Colorado House 2026 Legislative Day 114

The House will come to order. The Pledge of Allegiance will be led by Representative Johnson.

Mr. Schiebel, please call the roll.

Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. It's here. Bottoms.

Excuse.

Is excused.

Is excused.

Wynn.

is excused

Thank you.

He's excused.

Thank you.

Representative Garcia.

You have heard the motion that the journal be approved as corrected by the chief clerk All those in favor say aye Aye All those opposed, no. Without question, the ayes have it. The motion is adopted. Announcements and introductions. Representative McCormick.

Thank you, Representative.

Thank you. Representative Woodrow.

Thank you. Representative Flannell.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Nurses Week runs May 6th through the 12th this year, and I would like to take a moment to recognize the important roles filled by nurses, members of the most trusted profession for a decade, followed closely by teachers. With over 80,000 registered nurses and 8,000 practical nurses, nurses are the most numerous of health care providers in Colorado. We have nurses who hold a diploma, associate degree, bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, including PhDs. These nurses provide direct care to the people of Colorado in hospitals, long-term care facilities, primary care offices, federally qualified health centers, and even the most legislated medical spas. Nurses also serve as administrators in health care organizations as chief nursing officers and directors of nursing. They serve as nursing and patient advocates through the many professional organizations within our state and across the country. Of course we also see nurses who serve in policy roles such as Colorado Nurses Physician Advisory Task Force NPATCH the Board of Nursing and in our Colorado Legislature Today we recognize nurses in all these roles including those who have joined us in person today in honor of Nurses Week. So please join me in welcoming Colorado nurses from around the state who are on our House floor today.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I just want to announce that we have Energy and Environment Committee today, open adjournment at the Old State Library, and we have Senate Bill 171. We'll be talking about NERDL's House Bill 1030, and any other bills that are assigned to the committee. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's an honor to serve with you. It is an honor to serve with you. Colleagues, I stand before you today to recognize the month of May as Asian American Pacific Islander Heritage Month. In 1992, Asian American Heritage Month was first recognized. The purpose of this month is to recognize...

The purpose of this month is to recognize, reflect, and celebrate the important roles that Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders have played in our nation's shared history. The story of these groups is not a singular story, but rather a multitude of contributions that enrich our country. Since the 1700s, Asian Americans have settled in the United States and have brought a new meaning of what it is to be an American. In the mid-1800s, Chinese immigrants settled in the United States during the midst of the gold rush and served as 90% of the workforce that connected North America right here in Colorado. While I can list the various stories of contributions that these groups have provided in our country, there is no way to simplify this because it is rising above adversity. Asian Americans were the first groups that were not protected under the 14th Amendment until 1898, where those same Chinese railroad workers that built the railroad were also excluded through the Chinese Exclusion Act. And over 120,000 Japanese Americans were also isolated in internment camps during World War II in various states, including here in Colorado with Camp Amachi. so in color wild there are 20 260 000 asian americans pacific islanders and native americans that enrich our communities through our cultures foods and histories and in vietnamese culture we're we have lucky numbers lucky numbers that represent our values and today being may 7th is my lucky number which is seven so with that said upon may 7th 2026 i wish you all a happy asian America and Pacific Islander Heritage Month. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to give a shout out to one of our members here, the good representative from House District 14. Rep Flannell was leaving the Capitol late yesterday after committee. She saw someone having a very serious medical episode. She acted. She called 911, law enforcement showed up, paramedics, and resuscitated the person and credited her with saving someone's life. So I really appreciate it.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I asked the Boulder County delegation to come down here with us. Members, today is a wonderful day for all of us from the Boulder County delegation. As you can see, we are a bipartisan delegation. Today we are here to honor Ms. Representative Dorothy Rupert, born on October 20th 1926. She will be a centurion in October. Thank you for being here and today we will we are here to honor her. The state of Colorado, the House of Representatives convened in the 75th General Assembly hereby extend sincerest commendation to Dorothy Rupert. The Colorado General Assembly celebrates and honors the life and legacy of Mrs. Dorothy Rupert. Dorothy Rupert is a dedicated public servant, educator, community leader, whose lifelong commitment to Colorado has made a lasting impact on our state. Mrs. Rupert served the people of Colorado with distinction as the representative for House District 14 from 1986 to 1995 and continued her service in the Colorado Senate representing District 18 until 2001. Her leadership in the legislature reflected a deep commitment to education, equity, and the well-being of all Coloradans. Mrs. Rupert is a former teacher and counselor in Colorado Public Schools, where she served for 35 years, shaping the lives of countless students and families. Her commitment to public service began even earlier as a member of the Thornton City Council from 1958 to 1961. In 2009, she co-founded Growing Up Boulder, continuing her dedication to youth community engagement and civic participation. Throughout her career, Mrs. Rupert has consistently supported education, courageously taken on complex legislation, and remained a steadfast advocate in the peace and women's rights and human rights movement. even traveling the globe in pursuit of peace.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Mrs. Rupert embodies commitment, passion, vitality, caring, sincerity, and never give up determination that has inspired generations. In recognition of her global advocacy, she was among 1,000 women nominated by the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005, a testament to her lifelong dedication to justice and peace. The Colorado House of Representatives recognizes Dorothy Rupert for her extraordinary contributions to the state of Colorado and celebrates her remarkable life and legacy. We are honored to uplift and recognize such an incredible leader whose work continues to inspire all people across Colorado on request of Representative Junie Joseph given the sixth day of May 2026 State Capitol Denver And let give her a big hearty hand

Thank you, everyone. What an honor it is to have you here today. Mr. Schiebel, reports of committees of reference.

Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move that the following bills be made special orders on May 7, 2026 at 9.50 a.m. House Bill 1433, House Bill 1429, House Bill 1416, House Bill 1431, House Bill 1422, House Bill 1426, House Bill 1063, House Bill 1325, Senate Bill 172, Senate Bill 93, House Bill 1424, Senate Bill 175, Senate Bill 131, Senate Bill 165, Senate Bill 157, Senate Bill 154, and House Bill 1286. Seeing no objection, the bill is listed by the Majority Leader. will be made special orders today, May 7th at 9.50 a.m. Representative Camacho. Members, you have heard the motion. Seeing no objection, Representative Camacho will take the chair. Thank you. Thank you Thank you.

Representative Velasco. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1433. To the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, this is a very simple bill. We're just asking that our behavioral health trust be able to receive gifts, grants, and donations. And this program has been so important for firefighters across the state as they deal with trauma and other issues. So we are chayespo.

Is there any further discussion on House Bill 1433? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of House Bill 1433. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. The ayes have it. 1433 passes.

Representative Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1429 and the Appropriations Committee report. To the Appropriations Report.

Is there any further discussion on the appropriations report? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of the appropriations report. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, say no. The ayes have it. The appropriations report passes. To the bill, Representative Sirota.

Representative Brown.

Representative Brown, hold on one second. Colleagues, if we could lower the volume in the chamber so we can hear colleagues present their bills. Please take those conversations to the side or outside.

Seeing no further discussion on House Bill 1429, the question before us is the passage of House Bill 1429. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, say no. The ayes have it. House Bill 1429 passes.

Representative Wynne. Thank you. Mr. Chair, it is an honor to serve with you.

I move HB 1416 on second reading. To the bill. I also move the appropriations report as well.

If there is one.

Would you like to withdraw that motion? I would withdraw the appropriations report motion, and I'd still like to move HB 1416 on second reading.

Representative Brown. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are here to present a bill that will help small business and transfer money from an underutilized account into a small business, an account that will support our small businesses across Colorado. We have worked with the agencies and with stakeholders, and we have a small amendment to this bill that changes the transfer, and so I move L003 to 1416.

In these challenging times, we know that every dollar counts. And so this particular amendment reduces the transfer into the Colorado Economic Development Fund by $300,000 to make sure that we are doing what we can for small businesses, but also being as fiscally responsible as possible. and we ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The background of this bill is that it is going to be helping the Caldwell Small Business Development Center. Small businesses will need SBDC support during the inflation, high cost of running businesses, and SBDCs are the frontline resource capable of helping small businesses survive and endow major construction projects. So again, the bill navigates cash flow disruptions, adjusts operations during constructions, assess relief funding and technical assistance, and plans for long-term viability for projects. So this is a bill that supports small businesses. And with that said, I urge for a aye vote. Representative Kelty.

Thank you. Thank you, Representative Kelty. I appreciate your question. This particular cash fund was set to revert a number of basically its balance. And so we are the particular – let me start over. I'm having a little bit of a moment this morning. If anybody who saw me in appropriations this morning knew that I was not firing on all cylinders, so I appreciate you all that. We are, this particular fund experienced significant implementation challenges, and so since the program hasn't been able to be implemented in the way that it wanted to be, we think working with the departments and working with the administration, we've identified this as a way to help small businesses without negatively impacting a program.

Representative Wynn. Thank you so much for the question, Representative Kelty. Just want to go into some information for you and I'm happy to share this as well. This basically transfers some of the unused scholarship funds to the general fund for budget balancing and it basically allocates to support small businesses facing these economic challenges and the idea is that we're not making any new programs or requesting for any new preparations and it's being allocated to the Economic Development Commission so the ECC is going to be having the fund.

Representative Wynne. To give you an idea on that, I appreciate the question again. I think that like my co-prime sponsor, Representative Brown, mentioned, these funds were underutilized and that we're seeing the urgent need right now

Representative Martinez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative, from El Paso County. So as someone who did pass the original scholarship program, I think it'd be good to give some insight into this. And so originally it was $25 million that was allotted for this. $18 million of that had already been distributed to the students in that two-year fund for that program. And those were one-time dollars that were issued to them. The grant program then ended. They chose not to renew the program with it, and then that's why these funds are available for them. But $18 million of that had already been distributed to those first-time high school seniors going into college program. And so that was the bill that I had run in my first year. Thank you.

Representative DeGraff, I just want to be clear. We're talking about the transfer of funds, not regulations. If you could return to the bill, please.

This is just moving funds. This is called rearranging deck chairs. That's what this bill is. It should be called the rearranging deck chairs fund transfer because you are crushing businesses, and then you bring something like this that just siphons off money from a different program that was all approved, and then you pretend that this helps small business. while you crush small business. So I think it's fairly neutral. These SBDCs need to be funded because these businesses need all the help they can get. Unfortunately, you're giving them all the hurt they can't even stand anymore. So maybe change course in that and get your boot off the face of the business of Colorado.

Mr. Schievel, please read the title of House Bill 1431. House Bill 1431 by Representatives Bacon and Soper, also Senators Gonzalez and Judah, concerning demonstrating competency for occupational licensure portability.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1431 and the Business and Labor Committee report.

Representative Sopere. Merci, Mr. Chair. We struck out all of page three in the bill, so now the bill only adds three words, which is or another country on page two. We are to deny vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. House Bill 1431 came as a result of some work that Dora has been doing over time in regards to what we call a portability program for particular occupations. As you know, the state issues licenses for many people who want to practice in particular fields. Our portability program right now allows for folks who have licenses in other states kind of to be able to have a little bit more of an expedited path to licensure here in the state of Colorado. So where you heard in the amendment where the bill now says we added three words or another country, What we mean is that folks who have licenses in the practices and occupations listed in this statute and in this program from another country, they are allowed to submit an application to get a license in our state. Right now, and what we did in the bill, was say that the professions that may have their own statutes or their own practices acts can lean on their underlying law of what it is that they require for foreign-trained professionals. But at the end of the day, we believe that this bill is a workforce bill. Some of us may know people who have degrees and licenses to do some really great things, everything from being a barber and cosmetologist to a dentist to an acupuncturist to our wonderful nursing board and to being nurses. And so what our bill says is that we do want to say that folks who have been trained in other countries do have a pathway to practice here in the state of Colorado. We know that there's so many positions that could be filled. We know that there's so many wonderful people who have had great training elsewhere who really do want to come and work and contribute to our communities. And so this bill is on behalf of them. We do believe it is a workforce bill. And then I'll hand it over to my co-prime.

Seeing no further discussion except for Representative Sucla.

Representative Kelty. Tell us about the moth. Thank you, Mr. Chair,

and the word he was saying is moth.

Yes, sir. So I sat on committee on this, and I had a lot of questions. For those who are watching today and wondering if the answers to some of the questions I asked, the only concern I had was whether the workers that were going to be following under this, what kind of background checks are they going to have, whether we can make sure that they don't have any type of criminal history in other countries and that. So that was a great concern of mine. National security is very important to me. And I did find that foreign workers in the United States undergo mandatory checks to verify work eligibility, identity, and background. So it goes to the Department of Homeland Security. They are well vetted. They are well checked. So that was a concern that I was glad that was off the table, and I will support this bill today. Thank you.

Representative or I sorry Mr Schiebel please read the title of House Bill 1422 House Bill 1422 by Representative Clifford also Senators Coleman and Frizzell concerning security measures for certain governmental entities.

To the Appropriations Report.

Seeing no further discussion on the appropriation report, the question before us is the passage of the appropriation report. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. The ayes have it. Appropriation report passes. To the State Civic and Military

Seeing no further discussion, the question before is passed to the state, civic, military, and veterans affairs report. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. The ayes have it. The committee report passes. To the bill.

That's a proper motion. Give us a moment to get that displayed.

AML winner. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And after conferring with the State Patrol and working on this amendment, I think that this is a good amendment. This puts them in a really good support, and I rise in support of this amendment.

Representative Clifford. A couple things about the conversations with State Patrol. So they have always been in support of the position getting created. The questions that we've had back and forth with State Patrol is making sure that there's no duplication of efforts and that there's no crossover or two people doing the same thing. This is their amendment. They are fully in support.

