School Meals for All program.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This bill does...

Oh, I'm so sorry. I move House Bill 1351.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So this bill is doing two things. It's providing a one-time transfer of $31 million from the HSMA program fund to the state education fund in order to sort of repay borrowed money from the state ed fund over the last two fiscal years to ensure there was enough funding for the Healthy School Meals for All program. It also pauses for two years transfers from the state education fund to the HSMA program fund due to projections of the revenue that would come into the state ed fund due to the increased amounts from Proposition LL. We are pausing that to try and bring some stability to the state ed fund, but that pauses only for two years.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like for House Bill 1331 to be read at length.

51, thank you.

Committee Senate Committee's Appropriations. A bill for an act. 101 concerning the use of state education fund money to fund. 102 the healthy school meals for all program 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.colorado.gov joint budget committee during the 2023 to 24 and 2024 to 25 state fiscal years the general assembly appropriated money from the state education fund for expenditures related to the healthy school meals for all program The bill directs the state treasurer to transfer $31,066,831 from the Healthy School Meals for All Program Fund to the State Education Fund on July 1, 2026. House Sponsorship Brown and Sirota, Taggart Senate Sponsorship Amable and Bridges, Kirk Meyer 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 Under current law, beginning on July 1, 2026, and on each July 1 thereafter, the state treasurer is required to transfer money from the state education fund to the Healthy School Meals for All Program Fund account within the fund. The bill delays that requirement so that the treasurer is required to transfer money from the state education fund to the account beginning on July 1, 2028. In addition, the bill repeals reporting requirements related to money in the Healthy School Meals for All Program Cash Fund. 1 be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado, 2 section 1. In Colorado Revised Statutes, 22-82.9-209, add, 3, 3 as follows, for 22-82.9-209. Program, funding, repeal. 5, 3, A, on July 1, 2026, the State Treasurer shall transfer $631,066,831 from the Healthy School Meals for All Program Cash 8 Fund to the State Education Fund. 9, B, this subsection, 3, I.S. repealed, effective July 1, 2027. 10, Section 2. In Colorado revised statutes 22 amend 11 4 A 4 B and 4 C and repeal 8 as follows 1222 Healthy School Meals for All Program Cash Fund 13 Creation Uses Reporting Requirements Legislative Declaration, 14 Definitions, Repeal. 15, 4.5, A, on July 1, 2026, July 1, 2028, and each July 1 thereafter, 16, the State Treasurer shall transfer an amount from the State Education Fund. 17 to the account equal to the amount reported by the Office of State Planning. 18 and budgeting pursuant to subsection 4.5 b of this section 19 b before july 1st 2026 july 1st 2028 and before each july 1st 20 thereafter the office of state planning and budgeting shall in 21 collaboration with the department of revenue prepare an estimate of the dash 2 hb 26-1351 one amount of state education fund healthy school meals for all revenue for two the following fiscal year and report that estimate to the state treasurer 3 c i on july 1st 2026 july 1st 2028 in addition to the amount 4 described in subsection 4.5 a of this section the state treasurer shall 5 transfer an amount from the state education fund to the fund equal to the 6 amount reported by the office of state planning and budgeting pursuant 7 to subsection 4.5 c 2 of this section 8 2 before july 1st 2026 july 1st 2028 the office of state planning 9 and budgeting shall in collaboration with the department of revenue 10 prepare an estimate of the amount of state education fund healthy school 11 meals for all revenue for the immediately preceding fiscal year and report 12 that estimate to the state treasurer 13 8 a on or before january 15 2027 the department in 14 consultation with the office of state planning and budgeting shall report 15 to the joint budget committee of the general assembly on whether there 16 is a sufficient balance in the cash fund for 17 i the state treasurer to transfer an amount from the cash fund to 18 the state education fund equal to the total amount of expenditures from 19 the state education fund for the purposes of subsection 3 of this section 20 minus the amount of additional tax revenue deposited in the state 21 education fund as a result of section 39-22-104 3 page 5 for state fiscal 22 years 2022 to 23 2023 to 24 2024 to 25 and 2025 to 26 and 23 to the department to provide reimbursements to a participating 24 school food authority for eligible meals without charge pursuant 25 to section 22-82.9-204 1 26 b this subsection 8 is repealed effective july 1st 2027 27 section 3 safety clause the general assembly finds dash 3 hb 26-1351 one determines and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate two preservation of the public peace health or safety or for appropriations for three the support and maintenance of the departments of the state and state for institutions

Aye.

