Colorado Senate 2026 Legislative Day 115

Let's do this.

Senator Pelton B., would you please do your job and lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

you mr president i move that the senate journal of thursday may 7th 2026 be approved as corrected by Her Excellency, the Senator.

Senate Services. Correctly engrossed, Senate Bill 178, 185, and 193. Senate Resolution 9, correctly re-engrossed, Senate Bill 125, 184, 186, 187, 188, 189, and 191. Correctly revised, House Bill 1004, 1014, 1111, 1206, 1225, 1233, 1256, 1269, 1287 1342 1414 1428 correctly re-revised house bill 1015 1341 1420 1423 correctly enrolled senate bill 12 134 146 147 160 senate resolution resolution 9 committee reports committee on finance after consideration on the merits committee recommends the following house bill 1223 be amended as follows does so amend to be referred to the committee on appropriations with favorable recommendation house bill 1289 be amended as follows no so amend to be referred to the Committee on Appropriations with reads all the considers acts as Barлов brief everybody. RECOMMENDATION AND WITH A RECOMMENDATION THAT BE PLACED IN THE CONSENT CALENDAR HOUSE MENTAL 1147 BE REFERRED TO THE with the recommendation that it will be placed on the consent calendar House Bill 1075 be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation and with the recommendation that it will be placed on the consent calendar House Bill 1147 be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation House Bill 1230 be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation. House Bill 1298 be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation and with the recommendation that it will be placed on the consent calendar. House Bill 1328 be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation. Message from the House. The House is postponed indefinitely. Senate Bill 91 and Senate Bill 166. The bills are returned herewith. The House is voted to concur in the Senate amendments to House Bill 1010, House Bill 1109, House Bill 1113, House Bill 1252, House Bill 1343, House Bill 1346, House Bill 1076, House Bill 1123, House Bill 1207, House Bill 1226, House Bill 1322, House Bill 1028, House Bill 1069, House Bill 1078, House Bill 1132, House Bill 1210, House Bill 1317, and House Bill 1336. and has repassed the bills as so amended. House has adopted the first report of the First Conference Committee on House Bill 1084 as printed in the House Journal April 29, 2026 and has repassed the bill as amended. The House has laid over Senate Bill 87 until May 14, 2026. The bill is returned herewith. The House has passed on third reading and transmitted to the Revisors Statutes, Senate Bill 149, amended as printed in House Journal May 1, 2026 and amended on third reading as printed in House Journal May 7, 2026. House has passed on third reading and transmitted to the Revisors Statutes, House Bill 1425, amended as printed in House Journal May 6, 2026, and amended on third reading as printed in House Journal May 7, 2026. House was passed on third reading and transmitted to the provisor of statutes. House Bill 1307, amended as printed in House Journal May 1, 2026.

The motion is to proceed out of order for moments of personal privilege. All those of order, sorry, in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. Yeah, that's right. We will proceed out of order for moments of personal privilege. Senator President Coleman.

Granted.

Thank you, Madam President. I request a moment of personal privilege.

Thank you, colleagues. We have some special guests joining us today in the Senate. Students from Pikes Peak Academy in my district in Colorado Springs. The Pikes Peak Academy is a private alternative high school which helps students grow academically, emotionally, and spiritually. The academy intentionally creates an environment of honor and respect where everyone's unique qualities can shine while also providing a safe place for them to share their differences. It is within this loving and caring family-like community that they aim to create goodness and beauty as they work, learn, and play together. Members of the Senate chamber, please join me in honoring and welcoming these bright young students from Pike's Speaker Academy and their instructor, Ms. Taylor. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Mr. President. May I have a moment of personal privilege?

Thank you. We have some naturopathic doctors in the building today, and then we also have a hometown, one of my hometown students, but she is up and going to school in Regis, pre-law. Her dad is my banker, so if you guys get a chance to greet them, I'd appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. President. May I have a moment of personal privilege?

You can relax. It's not that moment. So yesterday, I don't know if you noticed, my four-year-old granddaughter came in to the Capitol here. Last week was apparently take your daughter to work day. And when she came home to my daughter, she asked why she didn't get to come and come to work with her. And my daughter works from home and her husband works in a brewery warehouse. So it's really not conducive for four year olds to be walking around. So they decided amongst themselves that the other one who does work is grandpa. And she would come to grandpa's work and do this. And then she had a second reason for coming in. Eight years ago, when I got elected, my daughter, who graduated from CU as a buff, and she thought it would be really nice to get one of those little stuffed chip. The kids call them fluffies and loveys and have it in my office so it could help brighten up the day there. And a couple of weeks ago, when my granddaughter came in, she had a new friend, and they were playing in my office and in the hall with the fluffy Chip. And when the day was all finished, Chip wasn't in my office anymore. And I didn't know what happened to him, and I looked all around, and I called Molly and asked her if maybe Chip had gone home with her. and she said no he wasn't home with me and so I kept kind of looking around and for a couple of weeks Molly would ask me has Chip come back to your office And I said no he hasn I don know where he is So over the weekend, her and her mom and my wife put together several, well, quite a few signs, the signs that Molly has seen on lampposts and on walls that Chip was missing. and they had a picture of Chip. And Molly wanted to come down and put those. She started in the hallway where my office is and down the hall. And luckily, Ariana was able to print more of them up for us, and we were able to put the signs all up. And I just wanted to let everybody know that Chip was found.

When I asked my granddaughter Molly where they found her, she said it was in the governor's office. I don't know where she gets that kind of talk, but it clearly was not in the governor's office. Somebody's aide found it and was able to care for Chip until they found out whose it was, and it was mine. So Chip is back in my office, and there's a little bright spot there, and I just wanted to let you all know in case you had seen the signs around.

Senator Sullivan, thank you for that. And whatever you're teaching, your granddaughter, you keep teaching her because she's right in the governor's office. I'll just leave that there in case they're listening. Mr. Majority Leader.

The motion is layover special order second reading of bills calendar until after third reading. All those in the paper say aye. Opposed no. The ayes have it. Special order second reading of bills calendar layover until after third reading. Third reading of bills. Consent calendar. Mr. Schaffler, please read the bills on the consent calendar.

Mr. Majority Leader.

The motion is the passage of all the bills on the third reading of Bill's consent calendar. Are there any no votes? Senator Baisley.

Senator Baisley will be recorded as a no vote on House Bill 1428. Senator Zamora Wilson.

Senator Memorial Wilson recorded as a no vote on House Bill 1428. Senator Carson.

Senator Carson recorded as a no vote on House Bill 1428. Further no votes? Seeing none, with a vote of 34 ayes, 0 no, 0 absent, 1 excuse, Senator Bill 185 is passed. Co-sponsors. Co-sponsors on 185. Is that the president?

With a vote of 31 ayes, 3 no, 0 absent, 1 excuse, House Bill 1428 is passed. Co-sponsors, senators, Wallace, Benavidez, Cutter, Exxon, Judah, Marchman, Kip, Snyder, Frizzell.

Amabile.

The majority leader will be fined $1 for the gesture made by Senadora Gonzalez for no reason. I like that. All right. Third reading of the bill. Mr. Majority Leader. Thank you Mr. President. I move to lay over Senate Bill 193 to the bottom

bottom of the third reading and final passage calendar. All those in favor say aye. Opposed no. The ayes have it and Senate Bill 193 will be laid over to the end of the third reading and final passage calendar. Mr. Schaffler please read the title of House Bill 1342. House Bill 1342 by Representative Stuart Kaye and Lukens and Senator Marchman concerning

It's okay. You can fix it. Thank you. I move House Bill 26-1342 on third reading and final passage

Kelly, this is for you.

Seeing before discussion, the motions to passage House Bill 1342. Are there any no votes? What?

Bazley, Bright, Pelton R., Carson, Catlin. With a vote of 23 ayes, 11 a no, 0 absent, 1 excused. House Bill 1342 is passed. No sponsors. Senator Sullivan, Kip.

Mr. Schaffler.

Mr. Schaffler, please read the title of House Bill 1269. House Bill 1269 by Representatives Ricks and Joseph and Senators Marchman and Benavidez concerning transit access.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move House Bill 26-1269 on third reading and final passage.

Rich, Zamora Wilson, Frizzell, Kirkmeyer, Baisley, Pelton B, Pelton R, Bright, Catlin, Carson.

add the President.

requirements to foster distributed energy resources in the state. Senator Ball.

Further discussion. CNN motions and passage of House Bill 1225. Are there any no votes? With a vote of 34-I-0-0-0, absent and one excuse, House Bill 1225 is passed. co-sponsors. Senators, Bridges, Lindstadt, Kip, Marchman, God bless you, Cutter. Further co-sponsors on 1225. Please add the president. Mr. Schaffler, please read the title of House

House Bill 1233 by Representatives Lukens, Zizakai, and Senator Roberts concerning property tax procedures for non-residential properties.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move House Bill 1233 on third reading and final passage and ask for an aye vote. Further discussion.

Samora Wilson Frizzell Pelton B Bright Carson Pelton R Catlin Baisley With a vote of

Bridges Judah Cutter Wallace Please add the president Mr. Schauffler, please read the title of House Bill 1414

concerning the provision of medical records and the custody of certain health care entities Senator Kipp

Senior for discussion of motions of passage of House Bill 1414. Are there any no votes? Senators, Mr. Nope, okay. Appreciate that, man. Rich, Samara Wilson, Frizzell, Kirkmeyer, Baisley, Pelton R, Catlin, Carson, Bright, Pelton B. No votes on 1414. With a vote of 24 ayes, 10 no, 0 absent, 1 excused, House Bill 1414 is passed. Co-sponsors, Senators, Marchman, Benavidez, Cutter, Snyder, Cutter again, Coker.

Mr. Schauffler, please do the title of House Bill 1256.

Senator Cutter. Thank you Mr President I move House Bill 26 on third reading and final passage Further discussion Seeing no further discussion in the motions of passage of House Bill 1256 are there any no votes Senators Mr Minority Leader Kirkmeyer Frizzell Zamora Wilson Rich Baisley Pelton B Pelton R Bright Catlin Carson

Amabile. Wallace. Kip. Gonzalez. Judah. Benavidez. Weissman. Ball. Bridges. Please add the president.

concerning a continuation of the income tax credit for a qualifying contribution to promote child care in the state.

Senator, further discussion and motions of passage of House Bill 1004. Are there any no votes? Senators.

With a vote of 31 eyes, 3 nose, 0 abs, 1 excuse, House Bill 1004 is passed. Post sponsors, senators, Roberts, Mullica, Amabile, Judah, Kip, Benavidez, Doherty, Bright, Exum, Gonzalez, Marchman, Coker, Wallace, Lindstedt, Sullivan, Snyder, Weissman, Ball,

Mr. Schaffler, please view the title of House Bill 1014. House Bill 1014 by Representatives Taggart and Basnicker and Senators Frazell and Ball concerning an extension of the Colorado Job Growth Incentive Tax Credit through State Income Tax Year 2034. Senator Ball.