Representative Clifford. I'll discuss this further when we get into the bill. I wouldn describe it the way that you are but I will say that we created a similar position in the judicial branch We are copying and pasting the same position that we created for them a couple of years ago that had been working very very well for the General Assembly Yes it does

To the bill, Representative Clifford. I move L5 to 1422. This is a multi-page amendment that is on your desk. Yellow paper.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment does a few things. So we made a mistake in the original drafting of the bill, and when we were creating protections for information that is protected online, it made elected officials such as us, members of the General Assembly, et cetera, with the same rules that we had created for the judicial, and they're not the same. So we have now created an entire section that is just for elected officials that doesn't include an additional level of scrutiny for things like photographs of us, et cetera, where we don't want people distributing photographs of our judges, et cetera, or our probation officers and the performance of their duties. You can come take pictures of us all you'd like wherever we go, and we knew that when we ran for office, and this fixes all of that. But this amendment also, this and a couple of others that we're running, we've worked out both with the Secretary of State's office, the press, all of the people that had issues with how we were dealing with the conversational domain for our information being posted. I'll just say the overarching concern here is what is readily and easily available to those people that don't need it necessarily your home address or the ability to get someone to your home quickly with misinformation, etc. doxing, etc. none of the amendments that we are running today are going to make that information not public record and not available to the public We will just start keeping lists at the Secretary of State's office for the people who have requested it should something come up, and they'll have to agree that they're not using it for commercial purposes or distributing it in such a way that would be used for harassment. And I urge an aye vote on this amendment, and the next two amendments will be of similar concern.

Representative Clifford. Surprisingly, that would already be unlawful, Representative Bradley. This doesn't specifically mention children, but anything that would personally identify you or your family in that way would be off limits.

Representative Luck. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So in this amendment, it does say that it is unlawful for a person to knowingly make available on the internet personal information about an elected official or an elected official's immediate family if the dissemination of that information poses an imminent and serious threat to the safety of the elected official or the elected official's immediate family and the person making the information available on the internet knows or reasonably should know of the imminent and serious threat. I just wonder if you can put on the mic what you contemplate under imminent and serious threat. There are people who get very fired up with different policy stances that we take that have the right to petition their government and to express those things. And so at what point does it cross from being just a venting or an explaining of their position and arguing for it in vehement terms to cross over into imminent and serious threat? And is there any sort of case law or other such things that substantiate that position?

Representative Luck. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, bill sponsors. So the language here is contemplating making available on the Internet, right? So the idea of somebody coming to your house, engaging with your family about your particular position, or stopping you in a public place to engage, I don't see contemplated in this section that I just read. And so I'm speaking specifically as relates to making available information on the Internet that might pose an imminent or serious threat. But there was a picture posted on the Internet last year that resulted in people commenting that then posed a threat. Would the person posting that picture be at risk of violating this, or is it the people who are then commenting on it that would then be connected with that?

Representative Luck. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do think it's important, though, to understand what we are saying here, especially since so much of our societal conversation is taking place online. I also think that it deserves clarifying Section B, where we're talking about that this will drive a Class I misdemeanor for violating this, except that if the person is a state or local government official acting in the course and scope of their duties. Can you give me a hypothetical where a state or local government official disseminates information about an elected official or their immediate family that poses an imminent and serious threat to the safety of those people such that they would not, because of their title, be subject to the same punishment?

Representative Luck. Thank you Mr Chair So I represent a portion of Colorado that takes pride in being considered the Wild West still We talked about this in the building code context. They don't care for building codes. They want to build what they want to build when they want to build it, and it becomes a liability to them only when they go to sell it. Is that better? All right. So, Bob, okay. Didn't say that at all. Okay. Let me start over. I represent a district that in large part prides itself on being the Wild West. They do. They pride themselves on not following building codes and being able to build in accordance with the design in their mind. They pride themselves on being able to deal with emergency situations without having to call the local fire department. In fact, there is a portion of my district where some of the folks refuse to pay for special district taxes for certain services because they don't want anybody, especially from the government, crossing their property line, and they'd rather see their house burned down than cede that authority. And to some people that seems extreme, but that's the district that I represent. That same district you will find on a Thursday morning in a coffee shop or in a public community center, some old guys especially chatting about the government and hearkening back to the age-old American tradition of hanging, treasonous elected officials. And there are some in this room who find that to be very concerning. But being from that district, I know exactly the mind that is behind those statements. it's not a statement of true intent to go and hang government officials it's a turn of phrase for them that has been long passed down to express frustration and there are those who don't understand or appreciate the language of the people in my district. In the same way, they don't appreciate the language of many of you all's district. And what I'm concerned about is where these lines are. What does that look like? for a person to make available on the Internet. Now, some of these guys, they've never been on the Internet, so this won't bother them. They'll just keep talking about these things in coffee shops. But for those who are more technologically savvy, they may find themselves posting something to that effect. And I don't want to align with something that my district would get in trouble for when really their intention is not to cause any harm When their intention is to speak with a severity that leads people to recognize the importance of what is being discussed So where is this line And is it simply personal information? Or is it any and all types of speech? Because I'm hearing mixed messages from the bill sponsor. We've talked about this bill privately. We've talked about it on the mic. is it only as relates to personal information? Could somebody post and say, man, these elected officials for doing X, Y, and Z, they should all be hung for treason. And so long as it doesn't include the personal addresses of these individuals, is that good? Is that protected? Or is somebody going to show up on their door and charge them with a class one misdemeanor for having that speech.

We are on Amendment L5. Is there any further discussion on Amendment L5? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L5. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. The ayes have an Amendment L5 as adopted.

That is a proper motion. Give us a moment to get that displayed.

with how they're going to deal with posting information, and I request an aye vote. Is there any further discussion on Amendment L7? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L7. All those in favor say aye. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those in favor say no. The ayes have an amendment. L7 is adopted.

As a proper motion, give us a moment to get that displayed.

That is displayed to the amendment.

and that they'll keep a list of the individuals that have made these requests. So if they're trying to get the address, the home address of our gubernatorial candidates, they can still do that, especially when they're looking to make sure that somebody is ineligible or from a district to make sure that you live in your district. If you're using it for that purpose, that's completely great. We're just not going to post them online anymore. And I request an aye vote on L.A. Representative Bradley.

for doing it. Representative Clifford. I think that what we're trying to do here is just make sure that the Secretary of State isn't just sending out lists to everybody that emails me and says send a list. So they're either going to have to include the words or I think that Secretary of State will likely make a form, but I'm not the Secretary of State. We're just telling the Secretary of State what the minimum standards are in order to make sure that this gets done this

Yeah. Representative Clifford. As with all publicly available information, the best we can do at this point, what we've determined and trying to thread the needle on this is that we'll keep a list of the people that ask. So at least we have a breadcrumb trail if we have to start doing an investigation to determine how someone got your address. Also, knowingly, they might have gotten it through some third-party means, despite how good you have done to make sure that it's not online. I don't know that there is a foolproof way to do this, but we are at least putting a speed bump in. It's probably the best we're going to do here.

Representative Clifford. I would assert that the Colorado State Patrol will be doing that for you. But there will be people that will be interested in who has gotten this list should you start getting that type of harassment. Thank you.

Representative Clifford. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Finally, to the bill. That is all the amendments. This bill is three bills in one. So I'm going to start with the genesis and how we started this. I was working on the third piece, which is for the judicial security. I have worked on this particular work for the Judicial Department for multiple years now. In fact, last year I ran a bill that created a position for them that was kind of a trial position, if you will, in statute the year before. That was called the Administrator of Judicial Security. I'll talk a little bit more about that in just a minute, but I was already engaged in that piece. when I started to share with others what we were working on, the speaker and the majority leader were already working on what became the first part of this bill, and the majority leader and others were working on what became part of the middle part of this bill, and because they were all so closely related, we decided to put them in one, and that's how I came to this bill. So I'll start with the first part. The first part of this bill is related to and it kind of started with the National Conference of State Legislators NCSL is giving our members a grant related to your home security Those of you probably know that we had a legislator and her family that were murdered in their doorway at their home this year, which was a scare and a wake-up call for us, especially knowing that one of the members of our General Assembly was on the killer's list. We started seeing people take protective measures about how we deal with certain things in a little bit more serious light as a result of that incident. Something that's fascinating, when I came to the General Assembly, because I'm a police officer, all of my information has always been redacted. So every form that the Secretary of State's office has ever put online, because I'm protected in statute as a police officer, has always just said redacted, redacted, redacted when you got to my home information, et cetera. Property information, that kind of stuff can all be held. I can have my voter record be hidden, or it's called confidential voter list, et cetera. There were actions that I could take that some elected officials could do some ways, but the members of the General Assembly didn't have access to technically in law. This cleans up that law and now makes sure that the elected officials have the same protections. And we've done some scalpel or carve out here, if you will, from these amendments to make sure that, you know, if you see me at a restaurant or you see some legislator in the future drinking and driving or something and you video that person, hey, that is all open game. Go for it. Take a picture of me. You know, but we've drawn some lines here that there are certain things that you just can't put online about us anymore. And the Secretary of State does not have to plaster all of our property information for where we sleep all over the Internet and make it two clicks away for somebody that becomes interested in where to get that. That is the nuts and crux of this. Then we started looking at different gaps that we have in security for the General Assembly. And in working many, many, many hours with the Colorado State Patrol, we came up with basically a liaison position that was the same that we have across the street for the judicial branch, a law that I passed last year. That position has been working extremely well. They have singed the praises. Their relationship with the State Patrol is phenomenal. And the first part of this bill creates one of those as a member that will work specifically for the ledge council and the executive council of the General Assembly. This person will be able to be hired to work. They will be in and around both chambers. We expect them to be available to all the members of the General Assembly. And when you have security concerns and issues, that is to whom you will speak. That is the nature for how this will work. The executive committee will be able to set what their duties and responsibilities are, how they work with the sergeants, how they work with state patrol, how we, the members of the General Assembly, engage with them, etc., etc. we're delighted about getting to a place where we've gotten that figured out and we've gotten the duties of what that job will be now there's things that we're not putting in code because law is one thing and then kind of the job description is another but we're tending to both at the same time there were some questions about why we had the words maybe post-certified and if you look in 16.2.5 We have 21 different administrative or executive level positions in 16 2 which is where peace officers are that are languaged exactly the same way So we are not creating a police force for the Capitol We have one of those. It's called the Colorado State Patrol. What we are creating is a position that it is quite predictable and likely that someone who has served or is serving in law enforcement would want to apply. somebody that has the training and the expertise to deal with these matters. And if they are already a post-certified police officer, we don't want them to lose that certification serving in this capacity. And we also recognize that across the street in the judicial branch, when their officers go with the justices' places, they do provide a direct security function. So if that is a person that is a trained police officer and they're maintaining their training, etc., etc., etc., They will be able to maintain that here working in this position as well. So that is the position. The second thing that we deal with in this bill is the relationship to, oh, and their responsibility is going to start to be making sure that your home security is such that it's consistent across the board. I don't know what the rules and how they will make up how we deal with that or how the state will contract those things or whether you will do it or we will do it or we'll give you a list. I have no idea. I just know that we're receiving a grant, and we expect this person to ongoingly help members as they're elected and throughout their time serving in General Assemblies in the future to make sure that that's shored up adequately and in communication with State Patrol in a useful way. The next part of this bill is related to the publicly information sharing. You have seen a number of amendments to that. Where we are with that is just making sure that there are some guardrails and what can be shared online. That is the second portion of this bill. And then the third and largest portion of this bill is related to judicial security. So one of the things that we've learned after having an administrator of judicial security are related to several gaps that have been identified in how we protect courthouses and the judicial staff across the state. Now, there's a few things that are of serious concern, and I'm not going to talk about specifics on the microphone for security concerns that we have. So if you members want to talk to me specifically about the types of threats that we have in the judicial department or who is getting them, I am not giving anyone any ideas today. So I am not trying to be untransparent. I just want you to be crystal clear that there are, we just are not giving anybody the opportunity to create copycats. are going to tell you where our limitations or gaps may be as a security concern. You should just know that we've identified some, and our judicial security teams have recommended that we put together a task force that includes county sheriffs and includes the people that have direct nexus for protecting the judiciary, the same that we have been doing with the state patrol. We don't need a task force. We can just sit down and chat with them, so that they can outline and make sure that they have a cohesive plan for today's security needs and threats for now and into the future. The other piece that you see is related to moving what was the court security cash fund into an independent fund that is called a special purpose authority, of which will have a board that has things like the sheriffs that sit on it and certain members that sit to make sure that the rural courthouses and the courthouses that cannot afford specific security items that we have an ongoing way from court fees to be able to fund those things. We have not dealt with those fees in many, many, many years, and as a result of that fund, we have gotten down to the nooks and crux of what is left in it every year is just enough to pay some overtime in some counties, and that's basically all we've been able to use the fund for. We have not been able to do capital expenditures or long-term planning out of that fund for things that might need to be upgraded, like electronic equipment to detect weapons or things like that that might be needed in a courthouse. We are addressing those in this bill to make sure that the future of that can be managed and managed independently so that the judicial branch can plan for and manage that independent of even the General Assembly. The funds are set, and as a result of those funds being set, they will be able to budget specifically what is coming and how they can do things long term without having to really work with us significantly on things that are outside of what that task force is doing. So I'm certain there will be more conversation about this bill. I will now yield for some questions and comments.

Representative Clifford. I am CEO of the Custom Protection Division. A couple things about this. So I'm going to just talk specifically about that. We do not bid for, look for, try to get contracts for this type of thing, nor will I be participating in anything like that. Now, I do have a lot of years of expertise in this area. I will also say that since I've been a member of the General Assembly, everyone that's ever needed a security system at their home, with the exception of the whatever monitoring fee they have to pay directly to ADT corporate every year, I have made sure that they have gotten that at no charge. Sometimes there is a slight exception if somebody needs like 40 cameras at their house. But I have always, we call it the friends and family deal, if you will. I earn no money, have never and will never as a result of members that serve in the General Assembly.

Is there any further discussion on Amendment 1422? Representative. We are going to go into a brief recess. Thank you. The committee will come back to order. Is there any further discussion on House Bill 1422? Representative Luck.

Representative Clifford. Thank you. Members, I request a no vote on this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Colorado Lobby Association did want to see uniformity of treatment for everyone at the Capitol and new security measures for everyone. I've given them a hard time the last couple of days, but I do believe that they should be treated fairly. and if we're going to provide security for us, they should have equal opportunity to be secure in this building as well. So I rise in support of this amendment. Thank you.