House Bill 1352 by Representatives Brown and Taggart, also Senators Bridges and Kirkmeyer, concerning reducing the frequency of Colorado reading to ensure academic development act independent evaluations and a connection therewith reducing appropriation.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1352.

1352 is a very simple, straightforward bill that just changes an annual evaluation of the REED Act by an independent organization to doing it every other year. And I ask for a yes on this particular bill.

House Committee's Senate Committee's Appropriations. A Bill for an Act. 101 concerning reducing the frequency of Colorado reading. 102 to ensure Academic Development Act, Independent 103 evaluations, and, in connection therewith, reducing an 104 appropriation. 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 lege.colorado.gov joint budget committee the bill changes the requirement for an independent evaluation of the use of colorado reading to ensure academic development act read act money from an annual house sponsorship brown and taggart sirota senate sponsorship bridges and kirkmaier a mobile 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. Requirement to a biennial requirement. The bill maintains the requirement that local education providers report Red Act student data to the Colorado Department of Education, Department, every year. The bill adds a requirement that the department issue an annual report that summarizes data from the local education providers and includes any department input on proposed program changes. The bill reduces the appropriation made in the annual General Appropriation Act for the 2026-27 state fiscal year to the Department of Education from the State Education Fund for the Early Literacy Program External Evaluation. 1 be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado, 2 Section 1. In Colorado revised statutes, July 22, 1209, amend 3, 8, A, and, 8, E, as follows, for July 22, 1209. State Board, Rules, Department, Duties, 5 Independent Evaluations. 6, 8, A, I, by October 1, 2019, the Department shall issue a 7 request for proposals to contract with an entity to act as an independent 8 evaluator to provide independent evaluations of the use of per pupil 9 intervention money and money received through the early literacy grant 10 program by local education providers and to conduct a multi-year 11 evaluation to determine whether the student outcomes achieved by local 12 education providers in implementing this part 12 meet the goals of this 13 part 12 as described in section july 22nd 1202 2 and 3a beginning in 14 the 2026 to 27 school year the independent evaluations must 15 occur biennially 16 2 local education providers shall continue to annually 17 submit to the department the information required by section 18 july 22nd 1208 8 a 19 3 in addition to posting the information as required by 20 subsection 9 of this section the department shall annually dash 2 hb 26 hb 26-1352 one post a report on its website that summarizes the data from the two local education providers and includes any department input on three proposed program changes for e the independent evaluator contracted pursuant to this 5 subsection 8 shall complete the evaluation of the implementation of this 6 part 12 as described in subsection 8 c of this section by july 1st 2021 seven the department shall include a report of the evaluation in the hearing eight before the joint education committee held pursuant to section 2-7-203 in november 9th or december 2021 beginning in the 2026 to 27 school year 10 and biennially thereafter the independent evaluator shall continue 11 evaluations of evaluate the growth in reading achieved by local 12 education providers use of per pupil intervention money and money 13 received through the early literacy grant program 14 section 2 appropriation adjustments to 2026 long bill 15 1 except as provided in subsection 2 of this section to implement this 16 act the cash funds appropriation from the state education fund created in 17 section 17 4 a of article 9 of the state constitution made in the annual 18 general appropriation act for the 2026 to 27 state fiscal year to the 19 department of Education for use by student learning for the early literacy 20 program external evaluation is decreased by 21, 2, subsection, 1, of this section does not require a reduction of 22 in appropriation in the annual General Appropriation Act for the 2026-2723 state fiscal year if, 24, a. The amount of the cash fund appropriation from the state 25 education fund made in the annual General Appropriation Act for the 26-2026-27 state fiscal year to the Department of Education for use by student 27 learning for the early literacy program external evaluation is less than the dash 3 hb 26-1352 one amount of the adjustment required in subsection 1 of this section or 2 b the annual general appropriation act for the 2026 to 27 state three fiscal year does not include an appropriation from the state education for fund to the department of education for use by student learning for the 5 early literacy program external evaluation 6 section 3 effective date this act takes effect upon passage 7 accept that section 2 of this act takes effect only if the annual general aid appropriation act for the 2026 to 27 state fiscal year becomes law in which 9 case section 2 takes effect upon the effective date of this act or of the 10 annual general appropriation act for state fiscal year 2026 to 27 whichever 11 is later 12 section 4 safety clause the general assembly finds 13 determines and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate 14 preservation of the public peace health or safety or for appropriations for 15, the support and maintenance of the departments of the state and state. 16, institutions.

House Bill 1353 by Representatives Brown and Tigard, also Senators of Mobley and Bridges, concerning state-administered social studies assessments and a connection there with reducing and appropriation.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1353.