I move House Bill 26-1014 on through reading and final passage and ask for an aye vote. Further discussion?

House Bill 1111 by Representatives Morrow and McCormick and Senators Kipp and Roberts Concerning the creation of a program for the end-of-life management of pesticide products and in connection therewith creating the pesticide product disposal and container recycling enterprise to develop and administer the program and making an appropriation Senator Roberts Thank you Mr President I move House Bill 1111 on third reading and ask for an aye vote

Seeing none of the motions of passage of House Bill 1111, are there any no votes? Senators, Amor Wilson, Baisley, Rich, Pelton R., Carson, with a vote of 29 ayes, 5 noes, 0 absent, N1 excused. House bill 11-11 is passed. Co-sponsors. Senators. Judah.

Mr. Majority Leader, we're on 1206.

The motion is lay over House Bill 1206 to Monday, May 11th. If all those in favor, say aye.

Mr. Schauffler, please read the title of House Bill 1287. House Bill 1287 by Representatives Basinger and Brooks and Senators Colker and Judah.

agencies. Senator Judah. Thank you Mr. President. I move House Bill 26-1287 on third reading and final passage. Further discussion? Senior for discussion and motions of passage of House Bill 1287. Are

Please add the president.

I move the remainder of third readings of bills lay over until later in the day. The motion is that the remaining bills on third reading of bills, final passage, lay over until later in the day.

. . Thank you. Message from the revisor.

Special orders. Second reading of the bills. Senator Roberts.

You move the motion. All those in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. Resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for consideration of special orders, second reading of bills. Senator Roberts will take the chair.

House Bill 1276 by Representatives Velasco and Garcia and Senators Judah and Weissman concerning measures to protect the safety of individuals who are immigrants in Colorado and in connection therewith making an appropriation.

To the Judiciary Committee report.

Any further discussion? Seeing none, the motion of force is the adoption of the Judiciary Committee report. All those in favor say aye.

The ayes have it, and the committee report is adopted. To the Appropriations Report, Senator Weissman.

See no further discussion. The motion of force is the adoption of the appropriations committee report.

Those opposed, no, the ayes have it. And the committee report is adopted to the bill Senator Judah Thank you Mr Chair Members I just want to talk about what 1276 is about And essentially it whether we are willing to hold ourselves accountable to the same standards we claim to stand for

Senator Weissman.

Amendment L-26.

To the amendment.

Further discussion? Seeing none, the motion enforces the option of L26.

The ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. There is an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please read L-27?

Senator Wiseman. Thanks, Mr. Chair. We move L-27 to 1276.

Members, this makes a small adjustment to a provision of existing law concerning the obligation of users of state information systems, basically to certify that they're not using information for improper purposes. In legislation last year, we extended this to the judicial branch. that has been construed to mean the court's e-filing system where if you are a licensed attorney in the state and you're doing any kind of filing, a complaint, an answer, and so on, the judicial branch has put this certification requirement on there. It's something that attorneys and even pro se users have had to encounter. I don't think that was ever the intended scope, really, of that part of the bill from the prior year, and there are other ethical obligations concerning improper use of that data that attend to licensed attorneys. So after some conversation with the judicial branch, we're willing to clarify that the certification doesn't need to continue to apply specifically to the e-filing system that attorneys use, although it would continue to apply as to other judicial branch data systems. So that's the why of L-27. We ask for a yes vote.

Those opposed, no. The ayes have it.

Further discussion of the bill? Seeing none, the motion enforces the adoption of House Bill 1276. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. No. The ayes have it. House Bill 1276 is adopted. Will the clerk please read the title of House Bill 1419.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1419 and the Appropriations Committee report to the committee report. Small change to the ledge deck. Ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, I rise in opposition to House Bill 1419. I just find it amazing that there isn't really hardly any discussion with regard to this bill in front of this committee and on this floor. In fact, the comment was is that it's a small change to the ledge deck. Let me just read it to you. Because there was an amendment that was made prior to this in the House that said, essentially, if in September of 26, the controller certifies pursuant to a statute that the state fiscal year 2526 state revenues did not exceed the limitation on state fiscal year spending imposed by essentially the taxpayer bill of rights which is section 20 article 10 of the State Constitution for Fiscal Year 25 If the state fiscal year the revenues do not exceed the limitation on the state fiscal year here's what happens. If the state does not collect a Tabor surplus in 25-26, the bill requires a state controller to determine the amount of 24-25 TABOR surplus that was over-refunded and to reduce TABOR refund amounts for subsequent fiscal years beginning in 26-27 by no more than one-half of any over-refund amount identified. And the amendment, small change in the legislative deck, basically says, therefore, if 25-26 state fiscal year spending exceeds the constitutional limitation on state fiscal year spending, there is no need to correct the calculation of 24-25 state fiscal year spending. So in other words, if we're over the cap, there's no need to correct. There is no need for an over-refund because we're over the cap. Because it doesn't help anything. So if we're over the cap, we don't have to do any corrections to our books that have already been closed. Closed according to state statute. Closed according to the Constitution, the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights. Closed according to general accounting acceptable principles and our state accounting principles. Our books were closed in accordance with all of those things. They were in compliance, and we got a clean opinion. But if 2526 state fiscal year spending exceeds the constitutional limitation on the state fiscal year, there's no need to correct the calculation. If there is no need to correct the calculation if we exceed the cap, how can you legitimately say we're in compliance with all of those things, state law, constitution, general accounting principles, and say there is an error if we aren't exceeding the cap. If there was an error, we should be fixing it, regardless if we are above or below the cap. But instead, we're going through a policy change, a legislative change, to maneuver and circumvent TABOR and to continue overspending. It's only an over-refund if we're below the cap. During discussions at the Joint Budget Committee, this came up. This, by the way, is not a Joint Budget Committee bill. I know there were people that think that, mostly because of who the sponsors are. Four of them are from the Joint Budget Committee. This is not a Joint Budget Committee bill. What also happens in the legislation in the DEC, legislative DEC, declaration, this act is requiring the office of the state controller to correct the accounting of state fiscal year 24-25 fiscal year spending to reflect HR 1 and to make corresponding changes to the future refund of state fiscal year spending that exceeds the constitutional limitation on state fiscal year spending. This bill is requiring the state controller to correct the accounting that was done in accordance with state law. They now have to go back and correct something that is not in error. That is not an error. That's what this bill is requiring. That is why, again, at the Joint Budget Committee, we got this memo, and I think everyone has it, or they should have had it, or I'm sure at one point you had it. We got this memo, and it is from the Director of the Joint Budget Committee staff, Craig Harper. And it's dated all the way back in February of 2026. That's how long we've been talking about this. at least at the Joint Budget Committee. And here's what they said. Staff is not recommending that the committee sponsor the requested legislation. The refund, the 24-25 refund, does not appear to qualify as an over-refund under current statute. Hence why we are doing 14-19 as a maneuver. It's a maneuver to get around current statute and go back and almost like retroactively say, look, we're going to get around everything. Even though everything was done correctly, there is no error. We're going to get around it and we're going to say, yeah, but you've got to go correct it when there was no error. I want you to think about the position that this puts our state controller in. The position that this puts our state controller and our state auditor in. The auditor audits our books. They were clean. We got a clean opinion. In fact, according to our staff recommendation, which comes from, again, JBCA Director Craig Harper, but it's also filled in with and supported by the chief economist and our legislative legal services staff and our chief economist, as I said, from legislative council, who have said, accounting rules do not allow the adjustment in 24-25 revenues as a result of HR 1. Black and white, all of our staff, our nonpartisan staff, told us accounting rules do not allow for the adjustments to 24-25 revenues. Doesn't allow for it. The refund for 2425 was certified in accordance with the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, the Constitution. We followed the Constitution when we closed our books out in 2425. The refund from 2425 was certified by state statute. The controller, the auditor, they followed the law, they closed our books out appropriately, and said there was a refund. We got the refund. 24-25 refund was certified in accordance with state accounting rules. This wasn't like a glitch. There wasn't an error. The state controller didn't mishandle and didn't do something wrong. The state auditor didn't look at this and say, oh, the rules weren't followed. There is no error to correct. Yet we have a legislative declaration that says the state controller has to correct the accounting for state fiscal year 2425. What about their reputation? This makes it assume that there is an error to correct. There is no error to correct The state controller the state auditor the refund all certified in accordance with TABOR the statute state accounting rules resulting in a clean opinion of the certification from the office of the state auditor. Does this bill, if this passes, does that jeopardize that clean opinion? Maybe not for 24, 25. But what happens when a legislative decision goes back and says no error? There's no error in 24-25 in the way we closed our books. No error. But legislators are saying, but you go back and correct it anyways because we need an over-refund. We need to pull back that money so that we can balance our budget because we can't stop our overspending. I want you to think how maybe the state controller feels. They didn't do anything wrong. They're told to go correct something that they didn't do wrong. There is no error. And here's what else our staff said. And this comes from our legal staff. Without an error to correct, staff is concerned about the potential legal risks associated with the proposed reduction to future TABOR refunds. There's not an error to correct. We are putting at risk legal risks, going to court over this, because there is no error to correct. Just because we want there to be one, just because H.R. 1 happened, and it happened after the fact, there is no error to correct. This bill is trying to reverse this. It's trying to reverse that. It's trying to say, gosh, H.R. 1, which was adopted on July 4th, after we closed our books, reduced state tax revenues. We didn't account for that when we closed our books for 24-25, and appropriately so. It was after the state fiscal year. After the state fiscal year, there was no way to account for that impact of H.R. 1 on the income tax collections because they didn't even know what it would be. But there was no way to account for it when we were closing out our books. and it very clearly from our nonpartisan staff accounting rules would not allow for that adjustment in the revenue anyways was after the fact everything was followed correctly in this memo it says accordingly jbc staff's understanding is that current law and accounting standards was not allowed for the accrual adjustments resulting from H.R. 1 to be made to 24-25. So here we are, passing law to change that. You know, never mind what's going on behind the curtain. We're going to go change everything. Never mind that we did everything correctly. we're going to go change it in law and say, nope, we're going to take it into consideration. Staff gave us the warning recognizes that proposed legislation may be able to modify future TABOR refunds as requested Yeah, we get to write bills, we get to write laws, we get to change things, we get to repeal things. things. May be able to modify future TABE refunds as requested, although uncertainty remains regarding the potential legal exposure. We are willing with this bill to allow us to have legal exposure so that we can do some maneuvering and ensure that if in the case, if in the case, if there is, if we're not over the cap, that we could get the over refund. But if we're under the cap, they don't need to do it. They don't need to go fix it. They don't need to do anything to fix it. It just doesn't seem right. How would you explain that to your own children or to your grandchildren or to your neighbor? Well, if we're over the cap, things are fine. If we're under the cap, then we need you to go correct things so that we can have additional money to spend in our budget. it. That's just, I just think that's wrong. I just believe that that is wrong. This bill can't change general accounting principle rules, can't change the accounting rules. It's a fact that the 2425 refund was certified in accordance with Tabor, constitution with statutes with state accounting rules resulting in a clean opinion those are all facts there is no error to correct that's a fact yet this bill would lead you to believe that there was an over refund for some reason we're going to have to go in future years where there is a surplus and claw back money out of that and tell taxpayers no because of what we did in this bill in 1419 because we changed the law and went back and changed history essentially we're going to reduce your Tabor surplus refund we're going to reduce your refund check it's not bad enough that we're trying to eliminate your Tabor refund check in perpetuity but in case that doesn't pass just so you know we're going to reduce any future Tabor surplus somewhere between 286 million and 309 million because that's what the numbers that have been going on throughout this whole process and how they've been changing I know during the Joint Budget Committee discussions it was saying it looked like it was it's just a technical correction does that sound like a technical correction if it's just a technical correction there was just a mistake made a little technical, maybe we put a decimal point in the wrong spot. They could have fixed that without legislation. They can go back and make technical cleanups, even after we've closed out the bill. That would have probably shown up, and we probably wouldn have gotten a clean opinion Tries to assert you tried to assert that HR1 impacts state revenues Yes it did I don't disagree with you. We had a reduction in state tax revenue. Thank you. Taxes went down. That's a great thing. We did have taxes reduced. State tax revenue did go down. HR1 did have that impact. They're saying that the TABOR certification did not account for an impact that happened after we closed our books, which results in an over-refund. This doesn't even make sense. That's not right. And they're saying that the reason the state did not correct the impact on the 24-25 revenues is there was not enough time to identify the impact in the accrual process. The executive branch is the one who started this. They've indicated that they believe H.R. 1's impact on the 25-26 revenue is causing an over-refund through the existing process under current law. So the executive branch is the one who started this. Our nonpartisan staff gave us a recommendation and said, don't do this. You're opening us up to legal exposure and legal risk. Is there truly an over-refund in 24-25? How do you do that when there is no error to correct? And if there is an over-refund, what's the magnitude? The magnitude of this over-refund has changed since this was first brought up. I think this was in the governor's budget request, possibly. It went from $308 to $309 million. Now it's down, I think, to $286 million or something like that. It's changed. So we had to wait until we got the March forecast. And then they even talked about how should we be weighing the potential legal risks versus the uncertain general fund benefits. This bill is about nothing more than to maximize in the budget the opportunity to continue overspending. It's to balance the budget. And we're probably going to hear at some point, if we don't have this, how do you balance the budget? And my answer to that, to my colleagues, is that's what we were supposed to be doing, and we started trying to do that on November, and we should have done that all the way through before we introduce the long bill over here. That was our job. And there's all sorts of other arguments here, but the main thing is this. Legislative staff note it, that H.R. 1 is not the only policy change that has come after the close of the fiscal year, but impacted the entire tax year. For example, state ballot measures have done so, and legislative staff are not aware of any cases where the state has accrued such a revenue impact back to the previous fiscal year. In other words, we have not done this practice ever before since 1993. but we're doing it this year in this bill okay Members, we are open, we are exposed to legal risk. More importantly, we are exposed and we are circumventing, violating the Constitution. We are requiring staff, nonpartisan staff, to go back and correct something that is not an error. and it couldn't be more blatant than by the amendment and the change that occurred with the legislation in the House and then in the legislative deck. If there was an error, we should be fixing this regardless if we are over the cap, the spending cap, or if we are under the spending cap. But if we are over the cap, we don't have to fix it. And that was the amendment. Members, I ask for no vote. No vote. On House Bill 1419.