Speaker McCluskey. Thank you, Mr. Chair. it is an honor to serve with you. And an honor to serve with you. Members, I am here in strong support of 1422. I want to extend my gratitude to our Colorado State Patrol officers who have so vigilantly served us in our roles as elected officials and certainly the legislative branch. Over the last year, we have seen a rise in political violence targeting elected officials across the United States. Every chamber in this country has grappled with the pain, the anxiety of what it means to be an elected official and not feel safe in your job. My dear friend, Melissa Hortman, was gunned down in her home because of the rise of political rhetoric, the way that we have now made politicians criminals. That has happened in the world of social media, in conversations that so flippantly and callously accuse elected officials of crimes they have not committed. They simply hold opinions. They simply work for the people who have hired them. This bill, 1422, will provide the legislative branch with security counsel and guidance through someone who has the expertise, the credentials the experience to be able to help us feel more safe not only in this building but at town halls community events coming to and from our homes helping our families better understand how we can take some simple maybe some more complicated steps to protect ourselves The Executive Committee has talked about the importance of this position. I certainly recognize the work of Representative Clifford and, again, CSP for their help in crafting something that is workable for the branch and pleased to see that we are expanding services to the judicial branch as well. I urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's an honor to serve with you. It's an honor to serve with you. Colleagues, I'm rising to explain why I'm in opposition to this bill. As the sponsor put forward, it initially was supposed to be one part. Instead, it's three, and it really should have come forward as three separate. It would have been easy to support the continuation and making it a little more robust on the judicial protection part of their facilities. But I'm really concerned about we're doubling the fee, the docket fee. We're constantly talking about trying to keep costs down, and the cost of civil litigation just keeps exploding, and we keep adding to it and adding to it. The second issue is I'm very disturbed and concerned about the insular nature that we are constantly doing in this body. This session we seem to be very concerned about ourselves more than our constituents. We brought forward bills to have special leave. We've killed bills and efforts to delay our pay increases. we had a bill that's going to raise health care premiums 0.1% across the board, but we exempted ourselves. We had the diaper-changing bill, which we exempted ourselves. The ACLU registered opposition against this bill, and I didn't even have to talk to them to know why. I'm being told that they have now changed their position. I have not been able to confirm that, but there are serious First Amendment issues in the bill. This focus and the comment that, oh, well, we all know when they cross the line, that's not true. Literally the first week I was down here, my aide flagged an email we got, immediately sent it to the Colorado State Patrol, sent it to me and said, oh, my God, look at this threat. I looked at it and I was like, you are embarrassing me if you think that's a threat. And I realized I may have a far higher tolerance for risk than many in the chamber, but that's the point. Things that a lot of other people take as a threat, others can see as just the normal friction of politics. and reacting to singular events in a fashion that may be overreaction is also not the way we should do legislation. So the horrible murder of a colleague to the North That is devastating. But there's 78,000 state legislators in the United States. The murder rate in the United States right now is 4 per 100,000. On just a random sample, you would expect three murders of legislators a year. Just on a random sample. And is the friction more because of social media and the like? yeah, but that's for all our constituents. So here we got a 63-page bill looking to protect ourselves, and I have just rattled my brain to think if we brought a 63-page bill to protect our constituents this session. So again, the insular nature that we are constantly buttressing here is concerning. If we want to harden the Capitol, we need to do that, but we need to do it in the sense we're protecting everyone in the Capitol, anyone that comes here, because anyone is under threat of an IED. Instead of constantly focusing on ourselves, I just really think that's poor leadership, and that's why I'm going to be a no on this bill. Thanks.

All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. The ayes have it. House Bill 1422 as amended is adopted.

Representative Zocchi.

To the Committee Report. Representative Zocchi.

Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the adoption of the Judiciary Committee report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those in favor say no. The ayes have it. The Judiciary Committee report is adopted. To the bill, Representative Zokai. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That's a proper motion. Give us a moment to get that displayed. That is displayed to the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. There was some language we had inadvertently left out of the bill, and we wanted to make sure that there was notice for certain contractual terms, and so we are adding that in now and ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L-10 and ask that it be displayed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. We're going to have a little chat about this amendment because it's with a heavy heart that I'm bringing it forward. A lot of the recommendations that you are going to see in House Bill 1426 come from the fact that the Attorney General's office is under-resourced and cannot take on the amount of consumer protection work that is required in order to have a state that is truly a check on corporate abuse. And we have heard this repeatedly in Judiciary Committee. We've heard it from JBC, but we just truly do not have additional funds to be able to well resource this office. Coloradans filed a record 26,993 complaints with the Attorney General's Consumer Protection Section last fiscal year. That's nearly three times the number filed when our current Attorney General first took office. In March 2026, the office described the growth as over 200%. Out of nearly 27 complaints the Consumer Protection Department has secured just 17 settlements Their own target was 40 And I know that they are hard at work to try to get that done but it is just not enough people for the amount of work that is out there When bad actors poison water, steal wages, manipulate consumers, violate privacy, or exploit working people, and we don't have resources to do anything about it, we have to start finding solutions. And we did find one. It was in this bill. It is one that is used by states across the country. Today, we are removing it with L10. So let's be honest about why we have to. It is because the very actors that are at risk of being held accountable would prefer a weaker Attorney General's office. And I just want to say I cannot wait to bring this back next year. Because when the Government refuses to use every tool available to hold powerful interests accountable. It is ordinary people that pay the price. It is families in our districts, consumers, small business owners, tenants. It's our communities that pay the price. What this provision is doing is removing the ability to have contingent fee representation and to have the Attorney General's Office contract for that work. It is honestly the only way that other states are able to have robust consumer protections. In Judiciary Committee, when we discussed this provision, the tobacco cases were brought up in committee as a reason to strip the section out as if it was a bad thing that we were able to hold tobacco companies accountable. Let's be clear, these companies have unlimited resources to hire armies of attorneys and drag cases out for years until accountability becomes impossible. We had a well-known attorney testify in committee about this. I won't name him, but he has a strong arm. And he talked about how these cases can take decades and how you have to have outside help for the Attorney General's Office to be able to take them on. The best way for us to do that as a state in our current fiscal climate is not paying an attorney hourly, but being able to have them absorb the risk and take on a percentage of the recovery should they succeed. The most important cases could cost millions of dollars to litigate. They require years of work, document review, expert testimony, and enormous risk. Without contingency fee agreements, those cases are not brought at all. And that is the status quo here in Colorado, and there are a lot of powerful people who want to keep it that way. So unfortunately, this amendment is before you today. I am going to ask for a yes vote, but you can expect to see me here next year with a bill.

Colleagues, my co-prime and I have spent about six months stakeholding this bill, and if you look through it, it is massive. There are numerous provisions that address efficiency, improvement in our Department of Law to make sure that the law is clear and can be complied with and enforced. Sometimes we don't have enough time to do stakeholding, and I appreciate my co-prime's passion on the subject of which you talked about, but I just want to clarify for everyone. We are asking for a yes vote. The current law in Colorado does allow for the Attorney General's office to contract out for additional support at a maximum rate of $1,000 an hour. which is a significant amount, which is far more than the legislature itself pays for private counsel. It's far more in line with what you would see in local market rate. So even though the ideas that my co have brought up are interesting ideas that probably deserve a broader discussion Simply we are not able to do it this year and we look forward to that discussion in future years And for that, we ask for a yes vote.

Merci, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank the sponsors for this amendment and rise in full support of this amendment. And with this amendment, I will be in full support of the bill as well. I do just want to clarify one thing. There can still be the contingency piece, but after the calculations, it can't exceed $1,000 per hour under current law, and the amendment takes it back to that. If you think about it, $1,000 per hour is a lot. It's a lot of money, especially when this is contract government work that is being designated out. we just want to make sure that there's some respect for really the taxpayers and that this isn't an area that's right for, I hate to say it, but corruption because it's really easy to channel this government business to someone who's going to hustle it, who's going to make an awful lot of money, really kind of at the expense of the public, which would otherwise be dollars that would come back to the Attorney General and would flow back into the state for whatever damages were done to the state. So that's why this amendment I'm in full support of and want to thank the sponsors once again.