This bill eliminates the requirement that the Colorado Department of Education administer a state assessment and social studies to elementary and middle school students, except that CDE must administer the social studies assessment to grades in grade 7 statewide. It also eliminates the requirement that CDE administer the test in a representative sample of public schools each year. We ask for an aye vote. Representative Garcia-Sander.

around the state doesn't really give us consistent data to know how is our instruction going to our state standards in Colorado. So moving it to all one grade that all students in seventh grade are testing in Colorado with social studies, I think is an important step to making sure that we have apples to apples comparison. So at least all of our teachers at a certain grade level will know, how did I do with my instruction last year and did I see some improvement in what I taught this year? It's not the same kids, but at least you'll have some more consistent data. Now, that being said, what I am proposing is that we actually change the grade level. And so I move Amendment L003 and ask that it be displayed properly.

I have this magical packet with a green ticket. It's seven. Thank you.

Thank you. So Colorado Social Studies standards for seventh through tenth grade, They focus on inquiry-based learning across history, geography, economics, and civics. Key topics include Eastern Hemisphere history in seventh grade, U.S. history and civics in eighth grade, and in high school in-depth studies of U.S. and world history, economics, and civics with a focus on diverse perspectives. This is important to make sure that when we test our students to make sure that we have teachers who are teaching to the state standards and we have kids who are learning them and demonstrating their knowledge, that they actually have the in-depth studies of U.S. and world history, economics, and civics. Civics is really important. We need to have our students learning American government. For those of us who care about democracy...

Thank you So for those of us who care about democracy And our democratic republic They learn about that in 8th grade And they learn more in-depth information about that U.S. and world history Economics Economics For the representative from Douglas County Economics and civics with a focus on diverse perspectives, I think it's important that we have kids not in 7th grade but all the way up to 10th grade that we can assess that. So this amendment is a simple adjustment. I spoke with a couple of social studies teachers, a couple of my superintendents, and they support moving to 10th grade also. So good amendment. Vote yes, please.

Thank you Madam Chair And I stand here in agreeance with this amendment If anything we just had in front of us not only a teacher who has taught for several years but also someone who also served as a principal of a school. So I honestly believe that, I mean, it's been a long time since I've been in school, but I do agree with that, especially changing it from 7th to 10th grade. You know, and able to be able to do proper assessments, we are assessing these kids to make sure they're going out into the world and they know what they're doing. They know what they're talking about. It gives them a proper ruling or a guideline of where they stand to where they need to be corrected. And assessing them in the correct grade, basically, allows them to understand, you know, what they want to do with their lives even. I mean, knowing where they stand with their grades and what their learning capabilities are and what they're lacking is very important. So I firmly agree with this amendment, and I'm hoping for a yes vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The first week that I taught sixth grade, we had at our school an expectation of saying the Pledge of Allegiance. And many of the students didn't know the Pledge of Allegiance. A couple of weeks into the school year was Constitution Day. Most of the students knew nothing about the Constitution. There was very little understanding of anything related to what is known as social studies, that huge category of history and economics and civics, etc., geography. Most knew none. These are 11-year-olds. and I asked some more seasoned teachers why that was and I was told, well, we don't test it. It doesn't get tested and we don't spend time on things that don't get tested. It's a pretty big category of life to not teach to the youth. and so when the bill came forth a couple of years ago to add this test in I was pleased. I was pleased at the idea that we were going to test this very important subject and so I rise in opposition to this particular bill recognizing that our students need to learn these subjects and if we're not testing them more than likely they won't learn them and so I will be opposed to it at this stage

House Bill 1353 will be read at length.

state eight institutions is there any is that it is there any further discussion on house bill 1353 seeing none the question before is this passage all those in favor please say aye All those in favor, please say aye. All those opposed, please say no. House Bill 1353 is passed. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of House Bill 1354. House Bill 1354 by Representative Sirota and Taggart, also Senators Mobley and Bridges, concerning repealing a science teacher professional development program and a connection there with reducing an appropriation.

Is there any further discussion on House Bill 1354? Seeing none, the question before us is its passage. All those in favor, please say aye. I've asked the question. Okay, give me a second. I'm going to allow it to answer that question. Are you okay? All right. The question before us is the passage of House Bill 1354. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say no. House Bill 1354 is passed. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1355. House Bill 1355 by Representatives Sirota and Taggart, also Senators Bridges and Immobile, concerning the appropriation for the out of school time program grant program and a connection there with reducing an appropriation.