Under current law, if the state issues a taper refund for a state fiscal year, the amount of that taper refund is greater than the amount of state fiscal year spending in excess of the limitation of state fiscal year spending for the state fiscal year over refund, the state reduces the amount of the next TABOR refund by the amount of the over refund. We were above the TABOR cap when we started paying refunds for 24-25, and then halfway through that year, Congress passed H.R.1 that contained retroactive tax cuts for the very wealthy and corporations, and because Colorado uses adjusted gross income and not federal taxable income, those tax cuts were automatically adopted into Colorado state tax calculations. As a result, we fell below the cap. The reduction in Tabor refunds was entirely because of H.R. 1. Tabor refunds come from surplus revenue above the Tabor cap. Based on expected tax year 2025 revenue prior to H.R. 1's passage, we were above the Tabor cap last year. However, As I said, H.R. 1 retroactively reduced taxes and revenue, so actual collections did not reach that cap. The state needs to amend revenue collections for FY25 to more accurately reflect the tax revenue actually collected. The previous calculated $306 million in refunds no longer reflects the reality of last year's budget. Since H.R. 1 reduced revenue, we are sending TABOR refunds out the door based on money that we will never collect. I ask for an aye vote on House Bill 1419.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's interesting because we're reading out of the fiscal note. It talks about under current law. Current law. We're changing the law. We are changing the law here to suit our needs, to try and balance a budget so that we can do more overspending. So under current law, everything was done correctly, and there was no overrefund. Under current law. And again, nonpartisan staff said. The accounting rules would not allow for the adjustment from H.R. 1. Accounting rules. It's not a glitch. We can't change the accounting rules in this body. We don't get to change the generally accepted accounting principles in this body. Those are federal standards. that we have to close our books out to because we get federal grants So not are we only exposing ourselves to legal risk we are exposing ourselves in the next year of not having a clean opinion and infringing upon the possibility of not receiving grants from the federal government not being able to get better interest rates not being able to bond at better prices all sorts of things That's what we're opening ourselves up to. Will that happen? I don't know. But that's what we're opening ourselves up to. So that's very clever. I mean, I can read from this fiscal note too, but I'd much prefer to read from the document that we received from our staff, our nonpartisan staff. And instead of listening to the executive branch, how about we listen to our nonpartisan staff? You know, there are legal experts as well. And the state controller and the state auditor, one is in the legislative branch, one is in the executive branch, they are being asked to go back and correct something that is not in error. and our legislative staff note it to us. H.R. 1 is not the only policy that has come after the close of the fiscal year, but that has impacted the entire fiscal year. For example, there have been state ballot measures that have done so. Legislative staff is not aware of any cases where the state has accrued such revenue impact back to the previous fiscal year. That's because they followed current law. They didn't say we're going to go in and change it so that we can go back and say we're going to fix something that didn't need to be fixed, that isn't out of compliance with the Constitution. And oh, by the way, this law doesn't get to change the Constitution either. So it's in violation. In my opinion, this bill, should it pass, we'll be in violation of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, which is the Constitution. We're not just supposing there's legal risk. There is legal risk here. Our staff told us that. I ask for a no vote on 1490.

I certainly appreciate everything that the good Senator from Brighton had to say. And because of that, I have an amendment. There is an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please read L-11?

Senator Rich.

All right, to the amendment.

Senator, further discussion on this amendment, Senator Carson.

Senator Catlin.

The fairness of that strikes me as, you know, the little folks in the state of Colorado are the ones who are going to pay us out of the hole. Not us. You know, we won't know the difference. But they may. And that simple question of they may is powerful. We should follow the way the rules are written. We shouldn't be up here deciding we're going to change the rule because we don't like the rule. The way we do that in Colorado is we ask them, do you want to do this? If they do, the people have spoken, we go about it. But the point I'm trying to make is that we simply can't decide we want to change the rule, and particularly in the accounting world, you know, my accountant's on me a lot for not following the rule. And here we are saying to people that try to make a living in this building, we're going to make you do that. You know, when I worked at the water users, I told my staff when I first got hired, if you ever see me do something unethical or in moral, get in your pickup and drive out to meet a board member and tell them there's something wrong with our manager. And that's what this one strikes me as. We are asking, maybe not even asking, but telling, we want you to change the rules. To me, that doesn't seem right. I would ask for a yes on this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll just read this again. Under current law, if the state issues a TABOR refund for a fiscal year and the amount of that TABOR refund is greater than the amount of state fiscal year spending in excess of the limit of state fiscal year spending for the fiscal year over refund, the state reduces the amount of the next TABOR refund by the amount of the over-refund. I ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'm going to renew my OSHA to support L011. Listen, if this body is going to take away a refund that the taxpayers are constitutionally entitled to in lieu of cutting spending for pet projects or whatever, the voters should have a right to say yes or no to that. I urge an aye vote on L011.

Aye.

No.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, that was unfortunate. I think the voters should certainly have a say in this matter. But let's move on and talk about some other things here. You know, there's something that doesn't seem right here. I think what it comes down to is, you know, the rules are always different for government. You know, if you went out there and bought a car with a nice big discount, they came back a couple of weeks later and said, well, you know, headquarters gave us the wrong information, and we got to claw back a few hundred dollars of that. Or certainly if you bought a house and the mortgage company and the realtor said, well, we miscalculated something there, you know. you're going to have to refund us a few thousand dollars. If you go to Costco, buy a TV with a $200 discount. And, you know, they just got bad data from headquarters. You're going to have to pay that back. I don't think people would look too kindly on that. And, you know, that's what it always comes down to with government. We seem to have this different attitude that, you know, we can play by different rules. because, you know, the fundamental problem here, as I said earlier, was this is the people's money. You know, we collect that from them, and then we just sort of, as a technical correction, calculating error, we decide we want $300 million plus of it back. And I realize we're in a difficult budget situation, and we need this money to balance the budget. So fair enough. If we're going to do that this year, let's give some of that money back to folks in the future. And I have an amendment to that effect.