Thank you. I also rise in support of this amendment and found it to be a critical issue that was discussed extensively in committee. The question of contingency fees and how they play out in our legal system is always an interesting one, and as you've heard, there's some philosophical issues of that. But having spent my life as a public attorney, having done the work in government, I think it's disingenuous to say that an attorney general's office, which can take a case up to the Supreme Court for around $400,000, is not capable of handling some of these cases, even if there's transition. This is the way we maximize our public dollars to the benefit of the larger issues that we legislate in this legislature. That is why we hire 667 attorneys in the Attorney General's office now. If there's an area of consumer protection that needs additional resources and services, one of the first obligations of us as a legislature is to do that cost-balancing analysis of adding to existing resources or ensuring that the existing resources are utilized more effectively for taxpayer dollars by developing the expertise in the department, should that be the first line of defense. So I'm not just saying that I'm discounting being able to go to the private market when there's lack of expertise in a certain area or lack of a sufficient number of attorneys to handle cases. But I do think the reason the tobacco litigation was brought up was as a result of the amount of money that was given to the attorneys versus back to the state in that settlement. That is why we put in the provisions putting the $1,000 cap on a limit. Now, as a member of the legal profession, I also want to be very clear to the public that that's a very high cap, and one of the things I made sure in the committee to say is that that can be adjusted down and should be adjusted down to meet the market rate of whatever area that the attorney is dealing in. But if we hire the largest law firms, that $1,000 an hour could, in fact, be the going rate. How many of us in the public, how many people, and again, spending my life as a public attorney, I never reached anywhere near $1,000 an hour, but I did good work on behalf of the public. So I think that's another critical issue that we did not have time fully exploring committee, but was another basis for me requesting that this would be done, that this amendment should be run, because I think the reason we put in the guardrails that were lacking in the bill as it was proposed to us was because we need to balance always the public dollars and the tax dollars that might come back to the taxpayers in a win of litigation against the risk that attorneys are taking by taking on the case by definition of a contingency. I do think those risks have to be balanced, but I think at the end of the day, there should also be guardrails that there was not time to develop and put into this bill. So I am supportive of this amendment and urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I oppose this amendment because in Colorado, our Consumer Protection Act is far too weak. We bring so many bills every single year. Most of our bills create a cause of action under the Consumer Protection Act in Colorado. Colorado's Consumer Protection Act is uniquely hard to enforce because of something called the public impact standard. In the late 90s, the Colorado Supreme Court followed the Washington Supreme Court and implemented a public impact standard for enforcement of Consumer Protection Act claims. What that means, in reality, is in order to bring a Consumer Protection Act claim, you have to demonstrate to the courts that a significant portion of the public has been impacted by the Consumer Protection Act violation that you are trying to bring. It means it is incredibly difficult to bring a case on behalf of one plaintiff. By the way, that Washington Supreme Court case, after Washington's court decided that, the Washington legislature said, hey, when we go out and tell our voters that we're creating a Consumer Protection Act remedy, we mean it. And we did not intend to have this public impact standard, and they repealed it. I also want to talk about the money that we're discussing here. The only reason why this limit that we're stripping from the law in the original bill exists is because we were so successful at holding the tobacco companies accountable that their lobbyists came and asked us to put a cap on this. In committee, the banks asked us to strip this out. And I asked, why? And they said, oh, well, we're really concerned on behalf of the public and the people of Colorado. And I was like, well, is that who pays you to be here? It's not. They're concerned that there will be a Consumer Protection Act violation so large that they will have to pay out more. This money only exists if there is a win on behalf of Colorado consumers. Contingency fee cases only pay out if the prevailing party proves that something wrong happened. And in this case, we're talking about the Attorney General's office contracting out with outside experts, which, by the way, is incredibly important depending on the experience level of whoever happens to be Attorney General. in committee we heard from a very experienced consumer protection attorney The strong arm himself came and talked about this case and he talked about how when you take on big consumer protection cases sometimes there's a 10-year runway where you're not getting paid anything at all. And to take on that risk, these contingency fee models have helped us and it works in other states and by the way another thing that happened because the tobacco cases were so successful i mean seriously we talked about this in terms of the tobacco cases we're talking about defending a legacy of the tobacco cases being so successful on the behalf of consumers Another part of that legacy is, even if we strip this, judges have to take a second look on settlements. Because the tobacco companies were so unsuccessful in their litigation. That is why this exists. This exists because the ability to contract on contingency fees was so successful for Colorado consumers that the tobacco companies were able to lobby to put a cap on it. This is not taxpayer money. This is contingency fee money that only gets incurred if somebody wins. That means they've demonstrated that a harm has happened to the people of Colorado. This is basically the only good thing that was in this bill, and I am a no on this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is an honor and a privilege to serve with you. It's an honor and a privilege to serve with you, sir. Very quickly, members, I am also a no on this amendment and I would urge your no vote. So to just add briefly to what my colleague said, a couple of things about the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. It is exceptionally difficult to prevail on a claim under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. We have a public interest requirement. This was judge-made law. I repeat, the public impact requirement is judge-made law. And that not only offends me as a litigator, it offends me deeply as a legislator. This body is tasked with deliberating bills and formulating public policy known as the law. We pass statutes. It is the court's job to interpret those statutes. What the courts have done to the Colorado Consumer Protection Act going back to the 90s is basically rewrite it. In a decision, as Representative Mabry explained, they literally said, you know what, Washington State is a real leader on consumer protection issues, and they require a public impact. Never mind the fact that Washington courts had explained that a public impact requirement could be met at more than two people. our courts never went back re-looked at the law ignored what this body did when it passed the plain language of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act and rewrote the provision to input a public impact requirement and after Washington State took the pains to get rid of their public impact requirement our Colorado Supreme Court never bothered to keep tabs on what Washington State was doing And so we have an unwritten rule that you have to know case law in order to even know it exists that says in order to prevail on a Colorado Consumer Protection Act claim, you need to show public impact. And it's not one or two people. It is actually known as a significant public impact. You have to show that not only you were defrauded, but a lot of people just like you were defrauded in the same way. Another reason I'm against this amendment is because of something called mandatory arbitration. When you get those terms and conditions, when you download software off the Internet, when you use your bank account, when you sign up for a cell phone contract, buried in that fine print is an arbitration clause. It says that you are not only not allowed to sue the company in court and vindicate your rights, you are not allowed to bring any case in a representative or class action capacity. You have to go to individual arbitration. And before you say, well, what's the big deal about that? I know this side of the aisle loves the Constitution. I know you all sleep with copies under your pillow. You love the Bill of Rights. You absolutely do. I know it. And you love not only the First Amendment, and you adore the Second Amendment. I know you secretly, you secretly favor more than any other the Seventh Amendment. Yeah, see, they're all nodding because they know the Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to trial by jury in civil cases with more than, what is it, like $200? Right? But Congress thought they knew better than the founding fathers, thought they knew better than James Madison and the other drafters of the Bill of Rights, and they said, no, we got this thing called the Federal Arbitration Act. They passed that, and the courts have interpreted it. There's actually a hilarious 11th Circuit decision that says, okay, so maybe the Federal Arbitration Act conflicts with the Seventh Amendment, but we're going to find that where a federal statute conflicts with the Constitution, the statute prevails. And you read it and you go, what? Seriously? It's a special decision just when it comes to shortchanging consumers. Now, what this means is when a class action attorney is trying to vindicate consumer rights, they have to go out and they have to show that there's a public impact, right? But those are generally going to be against companies that have inserted these arbitration class action waivers buried deep into their contracts. And so what that means is that individual consumers cannot be class representatives. They cannot sue to vindicate rights. That is why so many companies get away with essentially what amounts to theft from the average person by junk fees, hidden surprise billing, oppressive terms and conditions. All of those are made possible because the companies can hide behind individual arbitration. You know who's not bound by individual arbitration? It's an amazing thing. State attorney generals. State Attorney Generals has standing to enforce consumer protection laws and are not bound by contractual, mandatory, individual, no-class arbitrations. And for that reason plaintiff lawyers have approached state AGs and they said Hey do you know how many millions of your constituents are being screwed over by Meta and other tech companies Do you know how many of your constituents are having their privacy rights violated And the AGs say, you know what? Our state budgets are set by the legislature. We don't have the bandwidth to police everything. We would like to hire you. And that happens in about 49 other states. It does not happen in Colorado. this bill would have made that possible. Yes, it would have, Representative. Yes, it would have. Shake your head in disbelief. Yes, it would have. But now what we're doing is we're taking that piece out of the bill. We're caving. And I'm a no vote on the bill now, or at least I'm considering it, if we take out this language via this amendment. This really strips the heart of the bill away. And I understand that we can make concessions, but at a certain point, we've gone too far. Because consumers have rights. Those rights should be enforced by AGs. When the AG doesn't have bandwidth, he should be able to hire outside counsel on a contingent basis. There is nothing that makes an attorney fight harder in a more economic and efficient way than putting them on contingency. any second you spend that is wasted is a loss to you as the attorney. So I'm a no on the amendment, and I'm now undecided on the bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't think I can add more than what my colleagues from Denver just shared about the importance of the provision that is now being stripped out of the bill with this amendment. I know that the amendment sponsor does not want to have to bring this amendment. I can appreciate that. But I just feel deeply challenged to vote for this bill should this amendment get on. This is one more example of special interest winning the day over consumers in this state, and I have had enough. I am tired of it. This was the best part of the bill. and without it, I feel challenged to vote for it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am thrilled, thrilled to learn that my colleague from Denver agrees with the conservative interpretation that the courts exist to say what the law is, not what it should be. that he does not embrace the whole living tree doctrine, but instead takes an originalist approach. That is so delightful for me to learn today. I agree. The court should not be making law and should not be rewriting the laws that are made here. I hope to find an equal amount of support when we talk about the executive branch and them making law because they do that quite a bit. In fact, we had a committee hearing earlier this year on one of the committees I sit on to look at a law that they, or a rule that they made that was in contravention to a law we made. Didn't seem to matter to that committee, but in any case, I hope that that standard that was set, that the legislature makes the laws can be applied, moving forward to all of the laws we make, and that we can stop delegating our authority to the executive to do our job.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Not an attorney. I think it's a good amendment. It kind of keeps things that we've heard throughout the last couple of years in the business affairs and Labor Committee kind of truthful, I think, because there has been bill after bill after bill that attacks a problem by making it a deceptive business practice, followed by no fiscal note because the AG already does consumer protections and it's not going to cost them any more to do it. It's not going to take any additional resources. So it was a little disturbing to hear earlier that somehow they're not able to do this without extra money to spend on a lot of extra people. So I think it's a good amendment. It keeps the AG and those that have brought bills saying that consumer protection is already handled by the A.J. with no extra resources, something that we can all believe in. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I decided to pile on, since we're all down here, and record my opposition, too, to this amendment. I actually brought and asked for a late bill request for an additional bill, not for the consumer protection issues, but to contract with a very strong white-collar litigation firm with forensic accounting experience to go after all the hick-puff errors that we have on a contingency basis, and they would claw back a ton of money for the state. I don't know why it was a problem not to get that bill. I would hope everybody on both sides of the aisle would salivate at that idea. But I saw this and said, oh, well, I guess we're taking care of the problem, because if it's here in this bill already, the AG will be able to go ahead and contract with a contingency fee lawyer to go after all the HickPuff money that has gone flowing out our door and claw it back for us, because they would have a huge self-interest to get that money back. But we don't have that option now. And it's an option we should have. And again, when some of our colleagues go back to the tobacco cases, those were seminal cases. The first firms that went after the tobacco industry went bankrupt. And they were $30, $40 million asset firms, and they spent every penny going after them and couldn't do it. And everyone was very upset at the tobacco litigation plaintiff's attorneys that wound up with billions of dollars in contingency fees. but they recovered tens of billions of dollars for the states. So again, we all hate lawyers, but there is a good reason for them, and I would see this as an effort to claw back all the errors and fraud that have caused us so much problems in our state if it's left in there. To me, I wasn't reading it for consumer protection issues. I was reading it as something that could help the state claw back the money that has been basically taken and stolen and misused. So I'm opposed to this. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in support of this amendment. I just want to acknowledge my colleague from Denver. This was a particularly hard amendment for him to carry, and I know he has his reasons, and I know his heart is in the right place. I think all of us in this room want to help consumers. I think all of us understand well I not an attorney myself but I think the attorneys in this room I think can speak for themselves whatever they whether they for or against this amendment but I think that at the end of the day our job as legislators is to do the right thing despite us having to make some hard decisions And so the complexity of the legal nature that we're trying to address in this bill, however, you know, meticulous it may be. Again, I just want to commend the sponsor from Denver who had to run this amendment. I know it was difficult for him, but I think ultimately it's the right thing to do. And I encourage everybody to vote for this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, members. House Bill 1426 is some cleanup measures for the Department of Law and Judiciary Committee. We hear from the Attorney General's Department in our Smart Act hearing. and they provided us with a report this year of recommendations as they are looking back on the last seven and a half or so years about things we need to modernize our statutes for their work. The responsibilities of the Department of Law have expanded significantly and resources have simply not kept pace. They have to have oversight in data privacy, consumer protection, fraud prevention, oversight of government actors, and while we do not give them more resources to do that work, what we can do is ensure our statutes are clear and actually workable in practice. This is a good governance bill that improves transparency and is in line with best practices. I will highlight a few of the sections that are in it just for the legislative record and then turn it over to my co-partum to go over the rest. I will just start by saying what is not in this bill is one of the recommendations around allowing district attorneys to have authority to enforce the Consumer Protection Act. I think we just talked about why it is so important that we have more help to do that. We've lost the ability in L-10 to have private attorneys do it, and the district attorneys did not want to help out with that, so they are not in this bill either. So recommendation five, if you have the report that is online, is not included in this bill. But what is in this bill is improved interagency coordination between the Department of Law and other state agencies. We have multiple agencies that share responsibility, but they often operate in silos, and so this is to allow them to share resources in order to have better enforcement. There are consumer protections around unregulated activity. This is related to bad actors who operate without required licenses or qualifications, and they sometimes fall outside of clear enforcement authority that leaves consumers unprotected. So we are correcting that situation by making it an unfair deceptive trade practice in a profession or occupation to operate without meeting legal requirements. There are requirements around rules being regularly reviewed. That is in Section 96 of the bill. As you know, a lot of times we give rulemaking authority in our legislation to the Attorney General's Office, and we wanted to add some structure around those rules being reviewed. and also giving individuals the ability to submit petitions to request rulemaking and authorizing the department to issue opinion letters around those rules. There is clarifications around civil investigation demands for pattern and practice investigations. This is related to, in 2020, this body enacted Senate Bill 217, which is a Law Enforcement Integrity Act to improve policing practices. The department has conducted several investigations but they need some changes to better carry out their work So what we have in Section 97 is clarifications around subpoena authority and aligning that authority with the subpoena framework under the CCPA Okay, moving forward. Section 96, everyone 8 was removed. We have in sections 88 and 89, strengthening disclosure requirements for developer contract cancellation causes. This is around real estate purchase contracts that often contain complex provisions that can significantly affect a buyer's rights and expectations. Among the most consequential of those are causes that allow a developer to cancel a contract unilaterally, and it also includes provisions that can allow cancellation for any reason. And so what we have in these sections, especially after we adopted our amendment, is saying that those terms have to be clearly disclosed and that people should know that they have the right to seek legal counsel. Then the meat of this bill, as in most of the text of the bill, is around non-substantive and technical updates to improve statutory clarity and administration within the organic statutes. These are updates to language to conform with modern drafting recommendations, things like reordering subsections and gender-neutral language. There are some changes around procurement. The most substantial of that we just removed, so I will just move on. but there are the ability for the Attorney General to contract with who they would wish without having to go through some onerous procurement procedures. Okay, with that, I'm going to turn it over to my co-prime.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for my co-prime sponsor in explaining about half the bill.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of House Bill 1426. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. House Bill 1426 passes. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of House Bill 1063.

Rep. Ryden.

To the Appropriations Report, Rep. Ryden.

Is there Rep. Bradfield? Rep. Bradfield? Okay, thank you.

Rep. Ryden. Thanks, Madam Chair. We ask for a yes vote on the Appropriations Committee report.

Rep. Ryden. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, we just want to make it a little bit easier for crisis workers, EMS, law enforcement, to have a list of places they can go to get people who are really our most vulnerable, who are experiencing a behavioral health crisis. We want to be able to get them transported to the appropriate place for treatment and maybe having a list that's centralized instead of sort of fragmented across different counties, depending on the contracts we have, I think is a step forward in that direction. So we ask for a yes vote on the bill.

Rep. Bradley. I, too, ask for a yes vote on this bill. Thank you.

Rep. Briden. Thank you, Madam Chair. I sent out an email last night, Representative, and of the three people who responded, nobody was in opposition. So I don't know. I know CDPHE, BHA, HICPF are fine with it. One of the EMS providers is okay with it. A couple of the counties are, but I have not gotten clarity. There's zero fiscal note now. There's really minimal impact to those other agencies.

House Bill 1325 by Representatives Caldwell and Foray, also Senator Ball, concerning natural medicine.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1325 and the HHS and Appropriation Committee reports.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So members in appropriations, so one of the issues with why we had to address this in appropriations is we originally had a $250,000 fiscal note, which was going to go towards employment in the behavioral health administration in order to implement this pilot research program. and because of the tight restraints here in the state of Colorado, we were unable to get that that we negotiated down to from So in appropriations we brought forward an amendment to open up for gifts grants and donations Now, the important thing to keep in mind here is two weeks ago on April 18th, President Trump signed an executive order and allocated $50 million for states that are doing this exact thing. Now, when I had started on this journey back in December, I did not realize that was going to be a thing, but it is, and it was really great timing. So that will certainly be something that we will be pursuing to cover that. The amendment talked about we have until, I believe it was January 1st, 2028, I'm sorry if I'm misstating that, to secure that first $150,000, and then we will continue securing the money. Texas a year ago passed a very similar piece of legislation where they put $50 million of their own state funding into it and opened it up for gifts, grants, and donations, and they've received $50 million in philanthropic money to go into this research as well. So we are very confident. We are still working on a letter of intent going forward in order to make sure that we secure that $150,000.

report minority leader Caldwell thank you madam chair members so in committee we brought some a few different amendments here just to kind of clean up and address some issues that that DOR and HHS had, mostly majority technical amendments, clarifying some definitions, clarifying what semi-synthetic ibogaine meant. There were some liability issues that we clarified as well, and so I ask for your support on the HHS committee report.