We're on House Bill 1354. No, we just did 1354. Right? Or did we just read? What's on the board? What did we just do? We just did the... Hold on. I moved it. Never mind, I'm sorry. The board changed. Please, to the bill.

House Committee's Senate Committee's Appropriations A Bill for an Act 101 concerning the appropriation for the out-of school time 102 Program Grant Program, and, in connection therewith, 103 reducing an appropriation Bill Summary

Seeing no is there further discussion on House Bill 1355 Seeing none the question before us is its passage All those in favor please say aye Aye. All those opposed, please say no. House Bill 1355 is passed. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of House Bill 1356. House Bill 1356 by Representatives Brown and Taggart, also Senators Immobile and Kirkmeyer, concerning the repeal of the local accountability system.

Is there any further discussion on House Bill 1356?

House Bill 1356 will be read at length.

dash three hb 26-1356 is there any further discussion on house bill 1356 representative luck thank you madam chair so we are just up here having a conversation about this bill and some of

You're just wondering. Okay. Sorry. Is there any discussion? Any of the representatives? Is there seeing no further discussion? Okay. Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the passage of House Bill 1356. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say no. House Bill 1356 is passed. Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to lay over the balance of the calendar until tomorrow. The balance of the calendar will be laid over until tomorrow. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Chair, I move the committee rise and report. Hearing no objection, the committee will. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Madam Majority Leader, you're ready. Oh, Bacon's here. The House will come back to order. Mr. Schiebel, please read the report of the Committee of the Whole.

Members, you have heard the motion. We do have amendments at the desk. Mr. Schiebel, please read the Brown Amendment to the Committee of the Whole report.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move the Brown Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report and ask that it be properly displayed. Thank you. One moment, please.

Thank you Madam Speaker We are cowing this amendment because while we certainly support reductions in our auto theft and we appreciate the good work that the cat paw has done, we unfortunately no longer have the ability to fund additional general fund going into this program. In particular, the places where this amendment would take money from are very problematic. This isn't really a policy disagreement. It is about basic operations. The funds that these support fund the daily functioning of our prison facilities, for example. The superintendent line is only about $100,000 total. Cutting 80% of that line is effectively eliminating the ability to manage the day-to-day operations. These dollars pay for core, non-discretionary work and staff supervision, facility safety, emergency response, and routine operations. So in our corrections department, cutting this line in particular poses real safety risks,

Representative Sirota.

Representative Clifford.

Representative Gonzalez and then Assistant Majority Leader Bacon

Assistant Majority Leader Bacon.

See, Representative Clifford, this is your second time to speak. You have six minutes remaining.

Representative Gonzalez, this is your second time to speak. You have 8 minutes, 34 seconds remaining.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of the Brown Amendment to the committee of the whole report. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Smith, how do you vote?

Representative Smith votes yes. Please close the machine. With 40 I, 23 no, and 2 excused, the amendment is adopted. Mr. Schiebel, please read the first Marshall Amendment to the Committee of the Whole report.

Representative Marshall.

To the Committee of the Whole Report.

It is properly displayed. Please proceed.

Seeing no further discussion. I'm sorry. Representative Titone.

Representative Carter.

seeing no further representative marshall this is your second time to speak you have five minutes some 47 seconds remaining. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Seeing no representatives law.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of the first Marshall Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Smith, how do you vote? No. Representative Smith votes no. English. English. Please close the machine. With 37 I, 26 no and 2 excused, the amendment is adopted. Mr. Schiebel, please read the second Marshall Amendment

Representative Marshall.

Thank you. It is properly displayed. Please proceed.

Representative Sirota.

seeing no further discussion the motion before us representative Titone

So please say no to this amendment Representative Marshall this is your second time to speak You have six minutes 23 seconds remaining

seeing no further discussion The motion before us is the adoption of the second Marshall Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Smith, how do you vote?

Representative Smith votes no. Please close the machine. With 26 I, 36 no, and 3 excused, the amendment is lost. Mr. Schiebel, please read the Ricks Amendment to the Committee of the Whole report.

Representative Ricks.

It is properly displayed. Thank you.

Representative DeGraff.

know where I am on the map Assistant Minority Leader Winter Thank you Madam Chair And I not sure how I going to vote yet on this This puts me in a quandary because I have private prisons in my district and I going to tell the story of Crowley County which there was a buy and dry in Crowley County

Thank you. Representative Kelty.

Assistant Majority Leader Bacon.