Amendment L-12, amend the Engross Bill, page 5.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move Amendment L-12 to House Bill 1419. To the amendment. So this amendment increases Tabor refunds by $150 million in each of fiscal year 28-29 and fiscal year 29-30. So the citizens, the taxpayers, eventually receive the table of refunds that the state owes them. So basically we've got a situation with the budget this year. We've already passed the budget. You know, for whatever reason, we've approved the fact that we need the money. But let's make sure the taxpayers get it back then in the future years when hopefully we done a better job of managing the state budget You know we shouldn punish hardworking taxpayers by retaining money that rightfully belongs to them The amendment lets the bill sponsors use these funds, $300-plus million, for budget balancing in the coming year, but returns the money to taxpayers in the future. and that seems like a good compromise, good compromise to me. We decided the taxpayers aren't going to get a say in the matter, so it's up to us to decide how we're going to allocate these funds, and if we're going to use them now, we need to pay them back. And so that is the essence of Amendment 12, and I would urge its adoption.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I ask for a no vote. The previously calculated $306 million in refunds no longer reflects the reality of last year's budget since H.R. 1 reduced revenue. We are sending table refunds out the door based on money that we'll never collect. I ask for a no vote on this event.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in support of Amendment L-12. And there's lots of reasons why I think that this is really important. We have seen the cost of living in the state of Colorado balloon exorbitantly. It's everywhere. It's every household expense. It's housing. It's food. It's transportation. It's insurance. It's health insurance. It's homeowner's insurance. It's everything. It's everywhere. And I hear about it constantly. And yet, here we are, and we talked about this during the budget, when we were discussing the long bill. We talked about this. At least on our side of the aisle, we talked about this. this complete lack of interest in tightening the belt of the state government. We haven't gotten rid of any full-time employees. We haven't reduced staff. We haven't really had an earnest effort to reduce programs that have been created through one-time spending, one-time money that mostly came from the federal government during the pandemic. We haven't seen that. Yet we're telling the taxpayers of the state of Colorado, we're saying, yeah, but you know what? We're not going to give you as much of your refund as you are entitled to because we can't control our spending. We're just going to take it from you. And we're going to change the law to do that. How amazing. So I rise in support of L-12. This amendment increases the table of refunds by $150 million in the two years that have been under discussion so that people receive the money that the state has over-collected. This isn just like some entitlement program The state over and that money belongs to you the taxpayer It does not belong to the people in this building. It belongs to you, the taxpayer. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If we're going to keep reading from the fiscal note, which is basically to this bill, I'm going to keep reading from the staff's recommendation that we received at the Joint Budget Committee, and I know it's been passed out to several of you. Staff did not disagree with the logic of the request. H.R. 1 impacted all of the income tax year 2025, which usually would require the accrual of a part-year review or revenue impact for fiscal year 24-25. Reflecting that impact would presumably decrease the Tabor surplus and resulting refund for 2425. However, accounting rules, which this bill does not get to change, accounting rules would not allow the adjustment for fiscal year 2425 revenues as a result of H.R. 1 because H.R. 1 was signed into law on July 4th. It was not known that H.R. 1 would become law at the end of 24-25, which ended June 30th. Accordingly, it is the staff's understanding that current law and accounting standards would not, would not have allowed for the accrual adjustments resulting from H.R. 1 to be made for 24-25. It's staff understanding the information could not have been included at all. That is from our nonpartisan staff. That's why this bill is opening us up to legal exposure and legal risk. There's nobody up there.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right, just to talk a little more on Amendment 12. You know, Colorado used to be a low-tax state. It's not anymore. You know, we used to talk about the fact that we were near the top of the heap of the states in terms of the attractiveness of our tax system. We had a nice 5% flat tax, and it fortunately was brought down over the last couple decades, made it all the way down to 4.25% last year. Unfortunately, it had to go back up to 4.4, but at least that's a nice flat tax. Now we've got rumors now that there are organizations out there that want to put a progressive income tax in place. So we can be more like Illinois and California and New York where you've got all your federal taxes, then you fill out your state tax form, and you might be looking at 6% or 7% or 8% or 9%. and failing to honor Tabor is just going to exacerbate that situation It makes us less desirable clearly from a tax standpoint So while for the present time we still have TABOR depending on what the voters decide this fall we may no longer have TABOR, essentially. But when you add in the property tax increases in recent years, you add in the excise taxes, you add in all the fees for enterprises and other things that we create, it's no longer a low tax state and it keeps getting worse. You know, there was just a, and my point, you know, we have to stay on this amendment, which is dealing with taking the money that we're going to borrow this year and keep, and we ought to refund it to the taxpayers. But the reason I want to just mention one thing, because I think it relates to the level of taxation that we keep here. You know, there's a brand new study out now by the Common Sense Institute that says we are now at the very bottom, very bottom, low 40s, in terms of new business formation in this state. And we are at the very, very bottom now, 47, 48, 49. we're sinking down in new business formation and job creation. We are among the worst states in the country now for new business formation and job creation. And the tax system, the tax system of this state clearly has an impact on that. And that's why we always talk about the tax burden and the need to honor Tabor and the need to stop passing on more and more government regulations as well. And so I think this is a fair way to do this. let's at least, if we're going to borrow the $300 plus million right now, let's at least give it back. This amendment would propose that we give $150 million of that back in 28-29 and $150 million back in 29-30. And so, again, I would urge support for Amendment L-12.

thank you mr chair um i wanted to dig into this uh joint budget committee memo just a little bit more. I know that my good colleague from Brighton has discussed it at length along with the fiscal note, but I think it's a really important thing because this is nonpartisan JBC staff talking to the Joint Budget Committee about this concept of essentially clawing back what they consider an over-refund. So I just want to look at it. And in case you haven't seen this, it's actually quite a long memo. It's seven pages. And it doesn't even have a lot of charts and graphs. It really is chock full of really important information. So I'm just on page two. It says, JBC staff is not recommending that the committee sponsor the requested legislation. Based on discussions with the Office of Legislative Legal Services, legislative council staff, and the Office of the State Auditor, the fiscal year 2024-2025 refund does not appear to qualify as an over-refund of under current statute. JBC staff recommends that the committee weigh the potential legal risks of the proposal to treat it as an over-refund against the potential benefits of doing so. Wow. I think that that's kind of clear. It makes a lot of sense because it's kind of saying just because you don't like something that's in the Constitution doesn't mean that you can just circumvent the Constitution. I think that's an important message. and then skipping forward to page 5 there's a whole lot of other information and we've covered a lot of it but I really want to concentrate on the legal risks of this particular piece of legislation in front of us over on page 5 there's this several pages just counting here two full pages just talking about how should one weigh potential legal risks versus uncertain general fund benefits? And it goes on to talk about, for the reasons outlined above, staff is concerned that treating the fiscal year 2024-25 refund as an over-refund could create legal risk. However, the degree of legal risk is uncertain. That's fair. If the committee considers moving forward with the proposed legislation, then staff suggests weighing the potential legal risk against the proposals, budget, balancing benefits. The uncertainty of both the legal risk and the benefits complicates that analysis. And indeed, it is a complicated analysis. I think we typically say how important it is to listen to our nonpartisan staff. I certainly really appreciate the Office of Legislative Legal Services because I'm not an attorney. As I once told the good senator from Denver, the former chair of the Judiciary Committee, when I first sat on there, I read a lot of John Grisham, but that doesn't probably qualify me to actually act as an attorney. I was trying to be funny. I do try to be funny sometimes. Okay, thank you. Yeah, all right. So I think it's really important to listen to the amazing staff who serve as resources to us. Really important. And with that, I have an amendment.

Amendment L13.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Amendment L13 to House Bill 1419. All right to the amendment Thank you So members after listening to me gander on about the importance of accepting the advice that we are frequently given This particular amendment requires that an over-refund must be first proven legally viable by the Attorney General before this bill takes effect. again, nonpartisan staff, including legislative council staff, Office of Legislative Legal Services, Joint Budget Committee staff, and the state auditor have all, all of them, warned that the tax reductions originating from H.R. 1 does not fit the criteria of an over-refund. And my good colleague from Brighton spoke passionately about this. a mistake wasn't made. So this doesn't fit the criteria of an over-refund and that withholding funds would not be legal. So moving forward without clear legal footing exposes the state to significant litigation risk and potential repayment of $300 million. plus interest at a rate of 10%. Take a moment. Let's just take a moment to ensure that legal compliance is a basic safeguard and prevent more costly consequences down the road. I request your aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise to support Amendment L-13 by the good Senator from Castle Rock, and also echo the comments the Senator from Brighton made about this whole issue of the legality here and the proper interpretation of the law. You know, it's important that we follow the legal precedents here, and if the nonpartisan staff, including the LCS, OLS, JBC, and the state auditor, have all warned us that the tax reductions originating from H.R. 1 do not fit the criteria of an over-refund and that withholding funds would be illegal. So moving forward without clear legal footing exposes the state to significant litigation risks and potential repayment down the road of this $300 million plus interest at a rate of 10%. Now, this reminds me of something which happened recently with our president and his desire to put tariffs on everything, which I don't particularly agree with, but it is what it is. And now, not you, Mr. President, the president who likes his tariffs. And the U.S. Supreme Court has said, well, that wasn't legal. So you've got to start figuring out a way to refund all those tariffs to the taxpayers. And so we've got the same issue here with, you know, you don't follow the clear legal guidelines for taxes. And you may end up in a situation where it gets challenged in court and then you have to repay the money with an interest rate So taking a moment to ensure legal compliance is a basic safeguard that protects taxpayers and prevents far more costly consequences down the road So all we're asking here is that we ask the Attorney General. The Attorney General and his office and his excellent staff regularly render legal opinions for us on various topics, and they'll even do that free of charge for us because that's their function. And so let's ask them to give us an opinion on whether this is legal. That's what Amendment 13 does here, and so I would urge a favorable vote.

Senator Mabley. I ask for a no vote on this amendment. Thank you, colleagues.

Those opposed, no.

That amendment is lost.

Those opposed, no.

Mr. Majority Leader. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move the committee to rise and report.

Senator Roberts.

May 2026, Mr. President, your committee of the whole begs leave of the report. It is had into consideration the following tax bills being the second reading thereof. It makes the following recommendations thereon. House Bill 1276, as amended. House Bill 1419, as amended. Passed in second reading. In order to revise them, place in the calendar for third reading and final passage.

The motions he adopts can be the whole report. Are there any no votes? Senators.

With a vote of 25 ayes, 9 no, 0 absent, 1 excused, 3 the whole report is adopted. Here's a piece of paper that I am supposed to be reading. Thank you, Madam Secretary. House Bill 1276 is amended. 1419 is amended. Passed, second, and revised. Place to come for third reading. And final passage, Mr. Majority Leader.

Mr. Schaffler, please call the names of all these amazing people, and for the sergeants, lock the doors, put chains on them, as a matter of fact, and don't let anybody leave. Don't do all that.

Are we waiting on someone? Majority Leader?

Oh. Rich and who else?

Wallace? Okay. There's Wallace. Mr. Majority Leader.

The motion is to raise the call. All All in favor say aye.

Oppose no. The eye's having to call is raised. Conference committee reports.

Senator 5. Third reading of bills. Mr. Majority Leader.

The motion to proceed out of order to take up Senate Bill 193. All those in favor say aye.

Polls no. You guys have it. And we'll proceed out of order to take up Senate Bill 193.

Senator Amabile. I move Senate Bill 193 and I don't think there's a committee report or is there?

Oh, it's third reading. What am I saying?

I move 193 for third reading and final passage.

Please add Senator Exum as a no vote on 193.