To the bill, M.L. Caldwell. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L007 to House Bill 1325 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Minority Leader Caldwell. Thank you, Madam Chair. I withdraw the L-007.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So, members, we have a worsening, not just in the state of Colorado, but across the nation, mental health crisis, in particular PTSD, with our veteran community. We also have a serious substance abuse crisis in this country and in the state in particular. Now, this is something that as a veteran myself, working with a lot of colleagues who have served overseas and other capacities that I've seen firsthand. I've also dealt with the opioid abuse and crisis in my own family and with a lot of friends throughout my lifetime. And so when I look at how do we address these issues I very much I always been a believer of an all of the above approach Now certain things work for certain people right Church a lot of times works for a lot of people which is the first thing I always encourage as a Christian myself Counseling can work as well for others. Sometimes pharmaceuticals work for people. There's a number of different approaches on how to address issues like PTSD that people are dealing with. And I've always been a big believer that if there is something that looks promising, we should explore it and look into it in a responsible and scientific-based way. And that is what brought me to this bill idea back in December of last year. And so it's Ibogaine. And I'll be honest with you, when I first heard about Ibogaine, I said, I think I've heard that word before. And I think I've heard that name, but I was actually fairly unfamiliar with it. And then throughout my research, I realized that, no, this is actually something that is very promising. I actually have a friend. He's an elected county commissioner down in Pueblo who had talked about some experiences with this himself and based on his service. So first off, I'll start with explaining what Ibogaine is. So ibogaine is a naturally occurring psychoactive alkaloid derived from the root bark of the Tabernath iboga plant, traditionally used in Central African healing practices. Modern research shows that a single medically supervised high dose can interrupt opioid dependence and dramatically reduce relapse risk. Clinical studies report an 80 to 97 percent success rate in preventing relapse with withdrawal symptoms eliminated in just 24 to 72 hours compared to weeks or months of traditional rehab. And if you watch the press conference from President Trump from the Oval Office when he signed this executive order, he talked about that 80 percent success rate with one treatment and oftentimes a 90 percent success rate with a second treatment. So it's also shown to improve PTSD, depression, and anxiety by helping repair damaged neural pathways and giving patients new perspectives on their trauma. And it supports neurological recovery, most notably a 2024 Stanford study published in Nature Medicine found significant improvements in functioning, PTSD, depression, and anxiety among veterans with traumatic brain injury after Ibogaine therapy. So what does 1325 actually do? So it establishes the Ibogaine Research Pilot Program inside the Behavioral Health Administration. It authorizes up to five pilot sites across the state to conduct rigorous institutional review board approved research under full medical oversight, including pre-screening, continuous monitoring, and adverse event reporting. It requires the BHA to form a review committee to select sites based on scientific merit, safety protocols, and community benefit. It directs the BHA and pilot sites to pursue federal authorization, which, by the way, the executive order a couple weeks ago is going to make that a much more easier and expedited path, including FDA, IND applications, and potential federal research program status under 21 U.S.C. 872. It creates a dedicated cash fund and grant program so the state can accept public and private gifts, grants, and donations, ensuring the research is not solely reliant on general fund dollars. No. It mandates a benefit-sharing plan with indigenous communities that have stewarded the iboga plant for centuries. It brings expertise from the Natural Medicine Advisory Board into future rulemaking and adds targeted safety guardrails for when and if ibogaine care is ever expanded beyond the pilot And members if you weren sitting in committee on this what you heard in committee was a lot of veterans groups, which I'm also happy to say that DAV, Disabled American Veterans, has come out fully in support of this recently after the committee had happened. We had some conversations. We were unable to have the conversations before the committee, but they've come out in full support of it. I'm hearing that national veterans organizations that really focus on PTSD treatment are very much paying attention to what we're what we do here and are likely going to be publicly in support of it. And we heard from veterans, we heard from Olympic athletes, we heard from people with opioid addictions talk about their experiences with this. And because the current federal law is established the way it is, what's happening right now, especially in the veteran community, especially in the Navy SEAL veteran community. Veterans are having to go down to Mexico to get this treatment. And we're seeing states like Texas, who's really kind of taken the lead on this, thanks to their former governor there. They've taken the lead on this. And we want our veterans to be able to get treated here. We don't want them to have to travel internationally to get this kind of treatment. It looks very promising. We want to put these guardrails in because if you look into the actual usage of it or the implementation or how the treatment is used and the experiences from the user from that, it's intensive. It's extremely intensive. And we want to put those guardrails in to make sure that we have medical professionals there that can do the EKG ahead of time, check their blood pressure, test their blood. We want to make sure that they are good to experience this treatment So it's important to do this research here. And then we're also, part of the amendment in HHS is that we're going to share what results that we're seeing here in Colorado with other states who are also doing this too. And see if we're having similar results and outcomes. And I think what you're going to see here in the next couple of years is I think you're going to see the federal government moving more towards taking this away from Schedule 1 and actually kind of making this a part of treatment and make it commonplace for veterans and people with substance abuse disorders. And so this is something that has been just extremely important to me. Again, when I started down this journey, I was very unfamiliar with it. And the more research I've done, the more I'm just like, man, this is something that the veteran community especially is asking for. And so I appreciate all the support over the last few months on this, and I certainly urge an aye vote on it. Thank you.

Senate Bill 172 by Senators Synergson and Kipp also representatives based in Ekron Paschal concerning the Front Range Passenger Rail District

To the Committee Report

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none the question before us is the passage of the committee report All those in favor say aye Those opposed no The ayes have it. The transportation committee report passes Aye

Speaker pro tem Basenecker Thank you, Madam Chair. It's an honor to serve with you. And an honor to serve with you. The bill is relatively straightforward and a pretty narrowly tailored cleanup, I think, to what we passed in 2021 when the Front Range Passenger Rail District was first created and adopted by this body. This is really just another iterative step in the process. The district is completing technical planning and precinct level analysis to determine whether to pursue a 2026 ballot measure. The purpose of this bill is to make narrowly tailored statutory updates, including boundary accuracy, election flexibility, and administrative clarity, so the Front Range Passenger Rail District has the correct legal framework in place for any future ballot decision. And so really just a next iterative step in the process on a project that I think is very exciting for folks all across our state, and we'd appreciate your support.

Speaker Pro Tem. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to the assistant minority leader and his communities for reaching out. I think it really highlights the opportunity that we have here. And let me just say on the record that I would be happy to connect with folks in your communities as well to make sure that we're aligning in terms of priorities, and it sounds like a wonderful excuse to visit your part of the state. And so I really appreciate you doing that hard work on behalf of your communities and happy to continue the conversation.

This just looks like more subsidies. We had referendum C. That retained around $41 billion. Only about one-tenth of one percent went to transportation. More hidden taxes. But we're going to make it a district. We're going to say, here's a new district. You get to vote on it. You get a train. But are we going to be up front with the citizens of Colorado and we're going to tell them how much this costs and how much they've spent already and how little they've gotten out of it? Are we going to tell them that? It doesn't solve Colorado's transportation problems. It institutionalizes them. We spend hundreds of millions of dollars per year solving nothing for the citizens of Colorado. I mean, from yesterday, it was probably about half a billion dollars yesterday, about closer to three-quarters of a billion dollars per year on the green initiatives. That could go into the trains. Instead, we're going to form a district, and we're going to ask them for more money. This is not expanding. This model is not progress. The citizens have already rejected it. but you could, if you really had to, take the money from some other program. One of the other governor's other programs, the Green Initiatives, the purpose for taxing the citizens of Colorado for no good reason, expands rail governance model that's already failed. Nearly 98% of Coloradans commute by car. Talked about that. That's a very small percentage of people compared to the billions of dollars that are spent on these projects. Are we doing a cost-benefit analysis of these or just saying, hey, wouldn't it be great to have a train? RTD spends over $6 billion on rail. Usage has gone from 4.7% to 4.8%. ridership is down 30 overall costs are up 184 Fares cover about 5 of operating expenses And taxpayers cover roughly for every dollar that contributed in fares So maybe what we should do is take that individual, that bureaucrat that's pulling in half a million dollars per year for a failed program and make a program that people actually want to use again. and start there. Colorado ranks 43rd in the nation in road condition, and drivers lose 36 hours per year in road congestion. Maybe we should start there. One thing I notice is that the citizens of Denver do not buy into the governor's RTD program, And I notice also that the legislators in this building don't buy into the governor's trained program, RTD program. Because I notice all the legislators that vote for everybody else to ride the bus drive their car. Now, but they make the laws that are pushing everybody towards not wanting to ride the bus, but having to ride the bus or having to ride the train. so maybe you could take a free we could take a free market approach and instead of having to deceive the citizens and just get them all hyped up on this train nugget that we've already spent five billion dollars on somewhat that was that was uh started in the early 2000s that five billion dollars that went nowhere following following california's train to nowhere fast tracks to nowhere. So I think we ought to be honest with the citizens of Colorado about the vast amounts of money that they spend on the governor's reason to drive and make sure that they understand and then actually get somebody who's competent that can make a system that people actually want to ride and then from that actually expand into something that people actually want to use instead of just looking for ways, more districts, to tax the citizens more, to give them something that they've clearly rejected. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of Senate Bill 172. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 172 passes.

Rep. Lindsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In committee, we had an amendment on this bill that was pretty substantial because there was a lot of concerns about local municipalities and counties having to do a lot of extra work in this area and we removed that portion because we all know that our municipalities and counties don't need any extra work right now so I ask for an aye vote. Is there any further discussion?

Thank you, Madam Chair. In Colorado, employers are already legally required to carry workers' compensation insurance for their workers. We have found that in the construction industry, While there are many good contractors who abide by the law, there are also those who break the law in order to get an unfair advantage when bidding on contracts. So there are bad actors out there looking for any way to cut labor costs to save some money, and we need to be watching out for these folks, and this is what this policy addresses. While it is already unlawful to not cover workers with workers' compensation insurance, this unlawful behavior is often not caught until someone gets hurt on the job. Construction is a dangerous industry, and we want to ensure that workers are properly insured.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1424 until after Senate Bill 175. So moved.

Senate Bill 175 by Senators Snyder and Catlin, also Representatives Morrow and Richardson, concerning the adjustment of an employer's experience modification factor and workers' compensation.

Mr. Representative Richardson.

There was none.

All righty.

Representative Morrow. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to my co-prime who did a great job of explaining the bill. I think this is a very straightforward bill. It makes sense. It can save small businesses money. It can make sure that they can remain in the bidding process. And I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1424 till tomorrow.

Mr. Schiebold, please read the title to Senate Bill 131.

Senate Bill 131 by Senators Ball and Pelton B, also Representatives Woodrow and Wook concerning protections against abusive practices and sports betting

Thank you Madam Chair, it is awesome and bodacious and super rad to serve with you

I move Senate Bill 131, the Finance Committee Report, and the Appropriations Committee Report.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So in the finance committee members, we ran an amendment to actually strike the ledge deck. We are not trying to be, well, I'll just say this. It could be interpreted, the language used in the ledge deck as drafted. could be seen as a little imbalanced or even antagonistic to the industry. That is not the goal of the legislation. We are trying to respect all stakeholders and sides as we seek to fix the problems identified in this bill. And striking the ledge deck, we think, gets us closer to that goal. We ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues, in 2019, Coloradans voted to regulate online sports betting in order to increase revenue dedicated to Colorado's water plan and a contribution toward problem gambling services. Because Colorado was one of the first states in the country to legalize sports gaming, it wasn't clear what online sports betting would actually look like once the apps were just a click away on the phones of millions of Coloradans and their children. As the industry began to develop under a regulated system, we as policymakers began to fully understand what online sports betting looked like for real Coloradans For some of our constituents these companies offer free bets through push notifications They advertise prolifically on television and on the internet and they allow people to use credit cards to wager in seconds Somewhat predictably, calls to Colorado's problem gambling helpline rose by roughly 45% in the first year after legalization alone. Nearly three in four Coloradans now say legalized sports betting has made problem gambling worse, and research finds that roughly one in six sports bettors is at risk of developing a gambling disorder. Behind those numbers are real people. Parents who've watched a college fund disappear, spouses who've discovered family savings have evaporated, and there are people in recovery from problem gambling who battle persistent stigma every day. And they will tell you that the design of these apps is engineered to defeat the willpower of someone trying to stop. We've heard from clinicians, faith leaders, financial counselors, and youth-serving organizations across the state. They are not asking us to ban this industry. They are telling us urgently that guardrails are needed. I signed on to carry SB 26131 because of my own family's struggle with this very issue. As I shared in committee, I was raised by a gambling addict, and I've witnessed firsthand its devastating impacts and the stress it puts on families. This is the most comprehensive package of sports betting consumer protection introduced in any state since federal law changed in 2018. Colorado has led on public policy in the past, and we have an opportunity to lead again. We ask for your yes vote. Representative Woog. Thank you, Madam Chair,

Thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues, before we go, I just want to thank my good co-prime sponsor for getting on this bill with me. This truly is a bipartisan issue. We can have sports gambling and gaming in Colorado. We just have to do it in a sensible way. Thank you so much for your work on this. Thank you to our Senate primes as well. We ask for an aye vote.

Mr Schiebold please read the title to Senate Bill 165 Senate Bill 165 by Senators Roberts and Pelton are also representatives of McCormick and Soper concerning measures to support species conservation in connection there with authorizing an appropriation from the Species Conservation Trust Fund.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 165.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This bill is a bill that comes forth every year. It's been in front of the General Assembly since 1998, and it appropriates $5 million to the Department of Natural Resources, from the Department of Natural Resources, for conservation, research, and study efforts on threatened and endangered species in our state. the projects that get this money are approved through a process through cpw as well as the colorado water conservation board so they go through a whole process on how they decide the the most important or the projects that kind of rise to the top every year for instance this year on CPW's side, the bill will appropriate $1.25 million for the native terrestrial wildlife conservation to a variety of things. For instance, it will conduct research on bird interactions with utility-scale solar energy. It will do research and field support for improved plague management. It will develop a statewide pollinator monitoring program and develop off-site conservation strategy strategy for Colorado's rare plants and determine if prey abundance is limiting the Canada links in our state. It will also appropriate that same amount of money for native aquatic wildlife conservation to estimate occupancy and persistence of wood frogs in Colorado, assess the ecological impact of urban runoff pollutants on our wetland habitats and native aquatic species, and just a variety of other things that you'll see in the bill. And happy to be on this bill. I think every year since I've been here, really important bill that we are charged with appropriating this money to these projects. Happy to be on it with my co-prime from Delta and I'll let him explain the other part of the bill and then we'll have an amendment coming. Representative Soper. Thank you, Madam Chair. It's an honor to join

The amendment is properly displayed. Please proceed.

Any further discussion on L4? Seeing none, the question before says the adoption of L4. All in favor of L4, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. The ayes have it. L4 is adopted. To the bill.

Any further discussion on Senate Bill 165? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 165 as amended. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 165 is adopted.

M.L. Winter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to move Senate Bill 26-157 in the Appropriations Committee report. To the committee report. Basically, in the committee report, all we did was we talked about the $100,000 that's going to happen.

Motion has been withdrawn, and to the bill.

But my good colleague from the Valley, he decided to join on to this bill with me to work on it because we're starting to see this a lot in our small communities in rural Colorado. The town is called Hartman. It's about 10 miles from the Kansas border in southeastern Colorado. This town has had a turbulent history. There is some serious bad blood between two factions within the town. There have been a series of recalls, resignations, and allegations of misconduct over the last five to ten years. The mayor and mayor pro temp resigned last year, and then in January there was a physical altercation during a public meeting that sent a trustee to the hospital. Several days later, the remaining town trustees resigned, leaving the town with no elected officials and no staff. State law does not allow for the county or the secretary of state to conduct an election on their behalf. To make things worse, the town has a failing water system that is going to be shut off in a month or two. The town has no water operator. Myself and Senator Palton, Rod Palton, have been working with the town, Prowers County, and the Colorado Municipal League, the Department of Local Affairs, the State Health Department, and the Governor's Office for several months now on a solution. The bill before you represents the best chance this community has for continued water service. It allows for expedited abandonment of the town, which normally cannot happen for five years, in cases where there is critical water infrastructure If we can get a finding of abandonment for the town then the county can transfer the failing water system to a new water authority It also allows the state to temporarily stabilize the system add chlorine, and do required testing during the abandonment process in order to keep the system up and running. We met with the citizens of Hartman, and the majority of the residents support this approach. And during committee, I handed out a petition signed by 21 residents, and the town only has about 30 to 35 citizens. We had folks come and testify in support of the bill, and I would like to turn it over to my co-prime.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It is rad to serve with you. It's pretty rad to serve with you, too.

This is just a reality of what we're facing in rural Colorado right now, and this just clears an easier path. This gives people more options when they're in this unfortunate situation. We think it's a good bill. Vote yes.