Representative Taggart.

and $3 a mile. Add to this, we are paying our private prisons a per diem that is less than we pay for local jails. How do we justify consistency in this body when we depend upon our private jails for 3,000 beds and we don't pay them the same as we do our local jails? And now we're talking about taking from that. What's going to happen if one of those private prisons say, folks, with all due respect, we can't do it at the price you've been paying us any longer, and they step away. We don't have the capacity for $3,000, and guess what? Our local jails don't have that capacity either. So this is, again, one of those amendments that were pitting two very important programs against each other. that is not right. And then to make the statement that fraud's behind us? Fraud is not behind us at all in this situation, and you're going to see an orbital bill coming up, if we ever get to them, tomorrow, that again has a very serious audit mechanism on this program and another program which we'll talk about some other time. So to come up here and say it's behind us, it is not behind us. And guess what caused it? Anybody want to guess? It was overpaying for the service When you do that you invite fraud You invite people into the situation that are in it for one reason The state of Colorado doesn't audit its numbers very well. And so when we have a situation with not only the department, but our JBC analysts that are unbelievable and we compare it to Medicare and we compare it to 10 Western states, for goodness sakes, folks, this is a dollar amount that is more than fair. Thank you. And I would ask you to vote no on this amendment.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, members, the fraud again happened 18 months ago, and the cost or the reimbursement rate was higher during COVID. There was a whole bunch of money flowing in Colorado, and so they had a high rate. Last year, the cost per mile was $6. This year, it's been reduced by $3 per mile. And now this cut to $12.40. With all of the costs that people have to do, we just looked up what does an NEMT provider pickup is. It ranges anywhere from $30 to $50 is what we're picking up on the Internet. Also, Colorado demands that these brokers carry cars that are under 10 years old. Providers are forced to constantly buy new expensive vans, specialized vehicles that carry like a commercial fleet interest rate because they get leases from 7% to 9% interest. So that makes a $12 pickup mathematically insulting, really. I mean, it's not possible to do it for $12. Even the governor's office suggested that they should move this rate up to $19 and something cents per hour. We just rounded it up to $20. Think about what is at stake, our community members who actually need this service, and the fact that providers are going to stop doing this business because they cannot make ends meet by doing this. Nobody's getting filthy rich. Maybe people did in the past, but not with these rates. They won't be able to do that. And so we ask for your yes vote and your consideration to keep our Coloradans healthy and getting the necessary services that they need.

Oh, this is interesting. We're having a little debate over here on the side. I appreciate the extra information. We're trying to figure out where this goes into. So to have the complete picture, 1240 per pickup plus per mile The per mile I have to say is new information So I appreciate you bringing the new information. The fraud that I'm talking about is not necessarily this program. I do agree that the high, if you look around, and we had that with the transportation, we're like the hospital pickups, charging for an ambulance ride when it was not an ambulance, whatever that whole fiasco was. That's not this. The program that I was talking about with fraud was what we talked about earlier, totally different, totally different, where there was hundreds of millions of dollars of fraud. And that's baked into the budget. And then we're making these choices and trying to balance these out, and that's a very big frustration with this budget process when we know there is fraud baked into the budget. Not because you've done it. Not because the JBC has done it, but because the JBC doesn't have the ability to get in there and dig it out. So I'm not really sure, but this does change things. Of course, if this was taking it out of the RTD budget, I'd be all for it. because I think that's just the biggest waste of money there is, subsidizing at $19 for every dollar.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So it's a tough one, but I just wanted to let you know, because I did say I'd be voting yes for it, I did have to say that I'm having to reconsider that based on the full picture, so I do appreciate you bringing the full numbers. $12.40 plus a 10-mile trip would be $42. 10 miles would be probably a pretty short trip, and then $42 on the way back. Plus, you said there's Medicare subsidies, $0.70, whatever that is, in that price range. So the whole picture changes things. I'm not sure how I will, but the entire picture does change things for me.

No.

Yes.

Madam Speaker, I move to lay over the balance of the calendar until Thursday, April 9, 2026.

Yes, members. Tomorrow the start time will be 8.30 a.m. 8.30, not 9. Thank you.

Committee on Health and Human Services, after consideration on the Mercer Committee, recommends the following House Bills 1343 and 1344. be referred to the Committee on Appropriations and Senate Bill 113 be amended as followed and also amended be referred to the Committee on Finance with favorable recommendation. Committee on Transportation, Housing, and Love Government after consideration of the merits of the committee recommends the following. House Bill 1334 be postponed indefinitely. Message from the Senate.

Message from the Senate will be printed in the journal.

We hear with transmit without comment.

Message from the Governor.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move the House stand in adjournment until Thursday, April 9th at 8.30 a.m.