Vote of. 28 ayes. 6 no. 0 absent.

That's not what you're doing.

Thank you.

Senate Bill 178 by Senators Mullica and Juden, and Representatives Brown and Gilchrist, concerning measures to address the affordability of health insurance. Senator Mullica.

Oh hell no Senator Mullica please tell us why We have the most amazing drafter of this bill There were some numbering issues, very technical, and the bill also removed some cleanup language that was no longer needed.

The motion is Senator Mullica's request to offer a third reading amendment. All those in favor say aye. Aye.

The eyes have it, and that motion is adopted. Mr. Schaffler, please read the title. Please read L20.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move amendment L20.

Explained it already, Mr. President.

Senator Judah. Mr. President, can I make a motion to fine the president for saying hell?

Okay, no, for real. Members, 178 was on a very long path over the last seven months, and I'm very proud of the work that we did on it. We were very intentional about bringing in opposition and proponents into the same room, which doesn't often happen. We knew that the urgency of this moment couldn't wait and that we all had to come together, recognizing that there were going to be growing pains for both sides, that there was going to be growing pains for the state of Colorado. Six years ago, the good senator from Steamboat, we passed the Colorado option. And it shouldn't go unnoticed that we had help from my co-prime. And I think that really set up the state of Colorado to really provide health care for Coloradans that traditionally could not afford it. I think one of the things that stuck in my brain the most was people with multimillion-dollar homes, their co-pay or their deductible was higher than their mortgage. And it just blew my mind that that was where we were with health care in our state six years ago. however today and since then i'm incredibly proud of how many people we were able to get you know on the exchange how many people we were able to help and really allow them to have access to health care that they may not have ever had access to before that they can make sure that they have an insurance policy, and no pun intended, in the event something happens. We need to recognize that all of us, covered or otherwise, our status or otherwise, we are all one sickness, one accident, one devastating thing happening to us from needing an emergency room, from needing health insurance. And when we don't have those assurances, that's when things become dangerous. That when things become more expensive and not only for that family but for the system And I think that is what was really important to us coming into this bill It kept me up at night knowing that so many Coloradans were going to lose access and that so many Coloradans were going to pay more. And that was unacceptable to me, and it was unacceptable to our coalition and to my co-prime. Again, I want to stress how much Colorado needs this. and I want to stress how hard we work to get to this moment, knowing that we will have to come back, we will have to make it better, and we will have to make sure that we continue to protect Coloradans' health care. With that, I urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to withdraw my motion on amendment L 20.

I'd like to, I'm sorry.

I'd like to withdraw my motion for Senate Bill 178.

Aye.

Mr. Schauffler, please excuse Senator Rich from the roll.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move Senate Bill 178 on third reading and final passage.

Thank you, Mr. President. And I just want to start off by thanking my co-prime sponsor on this bill. She is right. There is a lot of work that has went into this bill, a lot of conversations since special session last year to try to find a long-term solution here. And a lot of folks in this room have put in work on that. And I'm going to probably regret saying this, but I want to thank the Appropriations Committee and members of the Appropriations Committee. I know. Maybe. Because it is. We faced pushback. We faced challenges. And that's how you make good policy. And I think that we have this bill to a good place. I think ideally we would like to see long-term solutions, and unfortunately we haven't been able to get there. But that doesn't mean that real people in our communities aren't impacted by this. That doesn't mean that real lives aren't impacted by the work that we do. And that doesn't mean that we're not fighting to make sure that real people in our communities continue to have access to health care. And that's what this is about. We've been dealt a shitty hand when it comes to things that are coming out of Washington, D.C., and that's not political and not trying to make it there. That's just facts. And it's up to us to try to make sure that people aren't harmed in our state. And Senate Bill 178 will ensure that for another year. Not perfect. Lots of issues. Wish that we had a long-term solution. Unfortunately, we don't. That doesn't mean that we don't give up our responsibility to try to make sure real people aren't harmed. 178 does that. I ask for a yes vote.

Pursuant to Senate Rule 21C, I move the Senate grant leave to the Joint Budget Committee to meet while the Senate is in session. Thank you.

All those in favor say aye.

Thank you, Madam President. I move the Senate take up special order second reading of bills consent calendar, which is which includes House Bill 1059, 1075, 1298, 1345 and 1417 at the hour of 1126 a.m.

Aye.

Thank you, Madam President. I move the Senate resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of special order, second reading of Bill's consent calendar.

The committee will come to order.

Majority Leader Rodriguez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move for the passage of all the bills on special order second reading of bill's consent calendar, which are House Bill 1059, 1075, 1298, 1345 In the education report And House Bill 1417

Those opposed no

Majority Leader Rodriguez. Thank you Madam, Mr. Chair. I move the committee to rise and report.

Aye.

The Senate will come to order.

May 2026. Madam President, your committee of the Whole Begg's Leave to Report is had in consideration the following tax bills being the second reading thereof. Makes following recommendations thereon. House Bill 1059, House Bill 1075, House Bill 1298, House Bill 1345, as amended, House Bill 1417. Pass on second reading in order to revise and place on the calendar for third reading and final passage.

Thank you. The motion is the adoption of the committee of the whole report. Are there any no votes? Seeing none, with a vote of 33 ayes, 0 no, 0 absent, and 2 excused, excused. The committee of the whole report is adopted. HB 26, 1059, HB 26, 1075, HB 26, 1298, HB 26, 1345, as amended. HB 26, 1417, passed on second reading and ordered, revised, and placed on the calendar for third reading and final passage. Mr. Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam President. I move the

The motion is that the Senate take up all of the bills that the Majority Leader mentioned on the special orders consent calendar at the hour of 1131 a.m. All those in favor say aye.

The ayes have it and the motion is adopted. The Senate will take up Senate bill, or all the orders, sorry, all of the bills the majority leader mentioned on special orders at the hour of 1131 a.m. Special orders, yeah, second reading of bills, Senator Roberts.

under the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the special orders, second reading of bills. And Senator Roberts will once again take the chair.

The motion is to layover Senate Bill 82 until Tuesday, May 12th. All those in favor say aye.

Joseph and Leader and Senators Cutter and Doherty concerning the use of artificial intelligence in health care. Senator Cutter. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1139 on second reading. to the bill. Senator Daugherty. Thank you. And I just wanted to reiterate that this bill ensures

and compassion that patients deserve. And I urge an aye vote. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1139. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. House Bill 1139 is adopted.

Do you need a break?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1265 in the committee report. 1263, sorry. All right.

I have an amendment to the committee report. I move the committee report, the business committee report. Yes.

Okay.

Aye.

Will the clerk please read L27? Amendment L27.

Could we just get a motion on the amendment, please? I apologize.

Okay. Seeing no further discussion, the motion of force is the adoption of L-27. All those in favor say aye Aye Those opposed no The guys have it That amendment is adopted To the bill Senator Judah

Okay.

Okay, there is an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please read L21?

To the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment just does two things. It aligns the standard of this bill with the standards in the use of AI in healthcare, and at the request of the Attorney General, we are removing the section of the bill that sets the fines at $5,000 per violation. This will ensure that the AG has the authority to grant him up to, sorry, to grant him under the existing Consumer Protection Act, which allows for a fine up to $20,000 to be levied per violation, and I ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Is there any further discussion on Amendment L021? Seeing none, the question before is the adoption of Amendment L021 to House Bill 1263. All those in

I have spent a lot of time over the past couple years trying to understand what it means that the children on our lives are growing up alongside technology that did not exist when most of us were their age. And it's conversational AI or chatbots. At a dizzying speed, chatbots have become tools that nearly two-thirds of American teenagers are now using and that roughly one in three are using every single day. as a parent there is so much to navigate on a daily basis so many decisions to make about how to raise our kids how to be kind and responsible members of our communities and those decisions have been made exponentially more complicated by the influence of social media and now chat bots It is the firsthand experience and conversations with these other parents in my district confronting the same challenges that brought me to this bill. So, in my view, 1263 is an aid to parents, not solving these questions for us, but working alongside us so that we set our own guardrails for how our kids use this technology. And there some baseline of protection already built in So the bill does three specific things First a chatbot has to tell a user it is in fact a chatbot. Second, when a user, regardless of age, expresses thoughts of suicide or self-harm, the operator has to follow evidence-based protocols and share resources that connect a person with a real human being who can help. And third, when the user is a minor, the company has to take additional and specific steps to protect them, including not generating sexually explicit content involving children

Thank you. Senator Carson.

Thank you, Senator Carson. Further discussion by Senator Pelton B.

Thank you, Senator Pelton-Bee.

Thank you.

Senator Vizel. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Amendment L25 to House Bill 1263.

Thank you. This is a bit of a long amendment, but it is mostly technical. It is striking several pages, and I want to talk about that because it's important. First of all, it's inserting language that says, the General Assembly finds and declares that the sexual exploitation of minors is already prohibited by existing federal and state laws and that any standard governed by technically feasible measures, which is words that are used in the bill, is insufficient to address this harmful conduct. Because this bill has a lot of, several pages of this bill talks about requirements on the operator. Well, these requirements already exist. We don't need to codify them further just to make ourselves feel better. What we do need to do is tell the tech companies that they can't run legislation giving themselves a pass. They can't run legislation absolving themselves of responsibility to users of any age. I'm going to say this again because I think it's important. For a technology company to say that that it's okay for them to take technically feasible measures with software that they have created. It is theirs. They own it. They made it. They have the responsibility to control it. And if they can't, then we have a much bigger problem. I ask for an aye vote.