Mr. Schiebold, please read the title to Senate Bill 154. Senate Bill 154 by Senator Simpson and Mullica, also representatives McCluskey and Caldwell, concerning a modification to appointments to the Colorado Channel Authority Board and in connection there with reducing inappropriation.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 154.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, this may be the most important piece of legislation this entire session here. So the Colorado Channel Authority Board that was established in 2009, was created as oversight for the Colorado Channel. It was established with nine members, four of them being required to be legislators. And in order to have a quorum, you have to have five. And part of the problem is when this board meets, when we're not in session, we're not all here. Or even if we're in session, it's hard for them to get a quorum when a lot of times the four legislators are unable to make it. You know, the Speaker appoints one, the minority leader in both chambers, and the President of the Senate appoint. It's hard to get those four legislators there all at the same time. And then if you lose one more of the remaining five, essentially you don't have a quorum. And so this bill actually saves the state money because what it does is it allows the people who appoint, the speaker, myself, my colleague, Senate Minority Leader, and the President of the Senate to appoint non-legislators to the board. We can still appoint a legislator if a legislator really wants to be on the board, but it gives us that flexibility and efficiency to appoint someone not on the board. And so the reason that will actually save the state money is because the legislators are entitled to per diem and travel expenses and things like that if they have to come in during the interim to serve on the board.

House Bill 1286 by Representatives Leader and Richardson also Senators Kolker enlisted concerning requirement that a commercial motor vehicle have a human present when the commercial motor vehicle is being driven by an automated driving machine

Thank you, Madam Chair. We did amend this in approves and transportation, but I'll move the Transportation Committee

appropriations committee report first. All righty. I move the appropriations report to 1286. To the appropriations report. All righty. This morning was relatively quick. We made a few changes in appropriations, the largest one being that this bill will no longer go to the ballot.

To the bill, Representative Richardson.

We are both here and we tolerate each other and I think that's fine. There we go. Good bill vote.

All righty. So some of you may have remembered this bill from last year. With the amendments, it is essentially the bill that we passed overwhelmingly last year. This is not intended to be the final answer to autonomous vehicle policy in Colorado. It is a protective measure aimed at a very real gap in current law until the state can develop a more complete framework with the input of appropriate state agencies, industry, labor, and the public. Colorado's foundational AV law was Senate Bill 17213, and it took a really light approach, and nothing has changed since. It allowed automated driving. If the trucks could comply with applicable law, and if they couldn't, then testing was routed through a safe harbor process run by CSP and CDOT. that law was useful in opening the door to innovation, but it didn't establish any regulatory structure for testing and deployment of autonomous commercial trucks in Colorado And that gap really matters Today Colorado review mechanism is largely non CDOT own materials describe the Autonomous Mobility Task Force as an informal, non-policy-making body that manages the safe harbor application process. That means we have an application pathway, but not a comprehensive roadmap to move forward to ensure that the needs of the traveling public, our safety, and our truckers are taken care of. So this is really just a pause and protect bill. It doesn't ban automation. It doesn't reject innovation. It doesn't stop advanced driver assistance or prevent Colorado from participating in the future of the freight movement. What it says that is until we have a fuller and more credible structure in place, an automated commercial vehicle operating on our highways should still have a qualified human being in the vehicle to monitor performance and intervene if necessary. So I will pass it to my co-prom.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the report of the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Speaker Pro Tem, your Committee of the Whole begs leave to report is under consideration of the following attached bills, being the second reading thereof, and makes the following recommendations are on. House Bill 1063 is amended, 1286 is amended, 1325 is amended, 1416 is amended, 1422 is amended, 1426 is amended, 1429 is amended, 1431 is amended, and 1433 passed on second reading. Order engrossed and placed on the calendar for third and final passage. Senate Bill 93 is amended, 131 is amended, 154, 157, 165 is amended, 172 is amended, 175 passed on second reading. Order revised and placed on the calendar for third and final passage in House Bill 1424, laid over until tomorrow.

Representative Garcia. Mr. Speaker, I'm the board of the committee.

read the Clifford Amendment. The first Clifford Amendment.

Representative

If you could just move it to the report of the Committee of the Whole.

we don't need that language, so can we take it out?

There's no further discussion. The question before the House is the adoption of the Clifford Amendment, the first Clifford Amendment. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine. Members, please proceed to vote. Thank you Thank you Joseph and Ricks are excused Representative Soper is excused Please close the machine. With 54 aye votes, 2 no votes, and 9 excused, the first Clifford Amendment is adopted.

Representative Clifford.

That is a proper motion.

There's no further discussion. The question before the House is the adoption of the second Clifford Amendment to the report of the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine. Members, please proceed to vote. Please close the machine. With 54 aye votes, 2 no votes, and 9 excused, the second Clifford Amendment to the report of the Committee of the Whole is adopted. The question before us is the adoption of the report of the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine. Members, please proceed to vote. Representative Espinoza is excused. Please close the machine. With 35 aye votes, 20 no, and 10 excused, the report of the committee of the whole is adopted. The House will stand in recess. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. The House will come back to order. Members, we are moving to third reading. I will invite everyone to take their seats. Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move Senate Bill 43 until tomorrow. I think, Madam Majority Leader, I need you to lay it over and not move it to tomorrow. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I lay over Senate Bill 43 until tomorrow. Senate Bill 43 will be laid over until tomorrow. Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move Senate Bill 149 and House Bill 1307 to the end of the third reading calendar. Senate Bill 149 and House Bill 1307 will be moved to the end of the third reading calendar.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 5 on third reading and final passage. The motion before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 5 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no. Representative Camacho excused Please close the machine With 41 I, 22 no, and 2 excused, Senate Bill 5 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1430 on third reading and final passage.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

representative Sucla thank you madam speaker I remember my grandfather told me one thing he said the way the world works, it goes in a circle. It just goes in a circle. So something will happen a while back, and then it will come back. And what I want to talk about is in 2023, we had two ballot initiatives, and they said they were about putting a cap on property taxes. And so the state legislator, that was the year before I got here, said they made an agreement with the ones that were opposing it. They said, well, if you withdraw your ballot initiatives, we're going to fix your property taxes. Deja vu. Here we are again. House Bill 26 is an attempt to get in front of the voters and water down what the people are trying to do with Initiative 175 You got a citizens effort saying roads money should go to roads And instead of letting that question go to the ballot, the legislators rush in with a bill that muddies the waters before people even get the chance to vote. And we're seeing this playbook. Like I just said, in 2024 is when the voters pushed initiatives 50 and 108 to rein in property taxes. Before they could vote, the legislators passed House Bill 24-1001, claiming they had fixed the problem. They said initiatives weren't needed anymore. But what happened? The bill was full of loopholes, and two years later, property taxes are still crushing homeowners. Now we're hearing the same thing again. Don't worry, we'll handle it. But HB 261430 doesn't do what Initiative 175 does. It doesn't lock funding into roads or guarantee anything. It just reshuffles the deck and keeps the money in the hands of the same legislature that has repeatedly turned its back on the people, letting it move around and spin wherever instead of honoring what voters are demanding. That's the pattern. When the people push for real change, the response is to step in with something that sounds like a solution but keeps control in the same hands. This isn't just about roads. It's whether we trust voters or try to outmaneuver them before they get their say. I own an auction company. Everybody thinks, oh, it's because you can talk fast, but the main thing that an auction company is marketing. This is the best marketing for 175 I have ever seen. They need 25% more votes. Stay tuned, folks. I'm telling you, sign that petition. Tell this legislator. Representative Sucla, we cannot campaign in the well.

Representative Bradley.

I do think that there are some good ads that would be promoted from this well for the sponsors of that initiative. this bill circumvents the ballot initiative and for the voters to vote on road improvement on 175 which would lock in transportation related revenue for roads only and require money from vehicle sales taxes fuel taxes registration registration taxes to be spent on roads highways and bridges 500 million per year toward road funding and it locks in funding for roads which again i don't know if you guys are going to your town halls and what people are telling you there but the reason we're seeing a rise of ballot initiatives is because they are tired of what's happening here. They're tired of the policies being driven in the Golden Dome, so they're going and getting ballot signatures and they're going to put things on the ballot to fix our roads and to fix crime and to fix other things because they don't like the policies being driven in here. That's why they're being successful. That's why there's going to be so many ballot initiatives. The bill allows the state to adjust other funding streams, helps avoid major cuts to healthcare education and transit programs protects the general fund for a large shift of hundreds of millions annually to road only spending But the people have spoken and the people are going to speak and they going to say no more And why is that? Because 98 percent of the people that travel to work in Colorado do so via private or work vehicles. Ninety eight percent. Not mass transportation. And do you know what the cost of a tire is in the state of Colorado? Because I looked it up. low-end $150 to $300, high-end $500 to $1,000 for one tire,

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don't know why we can't, I mean, why go back and why circumvent the voters' will? We had 1084, and I think the voters could probably just say, we could ask the voters and say, okay, where do you want this money to come from? I'll bet a lot of them would say, you know, we could take it out of the fraud. We could look at CDPHE and say we could take, I don't know, $285 million from there. That's just going to, or maybe we could take another $40 million or another $40 million. Or what's the more recent one, $75 million? We could take some of that. I talked yesterday about, you know, my colleague talked about telling people that money is for roads, but for transportation, for CDOT. And we spend $127 million. And what do we have overall for a budget? We have $2,300 million. $2,300 million roughly, and then $127 million in a year does what? electric buses, decarbonization, emissions reductions, all the superstitions that your religion requires. Air pollution mitigation enterprise, $17 million per year. Ozone reduction. And I think actually there's another $7 million per year that went to the Bozone enterprise. Air quality compliance and transportation mitigation. What does it accomplish? I don't know. You could ask them, and they would tell you, we don't know. and you could ask them and you could say, well, how would you, I mean, if you're going to spend money on it, shouldn't you have metrics? And they would say, maybe. And when you ask them what are their metrics, they say, we don't know. And the reason I know this is because I asked. And when I pressed, they said, we don't even, we don't know, not only do we not have metrics, we wouldn't know how to make those metrics, but we're going to spend $24 million per year on it. Why have anything like science get in the way? I mean, how are we going to measure it? Is it achieving its goal? Well, clearly it is. The goal is to spend $24 million dollars per year. That's the goal. So you could ask the citizens of Colorado, do you want to spend money? Do you want to throw money into a $24 million hole every year, a $230 million hole every year, a $40 million hole every year? Or maybe you'd like your roads fixed. Maybe you would like some of the exits taken care of. Maybe you would like to have some of the traffic lights taken care of so you don't turn I-25 into a parking lot. Multimodal transit, ordinate spending, all these things that people are rejecting overall. Now, once upon a time, the trains were kind of novel. They were full. Talking to people that used to ride the train had a pretty decent crowd on them. And then at some point, for some reason, and I don't know why, people started to reject the mobile mugging centers. And they no longer ride them. And you can see the train, and they go by four cars. Two people in four cars. You can see sometimes at night if the lights are on on the bus and you can see through those dark tinted windows and you can see about five people riding on that what is the equivalent of about 40 cars stopping. A colleague one time said in her neighborhood a four mile drive takes you about an hour if you have to take if you have to take the bus. Yet the buses were what the governor promoted and said that would save people time on the road because they're not stuck in traffic. They're stuck on a bus instead of stuck in traffic. So a four-mile drive takes you one hour instead of losing 35 hours in a total year. So we have this system which we pay these appointees of the governor, these political appointees. One, for RTD, we pay half a million dollars per year. And what does that transportation genius yield? About 2% to 4% ridership. And how much does that cost? Oh, it only costs about $1.2 billion to do a program that nobody wants to ride. I'll bet if we ask the citizens of Colorado, do you think that investing $1.2 billion into something that nobody wants to ride, and then you divide it by a 2% ridership, and I think I calculated somewhere around $7,000 per year, per rider, at some point we've bought those people a car. Oh yeah, that'd be year one we bought them a pretty decent used car. But we're just going to keep chugging those buses around town empty. Slow rolling traffic jams lumbering in the wrong direction. For a cost of $1.2 billion per year, trains, fast track to nowhere, billions of dollars that are allocated. The second set of $5 billion advocated for the cuckoo choo-choo. Billions of dollars. And the options that the sponsors give us are, would you like to fill a pothole or would you like to close a hospital? I don't know. I would like to close that grift mill. But what do we know? The grift runs the swamp. It pays one side to protect it, some on the other to grow it. And this is why we have ballot initiatives. And Madam Chair, I am not going to mention or promote Prop 175. But the citizens are tired, and ballot initiatives are great. If you actually want to get the voice of the people out the ballot initiative is the way to go Because your voice is not coming out of this room Representative DeGraff I made it clear there was no campaigning from the well

Madam Speaker. speaking to the right to petition your government. So if we want to look at, I think it was Bill 26-1084, where the citizens have to find the money. I think maybe on any petition to the government for the redress of grievances, maybe they could find the money, maybe they should identify that money and say, out of the fraud, out of these programs that we clearly don't want to use. So, and I think in general, I think we should not be presented with false choices of closing hospitals or fill potholes. Because that is just an emotional manipulation. and what we hear over and over as the taxes are increased what's it for? it's for the roads it's for the children it's always for the children it's never for the children but it's always for the children there is a lot there is a lot of grift in the budget and now the same experts we've sent over to the PUC to lose 40% of our dispatchable power for the cost of $17 billion and we wonder where our money is going what have public safety power shutoffs given us they've cost us $17 billion dollars. That's how the government runs. That's how the grift mill runs. So stop with the false choices. Stop with the emotional heart-tugging about we're going to lose. We close hospitals. We cut down provider rates. We reduce funds to the IDD community because it's a choice. And we put these programs, we put education, we put children, we put law enforcement last. We, you, put all those programs last so that they can be brought here in the waning hours for the emotional appeal while programs like electric buses, decarbonization, ozone reduction, air quality compliance, CO2, CO2, CO2, those are the priorities. Those are the sacred cows. So stop saying that roads are priorities. Stop saying that children are priorities. stop saying that education is a priority when you fund it last. If it's a priority, it gets funded prior to everything else. These programs, this grift is your priority.

That's okay, I'm leaving.