Yes, Senator Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the good Senator from Castle Rock for offering this amendment. I rise in support of L25, right? Yes. I rise in support of L25. Let me first start by saying that I greatly respect where the good senators from Aurora and Highlands Rants are coming from with this bill. I share their goals and the good senator from Aurora and I are both raising young children right now together in this world AND I INCREDIBLY CONCERNED AND I KNOW MANY OF US ARE ABOUT the future of artificial intelligence and the Internet and what our children are being and can be exposed to However, this amendment is important because it takes out parts of the bill that, frankly, make the bill meaningless. the the few words that are printed here on pages 6 and 7 which this amendment would remove are basically allowing the tech companies to write the rules for themselves they are putting in statute we would put these words in statute that would mean that tech companies are probably never going to be held liable or accountable for the horrendous things that can and have happened on AI chatbots. If you look on page six, starting at line 22, this bill requires the platforms to institute technically feasible measures to prevent a conversational AI service from doing a variety of things. Technically feasible. If you look for a definition of technically feasible, it does not exist in the bill. It doesn't exist elsewhere in statute. So who gets to decide what technically feasible is? The tech companies themselves. When the attorney general comes around or a district attorney comes around after a kid has killed themselves or gotten significantly harmed and they say, well, what was technically feasible at the time? Do we think Google or any of these companies are going to say, oh shoot, that was technically feasible at the time, but we didn't do it. No, they're going to say that wasn't technically feasible to protect that child. They're not going to invite liability on themselves. This bill would allow them to have that immunity. It doesn't make sense to have the words technically feasible and then not define what that means. You go over to page seven, starting on line four, one of the requirements is that these platforms institute reasonable measures. Who decides what those reasonable measures are? The tech companies and platforms themselves. So we need to do something. I agree with the goals of House Bill 1263. We need to do something, but if we lock these words into statute, we're going to pass a bill that doesn't protect kids. It just won't. And out of incredible respect for where the bill sponsors are coming from, I want to get this right. I think we all do. I know they do. But the way the bill is currently written does not get it right, and it will not do anything. So I agree with Amendment L25 because it does preserve the other parts of the bill that are positive and will get us off to a good start. But this is a complicated and important conversation that I think needs to come back next year with stronger language and language that we know law enforcement, the attorney general, DAs, and community advocates can enforce. So please support L25. We can still move something forward. There will still be good things that move forward if we adopt L25. But we cannot lock these words into statute. We just can't. because then we were building a basis of protecting our kids on a very unstable foundation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in strong support of L-25, and I also admire the goals of this legislation because as a middle school teacher and as a parent, I know the implications of AI chatbots and technology on our kids. It's terrifying, and we all agree it's terrifying. When kids are taking their lives because of something that happens on their little phones that they carry around, that's a huge problem. The reason I support this amendment is because I like to legislate from a place of do no harm. And this bill will do harm as it came out of the bacon, lettuce, and tomato committee, as it came out of business, labor, and technology. the amendments that were adapted in there that are struck in amendment L-25 I'm going to follow up on what I heard my good colleague talk about regarding reasonable measures and technically feasible but I want to go a little bit further They also changed to a higher level of certainty for clear and convincing rather than reasonable. So that makes it a higher bar to prove that there was any damage done. And then they also, I worry as well about page nine. And I believe this might have been fixed by an amendment run on the floor. But it does talk about on and after January 1, an operator shall not knowingly or recklessly use any term. And again, that might have been in one of the amendments, but it was one of the things I was happy to get rid of in this section. so you know I I really struggle with a number of the bills that have come forward this year under the guise of protecting children but what they really do is set up tech to not be held liable for the damage they are doing to our kids and it pains me that we could in fact do harm by passing this type of a bill. My favorite part of Amendment L25 is the very bottom. It lines 24 and 25 say amend the BLT report page 2 strike lines 2 through 23 It gets rid of a lot of the measures that were adopted in committee that really did nothing more than protect the tech companies. So I urge you all to support this amendment and frankly, any other forthcoming amendment that will ensure that this bill does in fact do no harm. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the good Senator from Loveland and the good Senator from Castle Rock for this discussion. I think this is a hard area to make law for a couple reasons. And I brought a bill earlier in session that had some of the same dynamics, Senate Bill 51. And one thing I do want to say up front is that the sponsors are coming from a good place. They care about kids. That's why they're running this bill. and I know that they have met with families. I know that they have heard many of the same stories that all of you have and talked to those people and that is what is behind this legislation. And it is hard to balance protecting kids, privacy online, and then trying to regulate this crazy new technology that is happening extremely fast and we don't know where it's going. That's a hard thing to do. And does this bill do a perfect job? I can't tell you that it does. I think that it does a good job and I think it is 100% better than what we have right now, which is we don't have any rules. The harms that we're talking about are happening in part because there is no law. And this, I do think, will do something about it. To the comment about technically feasible, as an attorney, I think it's pretty obvious what that means. If you can do something, you have to do it, right? So if a tech company comes forward and says, we can't do that, all you need to do is show, yes, you have the capability to do this. I think that's clear. I think that's a meaningful standard. I think asking companies to do things that aren't technically feasible, to me, feels problematic. We should be asking them to do everything they can, and that is, by those words, what we are asking them to do. These debates, especially late in session, I think devolve a little bit into it's the parents versus tech versus whoever. and again I don't think that's where this bill comes from. I don't think this is a tech bill. I don't think this is a get out of jail free card. I think this is sponsors who are seriously trying to tackle the same problem that we are all talking about and I think the balance in this bill is good. I think it's very defensible. We're going to have to keep re-evaluating our regulation of AI as it changes and this space and many others. I hope this isn't the last conversation we have about this issue, but I do think this bill will do good. I think the technically feasible Language is very clear, and I urge a no vote on the amendment and a yes vote on the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, changing changes the notification options to require both a disclaimer that is displayed continuously and also props up every three hours. That's what this would do, would change that. We intentionally gave both options so that the best notification for the type of platform can be achieved. It would also strike all of the provisions that will help to ensure minors are not exposed to sexually explicit content and allow for the status quo to govern. I have heard it said that we should remove these provisions because they are not robust enough. If this bill passes, members, I want people to understand, if this bill passes, it will be the strongest policy against chatbots in the entire country. If it passes, it will be the strongest. We used the first state that passed the bill as a starting point and added the strongest provisions from other state laws. Doing nothing should not be our answer for not being able to do everything in one bill. And to be clear, a yes vote on this amendment is a vote to not protect children today simply because we want to see what might happen in the future. I certainly don't want to give a year to chatbots to evolve and potentially put other children at risk for committing suicide, having self-harm, and putting those families at risk. This is a hostile amendment, members, and I don't think this is the right way to go when we are protecting children the way this bill is drafted and making it the strongest in the country. I ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My children are 30, 27, and 22. And I thank God a lot of times that when they were the age of my colleagues' children, we didn't have this. I think we need to do something now. You know, there's going to be a rulemaking process with the Attorney General. There's going to be public input. There's going to be opportunities for people to spell out how this should work. The fines have been raised in this bill a number of times. And, you know, let's remember, all the people that are going to be involved in this, they have children, too. They work, maybe they work in the tech industry. Maybe they work in the attorney general's office. Maybe they you know I think together as a country we seen these tragedies And I think there are an awful lot of people out there who want to work on this issue and they want to get started on laying some standards and guardrails, and I do not believe that if these companies just completely flaunt the law and ignore the need to do something, that we as legislators, obviously we're going to have a strong responsibility to step up to that. The Attorney General's Office, the governor, the next governor is going to have involvement in this. And we have a duty as public officials to make sure that the legislation we pass is effective. And if it's not effective, we come back and we pass better legislation. And I'm with my colleague here. I don't want to keep waiting on this issue. I think there is agreement. Everybody seems to agree on part of the bill, but some people don't think other parts of the bill go far enough. But I don't think we should wait. I think, you know, you talk about a bill next year or two years, whatever it might be, the constant search for the perfect bill. You know, we've got a bill here. We're making it clear to the people of this state and to those in the industry that's responsible here that we want action taken. And I think we need to pass this legislation and not have amendments which make these kind of changes to it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Senator Frizzell, further discussion on Amendment L-25.

Seeing no further discussion, the question before the body is the adoption. A division has been requested.

Okay, and we're back. A division has been requested. All those in the chamber not entitled to vote, please be seated. Okay. All those in favor, I'm sorry, the motion is the adoption of L025. All those in favor, please stand and remain standing without moving around until the chamber count is complete. Please be seated. All those opposed, please stand and remain standing without moving around the chamber until the count is complete. Okay. The motion for the adoption of L025 is lost. We'll take a senatorial five.

Okay we are back Senator Carson Thank you Mr Chairman For the time being I withdraw my motion to approve House Bill to move House Bill 1263 Okay, that is a proper motion. Okay, so we will lay over. Oh, Majority Leader Rodriguez.

Okay. House Bill 1263 will be laid over to the end of the counter as amended. And now we are to...

Senator Doherty. I move House Bill 1421 and the committee report.

Senator Doherty. Thank you. In committee, we ran a technical amendment and another amendment that changed where any damages would go, and I urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Oh, there's an amendment at the desk. Mr. Schoffler, please read the title to L12.

I move amendment L12 to House Bill 1421.

Good enough. Seeing no further question, the motion be forced to the adoption of Amendment L-12 to House Bill 1421. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. The amendment is adopted. To the bill.

I actually think that was explained very well, and I ordered an aye vote.

Majority Leroy Riggs. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move the Senate to proceed out of order to take up Senate Bill 190.

Mr. Schoffler, please read the title to Senate Bill 190. Senate Bill 190 by Senators Coleman and Weissman and Representative Bacon in English concerning releasing information related to incidents involving a peace officer's use of force that results in death.

To the State Affairs Committee report.

We've seen no further discussion. The question before us is the adoption of the State of Veterans and Military Affairs Committee report to Senate Bill 190. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it, and the committee report is adopted. To the bill.

Amendment L5, amend the State of Veterans and Military Affairs. Senator Cuomo.

We move L005. To the amendment. Mr. Chair, this amendment decouples the definition of victim, significant other, and victim's immediate family from VRA. At the request of law enforcement stakeholders, we inserted after a complaint on page 2, line 1, the following language to the law enforcement agency involved in alleged misconduct. We also added language that creates an accountability mechanism to ensure statements made prior to the conclusion of an investigation did not prematurely influence the outcome of an investigation, as well as addressing a few spelling and technical errors. We ask for an aye vote on L-005. Thank you.

Senator Samora Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we heard this in committee. And so under current law, all video and audio recordings depicting a peace officer incident that resulted in death must be provided upon request to the victim's family. And this bill just clarifies that the recordings depict a peace officer incident that resulted in death must be provided to the victim's family, regardless of whether there is a complaint of police officer misconduct for the incident. And so there was, and I'm all for transparency, but some things to consider were, so there were some folks from law enforcement representation where there were, they wanted to make some amendments. One of the concerns is that this could be an unmandated cost where there could be, and I'm just, for example, there's many of the family members putting forth a request which could generate costs. So that was a concern. Another concern was by mandating broad public release before the public has a full investigative context that the bill risks turning difficult and tragic incidents into things could go viral where you'd get a negative response from the public. So these are just things I'm just communicating to you, what happened in committee, and that's it. Thank you. Thank you.

Mr. Schaffer, please read the title to House Bill 1195. House Bill 1195 by Representatives Raiden and Mabry and Senators Abmobley and Mullica concerning restrictions on the use of artificial intelligence relating to psychotherapy services.

To the committee report.

Thank you, any further discussion on the Health and Human Services Committee report? Seeing none the motion before the body is the adoption of the Health and Human Service Committee Report to House Bill 1195 All those in favor say aye Aye All opposed say no The ayes have it The committee report is adopted To the bill we have another amendment at the desk

Senator Mobley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Amendment L-16.

So this amendment removes language that created a private right of action, which was never our intention. I ask for a yes vote. Thank you.

Senator Mullicom. Thank you, Madam Chair. My co-prime is right. A lot of work has gotten into this bill, both here in this chamber and specifically over in the House with Representative Ryden. who has personal experience working in this field. And members, really what this bill comes down to is it's very simple. That if you are in the state of Colorado receiving therapy or counseling, that that is done with a licensed professional, that a chat bot or that artificial intelligence isn't providing that counseling or that therapy, and that that is done by a licensed professional with that expertise and with the ability to hold that individual accountable. I think it is a common sense bill, and it's a good bill that will make sure that the folks of Colorado who are receiving this care get it from the people they should be getting it from and not a chat bot, and I would ask for a yes vote. Thank you.

Mr. Schaffler, please read the title to House Bill 1236. House Bill 1236 by Representatives Zagaya Mabry and Senators Ball and Hendrickson concerning arbitration reform.

House Bill 1236 will be laid over until Monday, May 11th.

The motion is to lay over House Bill 1236 until May 11th. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. That bill will be laid over until May 11th.

Okay, the motion before us is to lay over House Bill 1315 until May 11th. All those in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it. And House Bill 1315 will be laid over until May 11th.

The motion before the body is to lay over Senate Bill 192 until May 11th. All those in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it, and Senate Bill 192 will lay over until May 11. Senator O'Flaher. Senator O'Flaher. Okay, we're back.

Senator Kipp. I move HB 261043.

Yeah, so basically what this bill does is it puts in additional reporting requirements around people with disabilities who are using TNCs, rideshare services like Uber or Lyft, etc. and the reason this is important is that a lot of times our folks with disabilities people with excuse me um for instance seeing eye dogs or a wheelchair once somebody sees a ride share person sees them with that animal or device they may just like leave them stranded they may cancel the ride and that leaves a lot of our folks with disabilities stranded this is really not how we want this to operate we want to make sure that people are treated fairly without discrimination so this is really mostly a reporting piece that is making sure that allowing the TNC's the transportation network companies to hold folks accountable so I asked for yes vote thank you thank you mr. chair heard this in committee yeah last night and was

Thank you, Mr. Minority Leader. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before the body is the adoption of House Bill 1043. All those in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it. and House Bill 1043 is adopted.

Senator Henderson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1340 and the Ag and Natural Resources Committee report.

In the Ag Committee, we adopted an amendment that is less prescriptive on how there can be a follow-up to ensure that revegetation actually occurs. In the bill that came over from the House, there was a five-year look-back requirement built into the bill. This removes that and gives more flexibility to the water courts in defining what that looks like. Senator Peltner.

Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before the body is the adoption of the Ag and Natural Resources Report to House Bill 1340. All those in favor? Say aye.

All the polls say no. The ayes have it, and the ag report is adopted. To the bill. Senator Peltner.

thank you to to my good coprine from Cheyenne Wells yeah this this will be is was the last bill of mine that I will ever have had in committee I know some of you are more excited than others about that but I it was really special TO ME BECAUSE THIS IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT TO THE ENTIRETY OF THE LOWER ARKANSAS VALLEY, WHICH IS HOME. AND WATER COURTS CURRENTLY THERE'S STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS TO PERFORM REVEGETATION, BUT THAT IS ILL DEFINED AND IT ISN'T HAPPENING IN PRACTICE. AND THIS IS A PROBLEM IN ALL OF THE WATER DISTRICTS IT IS A MOST PRONOUNCED PROBLEM IN WATER DISTRICTS 2. AND GETTING A HOLD OF IT, AGAIN, NOT RETROACTIVE, BUT TO ENSURE THAT THE DAMAGE DOESN'T CONTINUE AND HAVE EXPONENTIAL EFFECTS ON THE ECOSYSTEM, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE AT RISK OF HAVING, THIS BILL PROVIDES SAFEGUARDS TO PUT THE BRAKES ON THE DAMAGES THAT WE'RE SEEING WHEN WATER water rights changes result in the loss of ag land without revegetation.

Senator Pelton- Thank you. And one more thing that I think we really need to bring up is this is specific to District 2. So I just wanted to throw that point in there. But with that, I'd ask for your support of the bill. Senator Pelton- Thank you for all the discussion from Minority Leader Simpson.

Thank you, Mr. Marlory, leader. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before the body is adoption of House Bill 1340. All those in favor say aye.

All opposed say no. The ayes have it. And House Bill 1340 is adopted.

Okay, the motion before the body is to take up House Bill 1016. All those in favor say aye.

All opposed say no. The ayes have it. And we will take up House Bill 1016. Okay.

Senator Frizzell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1016. To the bill.

To the appropriations report.

In the appropriations committee, my good co-sponsor and I ran an amendment to further reduce the cost of the open educational resources program. Ask for a yes vote. Thank you.

All opposed say no.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, this is a really important program, and this bill continues the Open Educational Resources Program, which has become a really critical piece of affordability for our college students. What this is, is the Open Educational Resources Program provides high-quality learning materials that are public domain or under shared licenses, and this allows free use for our students so they don't have to buy textbooks. And my good co sponsor and I were waxing nostalgic when we were presenting this bill in the finance committee going back to those days when we had to sell blood to buy textbooks Okay, we didn't do that. But they're so, so expensive. They're a major expense for college students. And then we also enjoyed sharing stories about how we would then, at the end of the semester sell our textbooks and use that money for whatever, usually something fun. So, but the problem that is, this is a really big problem for our college students today, and this program allows access, well, first of all, it allows teachers to access these materials and formulate the curriculum for their classes, and the textbook materials would then be available as well. But it allows free access for students to textbooks online. And we asked for your iVote. I'm going to back up a little bit. The original ask on this was, I believe, 1.1 million in the House. IT WAS AMENDED DOWN BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE SOME BUDGET ISSUES AND IT WAS AMENDED DOWN TO AN ASK OF 500,000. AND NOW TODAY THE FISCAL NOTE IS 275,000. SO WE WOULD REQUEST HUMBLY YOUR SUPPORT OF THIS BECAUSE IT IS A REALLY IMPORTANT THING FOR OUR COLLEGE STUDENTS ALL AROUND THE STATE OF COLORADO. SENATOR MOBLEY.

Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before the body is the adoption of House Bill 1016. All those in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it. House Bill 1016 is adopted.

Senator Marchman.

To the Finance Committee report.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In the Finance Committee, we did three things. We took a definitional change from the Department of Revenue. We narrowed the scope of the bill very significantly to only include two types of marijuana. And then we also did what I think is the most important amendment to the bill, which is make the AMR calculations transparent to the industry. And I urge an aye vote.

Aye.

Senator Marshman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will explain a little bit about this bill. What House Bill 1077 does is it improves the clarity of the AMR categories by directing the taxation division to formally adopt a fresh frozen category Right now, outdoor is very low and indoor is higher and the average is here. And what we're finding is that that the outdoor growers are struggling to stay in business. They're southern Colorado, rural communities. We've lost a ton of them. There are only about 36 left. And so changing the AMR should be beneficial to help outdoor growers across Colorado. So I would urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We heard this other bill we heard last night, and it would be the first to profess, I don't understand the marijuana grow operations. I just was intrigued by, and look, the growers, the outdoor growers came and spent some time with me, and I appreciated that, tried to give me a little better education. But I just found it interesting this is where they wanted to go with this. because in current statute, and this is all about taxes and the average market rate, an existing statute, average market rate means the average price as determined by the department on a quarterly basis of all unprocessed retail marijuana that is sold or transferred from retail marijuana cultivation facilities in the state to retail marijuana product manufacturing facilities or retail marijuana stores, less taxes paid on the sales or transfers. An average market rate may be based on the purchaser or transferee of unprocessed retail marijuana or on the nature of the unprocessed retail marijuana that is sold or transferred. So I think currently I think there's just one AMR for all products. And the outdoor growers in particular are seeking, they're at a disadvantage in this space, so seeking some variation. It sounds like the department had some ability to offer varying rates. So what we did in committee last night has now reflected that the average market rate must include one or more rates that cover unprocessed marijuana that is allocated to extractions, including fresh frozen indoor unprocessed retail marijuana and fresh frozen outdoor unprocessed retail marijuana. and then some other, the initial rates for unprocessed marijuana that are allocated to extractions must be lower than the rate for unprocessed marijuana that is allocated for direct sale to consumers. Like it didn't take long to get confused, to get me confused about which rate applies to which product because honestly I don't even know what. the extractions are. Anyway, it was an interesting conversation and testimony last night. Again, I'm out of my wheelhouse trying to understand exactly, but appreciate what the sponsors were trying to do. I was a no in committee and will actually continue to be a no, but thank you, Mr. Chair and sponsors.

Aye.

No.

Take that, Snyder. Mr. Majority Leader. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move the Senate to proceed out of order to take up Senate Bill 183.

Senate Bill 183 by Senators Mullica and Kirkmeyer and representatives Winner T. and Lindsay. Concerning state funding for capital construction costs for a project being undertaken by the Colorado School of Mines and in connection therewith authorizing the state to issue finance purchase of an asset or a certain certificate of participation agreements to finance a portion of capital costs associated with the renewal of critical building system for the Colorado School of Mines Guggenheim Hall. Senator Mochel.

To the appropriations committee report.

The motion for the body is the adoption of the appropriations committee report to Senate Bill 183. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed to say no, the ayes have it. Appropriations committee report is adopted. To the bill. Minor leader Simpson.

Any further discussion on Senate Bill 183? Seeing none, the motion before the body is the adoption of Senate Bill 183. All those in favor say aye.

All opposed say no. The ayes have it, and Senate Bill 183 is adopted. Please. I'll wait until 11.8. Okay.

Senator Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1100.

Folks, I'll get into the substance a little bit. This is basically just establishing in statute a guardianship bill of rights, but we have a few amendments. There is an amendment at the desk.

Amendment re-engrossed bill. Senator Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Thank you. I move Amendment L-007 to House Bill 1100.

Senator Snyder. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before the body is the adoption of Amendment 007. All those in favor say aye.

All opposed say no. The ayes have it, and Amendment 007 is adopted. There is an amendment at the desk. Yes.

Senator Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L-008 to House Bill 1100.

I don't believe that the Bill of Rights would have created these problems, but all it says is this section does not create a new cause of action or affect any existing cause of action or remedy available to the ward. So it just makes it perfectly clear. And I would ask for an aye vote.

Aye.