Hey, Madam Speaker. I guess it's no surprise that I rise in opposition of this bill. For me this bill is definitely preemptive to avoid the people choice almost a threat if they don vote how you want them to We keep hearing about a budget hole, but let's be honest, it's a crater. And it exists because this body refuses to prioritize and refuses to budget responsibly. refuses to say enough is enough refuses to say no to spending I personally offered over $120 million in easy cuts no cuts to education, no cuts to hospitals or medical these were trim the fat cuts between the cracks yet the JBC rejected every single one of them that was their choice I also put $74,000. Every little bit counts. $74,000 back into the purse, the people's purse, passed unanimously by this House, passed unanimously by the Senate. And again, JBC reversed it anyway. So spare me the lectures.

That's exactly what I'm doing, ma'am. Thank you. Yep. And once again, K-12 is being used as a political hostage chip through this bill. That's become far too typical around here, using children to avoid accountability. And what brings me to why I rise in absolute opposition to 1430. At its core, this bill is a direct affront to the rights, choices, and intelligence of the people of Colorado. We serve at the consent of the governed. Our job is not to outmaneuver the people, outsmart them, or override their voice when it becomes inconvenient. Yet that is exactly what this bill does. Coloradans expect honesty, transparency. when government takes more of their hard-earned money. Yet this bill violates that trust. Call it a fee. Call it a program. Call it an adjustment. The reality is the same. Government is taking more money from the people through a process designed to mask the true impact.

Thank you, ma'am. Is it working, everyone? Yes, it is working. So convenient of that. So let's get back to that it is not transparency. what is happening is deception. This bill relies on confusion instead of honesty because the people would likely reject it if it presented plainly. It insults the intelligence of Colorado voters and sends the message that their voice and their vote do not matter. HB 261430 undermines choice, sidesteps the will of the people, and weakens trust in government. It tells voters that if they pass a ballot measure that this body dislikes government will simply work around it later If we believe in representative government, then we must respect the people we represent. If we believe in rights, then we must protect the people's ability to choose whether we like it or not. And if we believe integrity, then we must be honest about the true costs of what we pass in this chamber. House Bill 261430 fails all three. The voters of Colorado will know of this vote. Oh, I'll make sure. My mic then won't be turned off. For the sake of the people of Colorado, their rights, their choices, their voice and their trust, I urge a no vote on 1430. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate everyone's attention to House Bill 1430 today. this is what we believe to be the best of the bad choices we have in front of us. And I am grateful for the Speaker Pro Tems leadership in getting us to this point. Nonpartisan analysis has shown that Initiative 175 will ultimately lead to a loss of $700 million of revenue that is currently supporting our healthcare programs, our education programs, public safety programs, and we don't have another $700 million to make up for it. It is frustrating that even the proponents of Initiative 175 can't tell you where we should find that $700 million. They just say the budget's big enough, the legislature should just figure it out. And I would submit to you that's what we have been doing for the last two years as we close billion-dollar gap after billion-dollar gap. We've had to prioritize the needs of the entire state. and I don't think there's anyone who would disagree that we have roads that are in bad shape and in need of repair I would submit that the General Assembly has worked very hard to invest nearly half a billion dollars each year in new funding for transportation and the vast majority of that is going to roads and bridges We have no control over the inflation rate in this country. We have no control over the president's tariffs that are making this particular industry and many others challenged to make the financing work. That's not something we have control over. The job that we have is to try and make work the dollars that we have before us and how to distribute those to meet the needs of Coloradans. They say that the proponents say, well, it doesn't mean that it has to come from healthcare. It doesn't mean that it has to come from education. But when a third of our budget It comes from Medicaid, supports Medicaid. Nearly a third supports K-12 education. I don't know what the alternative is. Do you want to just defund a few state agencies? Let's just set the Department of Agriculture to the side. Would that make it balance out? I mean, these are the choices before us. And so instead, we have chosen this measure to protect the needs of Coloradans to ensure that we are not making deeper cuts to our public education system, to our health care system, to our public safety system. We are protecting the needs of the people of Colorado because the question that they are asked in Initiative 175 is a very narrow one. And we are ensuring that as you are able to go back and speak with your constituents, that they understand the entirety of the question that's really being asked. Because just asking people, do you think we should spend more money to support our roads? People will say, sure. But if you actually ask them, do you think we should defund your public schools? do you think that we should further defund your hospitals and health care services to pay for roads? You may very well get a different answer. But we, the General Assembly, are here to represent our constituents. We don't have deep pockets or millions of dollars to run a campaign on a ballot measure. so what we're doing here is trying to present the situation to the people of Colorado and ensure that we are protecting everyone's needs not just one special interest I ask for your aye

at what was just said. I'm surprised that the partial truth is finally being displayed if you were paying attention. The truth that the money that was supposed to go to the roads is going to everything but. To the tune of $700 million. That was road money. That wasn't supposed to be tagged for anything else. But this body chose to then take the money that the people said, yes, we will do this for the roads, and you used it somewhere else where you weren't supposed to. Tariffs have nothing to do with it. That came just recently. We've been in this hole a long time. The roads have been a problem for a long time. The truth is, money once promised to go to what it said, what you said it would go to, is now being skirted, sidelined, misappropriated. Regardless of what you claim,

Regardless of what you claim, not sure I believe, since the people, in my opinion, were fooled through ballot measures and things that they wanted, things that they chose, that the money is not going where they thought it was going to go to. This proves the money, the people's money, who are being told one thing is not, is happening another way other than what they were told It doesn matter what you using the money for That money was tagged was said to be used for one thing and it's not. And it only became true, it only came out to the public with 175. If it hadn't been for that, the people would still think, oh, my money's going towards the roads, because that's what I said I wanted. And now because of that, because of 175, oh no, that's not what's happening. So the truth is coming out, as it always will. It's just that we've been caught. So let that sink in. I hope the people are listening. What you intend isn't always what's being done. and everyone in Colorado, every voter. They just need to pay attention. And I hope they do. And I'll make sure that the word gets out. Please vote no.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. $300 million, $1,200 million, $285 million, $40 million, another $40 million. I think another $75 million. And then for tariffs, probably not increasing the cost of asphalt in-state by canceling an in-state contract and forcing the supply to come from places like Wyoming. Those are tariffs. Those are significant tariffs, and that's about $2 billion that I just laid out for you. $2 billion that accomplishes nothing for the citizens of Colorado.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's an honor to serve with you. It is an honor to serve with you. Members, I have some notes and some thoughts, but I really just wanted to start by extending some thank yous. I want to say thank you to the workers, including CDOT, who have found themselves in the crosshairs of a very uncomfortable conversation when in reality they place themselves in harm's way each and every day, trying to do that very thing we all share, which is to improve our roadways and keep folks safe. I want to thank the folks who work alongside CDOT for doing the same thing. And I want to suggest that comments about grift are difficult to hear when you think about the thankless job that folks have all the way from I-70 and I-76 to North and South I-25 to make sure that folks are safe on our roadways and that those roadways are well maintained. I also want to acknowledge that we have more work to do. Nobody would deny that. but I think it's fair to mention first that while there's been a lot of talk of dollars that were supposed to go to roads are not being directed that way, that is simply not accurate when you look at the legislative record of how these funds were to be allocated. I was here in 2021 when Senate Bill 260 was passed. I actually sat on the committee that heard it. The very backers of 175 supported 260. And now discontent with the deal are renegotiating that through a ballot measure a constitutional amendment I have no problem with coming to the table and figuring out a different legislative solution but there is no world when you look at the way we are forced to budget in the state of Colorado that you go your own way and think that that siloed effort doesn't somehow impact somebody else. There's no way to go through life, let alone to budget. it. Since 2021, the passage of Senate Bill 260, we have improved more than 2,500 miles of rural roads. And I mentioned rural roads in particular because absent 260, those same communities would not have had the tax base to do that work. Those roads would be in disrepair today, absent Senate Bill 260. This was the grand bargain that was struck. that doesn't include the commitments on c dot's 10-year plan resulting in more than 800 lane miles improved through 40 different 10-year projects we've also made significant additional investments in poor interstate pavement condition resulting in reduction of proportion of interstate miles in poor condition from 3.9 percent to less than two percent over the last three years and we have more to do. Nobody is arguing that point. The question is how we do it. I also want to thank the members of our JBC for their work. While we had a week, a couple weeks, of uncomfortable conversations about how we could fix our budget and ensure that course services were protected, They were doing that work before we ever got in this building. Deeply uncomfortable conversations with no good choices in front of them. They led us down a journey that made the best of a bad situation. And I can't say enough how deeply grateful I am, even as I cast votes that were also painful to take. the notion that there is somehow $700 million sitting out there that we just haven't thought to use for roads is simply not based in the reality of that budgeting process. What Initiative 175 does very clearly is it redefines road transportation so that everything that you purchase through sales and use tax that might otherwise go to fund a school or a hospital now goes solely to a very narrow definition of road transportation in our state. About $538 million of general fund and the rest are cash funds. And let's talk about which cash funds are implicated. You're talking about defunding all of the DMV. You talk about defunding the Peace Officer Standards and Training cash fund. I believe public safety is also a priority for our communities. You're talking about defunding the emergency medical services cash fund, the alcohol drug driving safety cash fund, and so much more. The initiative is so poorly written that the fiscal analysis actually says we're not sure if enterprises are included or not. So we had to put that in 1430 to say, no, they're not.

Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote.

No, ma'am.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1029. House Bill 1029 by Representatives Hamrick and Carter, also Senator Merchman, concerning enhancing representation in higher education by altering the membership of certain entities involved in higher education policy development in the state.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1029 on third reading and final passage.

Madam Speaker, we ask permission to run a third reading amendment to House Bill 26-1029.

First of all, we want to thank the fabulous representative from Weldon Larimer County, an excellent legislator, and an excellent proofreader who brought up a discrepancy in the bill language, which we are really, really thankful for.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This amendment cleans up and clarifies that the student members on the CCHE have the same requirements as other members on the CCHE, and we ask an aye vote. Sorry. I move the Hamrick Amendment to House Bill 26-10-29 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Rep. Hamrick. Apologies, Madam Speaker. No problem. I move

fabulous legislator. This amendment cleans up and clarifies that student members on the CCHE have the same requirements as other members on the CCHE, and we ask for an aye vote.

Representative Carter.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of L-008 to House Bill 1029. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? Yes, ma'am. Representative Weinberg, was that a yes? That was a yes, ma'am. Thank you. Please close the machine. With 63 I won no, one excused, the amendment is adopted. Madam Majority Leader.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1029 as amended on third reading final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no. AML, there we go. Please close the machine. With 47 I, 17 no, and 1 excused, House Bill 1029, as amended, is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Madam Majority Leader?

Madam Majority Leader Madam Speaker I move House Bill 1418 on third reading and final passage Representative Zocay Thank you Madam Speaker

Please briefly explain.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is permission to run a third reading amendment on House Bill 1418.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move L30 to House Bill 14, 18, and ask that it be displayed.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. These are the technical numbering changes that our drafter caught, as well as a tweak to the definition of online gaming service to exclude platforms that are live streaming platforms or video sharing platforms, as well as storefronts where users purchase the initial download of games. what this fee is on is on in-game purchases, not the initial access to the game itself, and we are clarifying that in this amendment. Ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, our nonpartisan staff, our drafters, our highly competent individuals, and they do excellent work in drafting our legislation, often under severe time constraints and a great deal of pressure. Because of the system that they have developed, they catch nearly every issue. And so I actually rise in opposition to this amendment because I fear that if we correct this at this stage, there may not be a reviser's bill next year. And I think that it is an important piece of legislation to have every single year. And if they correct all of the mistakes beforehand, then we won't have the bill. Please keep that in mind. Representative Camacho. Representative Garcia.

I agree that our drafters are just incredible people that can catch all the mistakes. And I think if we vote no, we are voting for, you know, overspending in government. Why have another bill in the system when we don't need one? Let's vote yes on this and try to reduce bills by try to eliminating the revisers bill next year. Thank you.

A little bit of funny. Thank you Madam Speaker You know that is an excellent point But in the face of the divide in our politics the increased amount of partisanship, the Revisors Bill is one of those bills that brings us all together. And so in the name of collegiality and camaraderie, and of course of the Revisors Bill and its legacy, please vote no.

We are not debating the revisor's bill even though I am the co-sponsor with my good colleague from Penrose we ask for a yes because we have pushed our drafter to the limit and if you say no he may not be with us next year so please vote yes Members

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1418 as amended on third reading and final passage. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yesterday when this bill was heard on second reading, I had to run downstairs to my office, but I was still listening to bait on my phone. As more legislators spoke about the bill, I kept wondering why it sounded so familiar. It's because this bill, the bill sponsor from Fort Collins, introduced this bill in Judiciary Committee earlier this year where it was killed in committee. Clearly being in the majority has its advantages. If your bill dies, you can just get a late bill approval, rewrap it, and request that it go to a different committee, which is exactly what happened here. To be clear,