To the bill, Senator Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So a real brief summary of the history of the Uniform Guardianship and Conservatorship Act, which was passed by the Uniform Law Commission National Assembly back in 2023, maybe 2022. Nevertheless, former Senator Bob Gardner picked this up and ran a bill. It's a very long bill, very comprehensive overhaul. I don't know if you all have worked in the guardianship or conservatorship space, but it's a very delicate space. A lot of folks have very heartfelt feelings about it, whether they have a family member or a child who's going to be in need of guardianship services. Nevertheless, they got that bill, 190-page bill, through to the last committee and realized the fiscal note of around $4 million was not going to work. So they PI'd that bill. The next year I picked it up and we tried to pull out things out of that big bill that would not drive a fiscal note. Ultimately, we were unsuccessful. So that effort renewed again this year. They did the same thing. They pulled out the areas they thought would reduce the fiscal note. It's still, they got it down to about $1.5 million and we knew that wasn't going to fly. So what's resulting is a strike blow. Basically, it is a guardianship bill of rights. So it talks first about the ward. the ward has a right to be treated with dignity and respect, personal privacy, a lot of things along those lines. In fact, there's 21 different measures called out in that guardianship and that ward's bill of rights. It does allow some permissive language. The court may authorize a guardian to make decisions to the following on behalf of the ward, and it delineates what those are, and it says what the ward retains, the right to vote, maintain to change their marital status and other things. So it's a good balance. You know, I think if you follow the guardianship area and some of the IDD, the idea is to give people as much agency and as much involvement in their decision making as they can. I think that's what a lot of people that have concerns with guardianship worry about, taking all their rights away. This really does strike a balance between allowing that person who going to need some assistance no doubt about it but allowing them to participate in the decision as much as possible So this is something that been a couple of year efforts and I would ask for an aye vote Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, motion before the body is the adoption of House Bill 1100.

You missed my pearls of wisdom. Because it's all I got. It's my last year. YOLO. Mr. Majority Leader. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move the Senate to proceed out of order to take up 1328.

Aye.

House Bill 1328 by Representative Stewart K. and Winter T. and Senators Mullica and Kirkmeyer concerning non-emergency medical transportation for Medicaid members and in connection therewith making and reducing an appropriation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 26, 1328 and the appropriations report. Health and Human Services. HHS report and? Yes.

Just that report.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In Health and Human Services, we made a change for the TNCs to make sure that we were being consistent across the board when they were operating in this area. I would ask for yes vote.

Amendment L18.

To the amendment.

Thank you. The motion for the body is the adoption of amendment L18 to House Bill 1328. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. To the bill. Senator Motelk.

Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before the body is the adoption of House Bill 1328. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it, and House Bill 1328 is adopted. Mr. Majority Leader.

Okay. The motion before the body is to take up House Bill 1230. All those in favor say aye. All opposed to saying no, the ayes have it And we will take up House Bill 1230 Mr. Schoffler, please read the title to House Bill 1230

Senator Roberts

To the bill

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before the body is the adoption of House Bill 1230. All those in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it. House Bill 1230 is adopted.

Ms. Schoffler, please read the title to House Bill 1054.

Senator Wallace.

To the Committee report.

Is there any discussion on the committee report? Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of the Appropriations Committee report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes haven't, and the report is adopted. To the bill, Senator Wallace.

So this bill creates a sweeping new state-level workplace safety enforcement structure

Thank you. Mr. Minority Leader.

Will the clerk please read the title to Amendment L-018. Amendment L-18.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L018. Is there any discussion?

Mr. Chair, this amendment would strike the bill's entire new enforcement section authorizing lawsuits, injunctions, statutory damages, stop work orders, and attorney fee awards under the Colorado Worker Safety Act. This amendment prevents the creation of a sweeping new workplace litigation regime. The bill authorizes the attorney general, labor organizations, worker organization, and individual employees to bring civil actions against employers over alleged workplace safety violations. These lawsuits could result in injunctions, stop work orders, statutory damages, attorney fees, and broad court intervention into business operations. By removing this section, the amendment prevents Colorado from creating a parallel enforcement structure that invites litigation and expands liability far beyond existing workplace safety. And with that, I would ask for your support for L-18.

Senator Rich. Thank you, Mr. Chair. and I rise in support of Amendment L18. Litigation should be a last resort. The first time an employer learns of a problem should not be when served with a lawsuit, yet this bill requires no prior notification. This is a good amendment because reasonable and adequate protection provisions right now appear to create an additional duty beyond OSHA and introduces terms which are subjective and prime for litigation. Aggrieved is undefined, so a lawsuit could conceivably be initiated by anyone aware of alleged violations. violations. If worker safety is truly the objective, then Colorado should thoughtfully create an OSHA replacement, create a system with clear standards, technical assistance, enforcement without a profit motive, and due process that places neither employers or employees at a systematic disadvantage. I want to thank the good senator from Alamosa for bringing L 0 1 8 and I ask for an aye vote. Is there any for the discussion

enforcement we need private rights of action for workers to be able to seek justice we actually I ask for a no vote. Mr. Minority Leader. Thank you Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Five inspectors for every one million workers is a whole lot to handle. I did just hear an anecdote this morning from a colleague who mentioned that OSHA inspectors were there right away after a fatal accident had happened in their district We want OSHA inspectors to not only be there after accidents happen, but before the fact as well. Again, ask for a no vote. Is there any further discussion on Amendment L18?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As everyone knows, my occupation is one of the most hazardous in the country. Not the most, but one of the most. I've even been involved in a stupidity agricultural accident on my own fault, But I've never found there to be lacking in OSHA enforcement or investigation in my district. And so with that, I would like to run an amendment. There is an amendment at the desk.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion on Amendment L28?

Is there any further discussion on Amendment L28? Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of Amendment L28. All those in favor say aye. Division has been requested. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. A division has been requested. All those in the chamber not entitled to vote, please be seated. The motion is the adoption of Amendment L-28. All those in favor, please stand and remain standing without moving around the chamber until the count is complete. Please be seated. All those opposed, please stand and remain standing without moving around the chamber until the count is complete. The chair is not in doubt. The motion for the adoption of Amendment L-28 is lost. Senator Pelton.

There is an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please read Amendment L-29?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Amendment L-29.

Tell us about your amendment. So this amendment, I run several of these every session. The safety clause has been way overused in this building especially over the last several years Oh she isn going away right now This is a great amendment to let it have a chance If the people want to repeal it, let them repeal it. We don't need the safety clause because it's not going away tomorrow. So with that, I'd ask for an aye vote on 29.

Senator Zamora Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This just makes sense. That's all I was going to say. It's common sense, and I rise in support. I say yes to L029.

Senator Wallace. Ask for a no vote.

Mr. Minority Leader. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the conversation today on House Bill 1054 and thinking about what the future might look like if through the crystal ball we recognize OSHA doesn't exist anymore. I would entertain offering another amendment.

Amendment L23, amend Re-Engross Bill, page 5.

I move L23.

Senator Zamora Wilson.

Thank you.

Senator Moss.

Is there any for the discussion on Amendment L23? Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of Amendment L23. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The noes have it, and the amendment is lost.

for consideration. There's an amendment at the desk Will the clerk please read amendment 25

Mr. Minority later Thank you Mr. Chair I move L025

Actually we'll read this amendment so it creates section 13 effective date applicability This act takes effect only if the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. Section 651, is repealed, in which case the act takes effect on the effective date of the repeal and applies to conduct occurring on or after said date. If the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 is repealed, the Attorney General shall notify the revisor of statutes of the date of the repeal. This amendment prevents Colorado from creating a duplicative state workplace safety regime, while federal law largely remains in place. Under the bill, Colorado could create an additional layer of state workplace regulations if certain aspects of the OSHA Act are repealed. Unfortunately, this piecemeal regulatory approach could create a duplicative regulatory regime. This amendment ensures the bill operates only as a true backstop if federal OSHA protections are ever repealed as a whole, not as an overlapping and redundant regulatory system. Ask for your support of L-25.

Senator Zamora Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I rise in support of L-025. One of the things that I recalling a person that gave testimony mentioned that this bill is going to create more confusion when it comes to just when we talking about training the training that going to come out from this And so right now it's simplified. And when you have the state and federal, there could be multiple different trainings going on. Some may conflict. It could cause confusion. And so I think this amendment will help mitigate that, and so I urge an aye vote on L025.

Senator Wallace. Thank you, Mr. Chair. A lack of enforcement is essentially like a repeal, and it is also dangerous. Let's not wait for more bad to happen. Our workers need protections now. they can't wait for safety. We have an opportunity to protect them. Let's step up and take it. I ask

and the amendment is lost. Senator Kirkmeyer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In going through the fiscal notes that were attached to this bill, I'm trying to figure out how we jumped from February 12th, which had a 1.3 FTE and $184,000

Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the Senate concur with the House amendments to Senate Bill 177.

One amendment was added in the House on Senate Bill 177 to make clear that when granting the limited ability to fix your property by entering the property of a neighbor who refuses access, a judge can also make that dependent on a bond or insurance to ensure that if anything is harmed either in the property or to that person,

Thank you, Mr. President. I move the repassage of Senate Bill 26-177.

Thank you, Mr. President. We move to concur in House amendments on SB 36.

In the House, they clarified that the PPM measures will switch off when the population has maintained above 4% for 30 days instead of above 5%. Okay, ask for a yes vote.

All right, we move for the repassage of SB 36 as amended.

Oh, please add Senator Exum as a co-sponsor.

Senator Ball. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the Senate concur with the House amendments to Senate Bill 20.

There was a minor change to the composition of the task force that was made in the House that we agree with.

Bright Ball. Ball Bright.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move for the repassage of Senate Bill 20.

Thank you, Mr. President We move to concur with the amendments in the House

Thank you. There's a few technical fixes to ensure HICPF has enforcement authority, change some section references to be accurate, require the hospital to tell HICPF which third-party screening tool they use, and the clarification of scope for HICPF ruling. Now your deny vote.

Mullica. Thank you, Mr. President. I move Senate Bill 138 on third reading and final passage.

Senator Cutter. Thanks, Mr. President. I move we adopt the Conference Committee Report for House Bill 1184.

In the bill, the drafter accidentally specified the wrong member, or somebody did, and so we just needed to change the reference to a specific appointed member.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move for the repassage of House Bill 1158. 85. 84. 84. Thank you, Mr. President. I move for the repassage of House Bill 1184.

therefore receding from our own and adopting the House version of House Bill 1258.

Senator Pelton R. Thank you, Mr. President. I move for the repassage of House Bill 1258.

Senator Immobile. Thank you, Mr. President. We will be having appropriations on Monday. I don't know what time we're reconvening, So I'll just say one hour before we reconvene on the floor.

Senator Mabile. Okay. We will have appropriations one hour before the next time that we convene And we will be hearing 1065 1102 1223 1272 1289, 1324, 1306, and 1429. We will also have appropriations on whatever day, at whatever time we reconvene upon the adjournment of the Finance Committee with other bills as assigned.

Mr. Majority Leader. Thank you, colleagues, for all the work we did today. We will be recessing as we need to read some bills across the desk from the House so we can figure out the mess that we're getting ourselves into next week. On that, Mr. President, I move the Senate recess until 4 p.m. today.