It's unethical. House Bill 26-1148, the original bill, also included a 5% tax on games. Although in this building, I guess we could just call it a fee to get around technicalities. Under that bill, the revenue was originally detected to directed to the state public school fund by creating a mandatory charge for a broad non enterprise state fund without a vote of the people. H.V. 1148 effectively functioned as a tax increase that bypass taper, which is one of the reasons judiciary rejected it. This new bill, although crafty, still presents taper concerns. To start, it captures games that likely have minor users. That means a game covered under this bill could have significant adult user base, yet those adults would still be forced to pay fees into an enterprise that provides them no benefit. This creates a significant risk of litigation. Additionally, the original bill exceeded $1 million over five years, which violated taper. because of that the sponsor tried to bypass this by creating two separate enterprises carefully capped just below the proposition 117 threshold so there would be no formal trigger for a public vote. However, while reading the JBC fiscal analysis, it states, the bill requires the Youth Programming and Protections Enterprise to support CDE in its enforcement of educational rights. If the enterprise's support includes direct payments to CDE, that money may be counted as state revenue subject to TABOR. If the enterprise makes direct payments to CDE for the department's educational rights and force related to SB 26-125, this may be considered enterprise spending on state services, resulting in the funds becoming subject to TABOR. Whether or not enterprise revenue becomes subject to TABOR will depend on how it is spent to support CDE's enforcement of educational rights. This bill is estimated to increase cash fund revenues by $225,250 in fiscal year of 2026 to 2027, and by $99,375 in fiscal year 2027 to 2028, which would reduce the available general fund in each fiscal year by equal amounts. This bill increases the Tabor refund paid from the general fund by $225,250 for fiscal year of 2026 to 2027, reducing the $42.3 million general fund set aside for fiscal year 2026 to 2027 by the same amount. So if that enterprise becomes invalid, Colorado taxpayers will ultimately pay for this mistake out of the general fund. Members, ask yourself, do we really want to take that risk when we are already facing a budget deficit? It's also important to note that the Internet Tax Freedom Act does not allow states to impose fees on digital commerce unless similar fees or taxes are imposed on comparable offline goods or services. This bill would violate that law because it establishes a punitive fee targeting online commerce simply because the commerce occurs online. For these reasons, I urge you to uphold the original vote taken by the Judiciary Committee and vote no. You can rebrand a bill, but packaging doesn't change the product.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I also rise in opposition to this bill. we heard at least the part that's before you in another bill in House Judiciary, and the committee heard the bill, witnessed testimony, and on the merits, we killed the bill and postponed it indefinitely. This bill only takes the enterprise fees out of it, and that's what's before you here today. As drafted, the bill would impose a tax on Colorado residents for purchases made within online games. We may share the goal of improving youth mental health and recognize its urgency. However, using a targeted tax on video game players to fund general mental health services is not an appropriate or effective policy solution here, especially when there's no nexus to the enterprise because the enterprise buckets are already created. It's just taking a fee and dropping it into these preexisting buckets. The intent of the enterprises that were established do not have a clear nexus to the fee that being imposed here on the in purchases Attacks on video game players to support wide mental health programs is poorly in line with the scope 114 places responsibility for a complex societal challenge on a single industry and targets a single constituency to pay for services they may never need or never access. The bill draws from concepts in 1148, which the House Judiciary rejected, as I just said. These policy concerns are compounded with the implementation and privacy challenges. 114 would add a new 5% tax on in-game video game purchases, layered on top of Colorado's existing sales tax framework, which makes this very complex. Colorado already taxes digital goods under current law, and this bill attempts to classify a tax as a fee in order to avoid voter approval requirements in a way that raises serious legal and policy concerns. After all, the voters approved Prop 117 that says if a fee is going to generate over $100 million in its first five years, that would need to go to a vote of the people. 1148 would have exceeded 100 million 1114, or sorry, 1418 was rewritten to be just barely under 100 million in five years Additionally, 1418, sorry introduces a new unavoidable cost that will be passed on to consumers A 5% tax on in-game purchases may appear modest but it adds yet another expense for video game players in Colorado who are already experiencing a rising cost. Often, these are kids. So you could say this is a tax on kids. Some may say it's just a tax on the parents who are funding their kids to play video games. But don't forget, they're already paying sales tax, and now this 5% fee on top of it. You add up all the sales taxes, for example, within my district, the average is 10% plus the 5%. Now you're looking at about 15% for any sort of an in-game purchase like skins for your player. Youth mental health cannot be solved by targeting one industry. We had heard in the House Judiciary Committee on many different bills that video games and online video games were not the reason for the youth mental health crisis or the rise in gun violence. over and over again. We have heard that assertion made in House Judiciary. And yet, the premise behind this bill is that online games are somehow now the root cause, and they must pay for that, or the users, I should say, must pay for that. It singles out the one industry. This approach overlooks both the video game industry's strong track record of safety and the broader factors that contribute to youth mental health. It especially is concerning given the positive role games that a player can play. There are even games that concern construction, building cities, things that support good learning. Peer review research shows that not all screen time is the same. Not all video game is violence. Not all video game is deteriorating youth mental health. Many video games are actually designed to improve education and to help with kids learning There is a strong connection between cognitive engagement and some of these games Not every single game is treated the same Global research further underscores the benefits of gaming. Players widely report that video games provide mental stimulation, reduce stress, create accessible experiences for individuals with diverse abilities. A growing body of academic evidence also links gameplay to improvements in feelings of loneliness, depression, and overall well-being. These findings underscore that video games are not a primary driver of youth mental health challenges and should not be treated as such in policymaking. While we may debate whether the research is positive or negative, to point to the video game industry and to say that after all these years of having one set of policy, we're now going to turn and attack a fee to it saying that they're to blame for youth mental health and the crisis and drop this into a couple of enterprise buckets is not the solution. For these reasons, I'd urge this body to vote no on 1418 and instead pursue solutions that are evidence-based, appropriately targeted, and effective in addressing youth mental health. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. All right, tax widgets of Colorado. Another tax and spend bill simultaneously. It's the way we do things now. You create a new tax and you create spending to go along with it. Voila, no Tabor conflict. They won't be happy until you have nothing. So the Taxpayer Bill of Rights tells the General Assembly that they have to ask for raising taxes. They hate that. That's why Doug Bruce is persona non grata here. So what happens is now you create a tax, but if you create a fee, if you create an enterprise, then you can call it a fee. Now, a fee, as my understanding of enterprises go, would be something that you would get a benefit from. Say you go and register a car, it kind of makes sense that you would pay a fee. That way, a person who has five cars, they pay five fees. The person who has one car pays one fee, and it's funded on a proportional basis. Now, what we know is, well, there's a lot of adults that are not going to be benefiting from youth mental health crisis resolution or youth mental health services. They're going to pay that fee. They're not paying it for anything else, so it's a tax. There's a lot of youth. In committee, it was talked about that this is not going to benefit most youth, but all will pay it. So is it really a fee if it's not really an enterprise that doesn't really provide a service to all the people? So what you're looking at, Tax Widgets of Colorado, is why they want to get rid of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, because the creativity to come up with these schemes has got to be exhausting. So the first shot would have raised over $100 million in five years, so you bring it back as a second one, and then you do it underneath it. It's less than $100 million over five years. Then it gets through the process and then you can raise the fee There another way So you just create a revenue stream on the pretense of providing a service to justify a tax and call it a fee Gaming-wise, I think this would be called like zombie apocalypse, rise of the undead. So this is the kind of scheme that you can just expect more of. And villainizing, you know, video games, they get a bad rap. There's some good stuff. I know my boys do a lot of communication over video games. They play video games and they talk to their cousins. They talk to people around the world. Lots of communication, lots of social interaction. But it's easy to villainize this to create the emotional response, which is interesting after the whole ballot initiative thing we just talked about, to create the emotional response to get you to justify the precedent, to justify the foot in the door to do this over and over and over again. because after the Taxpayer Bill of Rights and blowing through a $4 billion surplus, is there enough money in the budget? Nope. That was about $1,000 per Colorado, and so you lost $1,000 per year in taxes. Oh, wait, they're fees. Maybe they're tax... I don't know. Does it really matter? Does it really matter to the tax widgets of Colorado if you're a fee widget or a tax widget? That's how the General Assembly sees the citizens of Colorado. Tax widgets.

Representative Kelty.

unless not cash in on the public. Thank you. Representative Sakai.

Representative Camacho.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1418 on third reading final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote.

Representative Weinberg votes no. Brown is excused. Representative Ryden. Please close the machine. With 38 I, 25 no, and 2 excused, House Bill 1418 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1427 on third reading and final passage.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 177. Senate Bill 177 by Senators Ball and Benavidez, also Representatives Gilchrist and Mabry, concerning a property owner's ability to petition a court for limited access to an adjoining property to make repairs.

The motion before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 177 on third reading final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Representative Weinberg votes no. Please close the machine. With 43 I, 21 no, and one excuse, Senate Bill 177 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 138 on third reading and final passage. Representative Stewart.

I request permission to run a third reading amendment. Please briefly explain.

I forgot the rolls yesterday. So I'd like to bring that to the dinner table. I. I'll describe the amendment.

Yes there were a lot of moving parts yesterday and we just needed to clarify data used in eligibility determination as well as rulemaking So this brings it all together Please say yes. Thank you.

Yes.

Representative Stewart. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move L19 to Senate Bill 138.

As I stated, this is the rolls. We can even say this is the butter. Clarifies eligibility data and rulemaking for Senate Bill 138, and I ask for your aye vote. Seeing no further discussion,

Representative Weinberg votes no.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 138 as amended on third reading and final passage.

No, ma'am.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 17. Senate Bill 17 by Senators Doherty and Bright, also Representatives Stuart R. and Gonzalez, concerning changes to out-of-network health care services dispute resolution processes for health insurance carriers.

The motion before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 17 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Sheebel, please open the machine and members proceed. to vote. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? Yes, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes yes. Please close the machine. With 63 I, one no and one excuse, Senate Bill 17 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 174 on third reading and final passage.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1141. House Bill 1141 by Representative Bacon, also Senators Colker and Marchman, concerning civil rights violations involving discriminatory practices in public schools.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1141 on third reading, final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Representative Weinberg votes no. Please close the machine. With 42 aye 22 no and one excused House Bill 1141 is adopted Co Please close the machine.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 36 on third reading and final passage.

No, ma'am.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 20. Senate Bill 20 by Senators Bright and Ball, also Representatives Sirota and Gonzalez, concerning measures related to child care provider licensing and connection therewith, increasing reliance on trained personnel from the Department of Early Childhood, imposing certain requirements in connection with regulation by local governing authorities and creating a task force. Madam Majority Leader.

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

Representative Weinberg votes no. Please close the machine. With 48 ayes, 16 no and one excuse, Senate Bill 20 is adopted. Co-sponsors.

and House Bill 1425 will be laid over until the end of the third reading calendar.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 182 on third reading and final passage.

Yes, ma'am.

Madam Speaker, I'd like to co-sponsor. Representative Weinberg, co-sponsors.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 26-149. Senate Bill 149 by Senators Moblan Simpson, also representatives Caldwell and McCluskey, concerning pathways for individuals with mental health disorders and in connection there with making an appropriation.

Madam Speaker.

Please proceed.

Members, the question before us is permission to run a third reading amendment on Senate Bill 149. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine. Members, please proceed to vote. Representative Weinberg.

Representative Weinberg votes yes. Please close the machine. With 64 aye votes, 0 no votes, and 1 excuse, permission is granted.

That is a proper motion. And ask that it be properly displayed.

Members, the question before us is the adoption of MML 90 to Senate Bill 149. Mr. Sheebel, please open the machine. Members, please proceed to vote. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Representative Weinberg votes yes. Representatives Goldstein and Luck. Please close the machine. With 62 aye votes, two no votes, and one excused amendment, L90 is adopted.

Please proceed.

Please close the machine. With 64 aye votes, 0 no votes, and 1 excuse, permission to run a third reading amendment is granted.

That would help. Thank you very much, sir.

Yeah, do you have anything?

Great. The amendment is before us. Any further comments, sponsors? Minority Leader Caldwell.

is the adoption of Amendment L-92 to Senate Bill 149. Mr. Sheebel, please open the machine. Members, please proceed to vote. Representative Weinberg. Yes, sir. I almost beat you that time. I'll get it

Thank you. Thank you. just trying not to rush you. Please close the machine. With 64 aye votes, zero no votes, and one excuse, the amendment is adopted. Madam Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro

a third reading amendment on Senate Bill 149. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine. Members, please proceed to vote. Representative Weinberg. I feel like I should delay. Yes, sir. Representative Weinberg votes yes. Representative Richardson thank you Please close the machine With 64 aye votes zero no votes and one excuse permission is granted Madam Speaker

This amendment again makes slight adjustments to the appropriations that were already included in the bill, a technical correction to the appropriation for bridges, BHA, and legal services.

Members, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L091 to Senate Bill 149. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine. Members, please proceed to vote. Rep. Weinberg.

Representative Weinberg, could you repeat that one more time for us?

Representative Weinberg votes yes Reps, Leader, and Richardson. Members, we are voting. Please close the machine. With 64 aye votes, zero no votes, and one excuse, the amendment is adopted. Minority Leader Caldwell.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. and my gratitude to Minority Leader Caldwell and his partnership, to Senators Amabile and Minority Leader Simpson, who I hope are listening in their tremendous work, and ditto. There were so many people who came to the table to help us redesign competency in this state. There are really two sides of this coin. What happens after a violent crime has been committed? how do we ensure that we protect the civil rights of those involved and that we follow due process, that we are thoughtful about individuals who may not be competent and non-restorable to participate in that process. And then what action can we take as a state to ensure that there is care and treatment on the other side, that when a person moves from the criminal system to the treatment side, that that is done also to protect their civil rights and due process. I shared with you today an email from a family who has been a part of this bill's journey since last fall. Neely Bowman was born and raised not far from this very building, but spent the majority of her life and her children's lives in Arvada. Single mom, lived fearlessly because she had to, worked harder than anyone to provide a decent life for herself, her two kids, Billy, Joe, and Joseph. She was a devoted city municipal worker building a career between municipalities of Arvada and Westminster. She was a pioneer in both municipalities, the first woman to hold any position in over 30 years. But as the only provider in the family, she also cleaned homes on the weekend. Neely would not live to see those ventures or the next 30 years, and her children would be left to watch the person who ended her life walk away, in part because of the failures of our competency law. Today, much like every day that this bill has progressed through the legislature, Joseph and Billy Joe are here to see that the law that robbed them of justice against the man who robbed them of their mother is made right. To honor this family and the many families who have been impacted by our competency system and our treatment system, we ask for an aye vote on Senate Bill 149. Members, the question before us, Madam Majority Leader.

Members, the question, Representative Gonzalez.

and we have safe communities the motion before us is the adoption of Senate bill 26 149 as amended on third reading final passage mr. Schiebel please open the machine members please proceed to vote representative Weinberg how do you vote yes sir representative Weinberg votes yes Please close the machine. With 64 aye votes, zero no votes, and one excuse, Senate Bill 26-149 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1307 on third reading and final passage.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don't usually rise on third reading. But we have a very important issue that is facing doctors across the country. I think we all know that doctors who perform abortions have been targeted explicitly for decades, and more recently, doctors and providers of gender-affirming care have experienced similar patterns of targeted threats, including repeated bomb threats at Boston Children's Hospital. And so as we are discussing the regulation of doctors, it is important that we not let politics decide what kind of actions are taken against doctors who are performing legally protected necessary health care. And so for that reason, I move for permission to offer a third reading amendment on House Bill 1307.

Order. Representative Brown. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I withdraw my motion. I will note that this is a terrible time to be a doctor, especially a doctor who provides life-saving, gender-affirming care, or reproductive health care. And those doctors deserve every protection that we can provide them. There are those in the political class who would seek to erase the fact that people need basic reproductive health care, including abortion, or that people need basic, life-saving, gender-affirming care. And certainly we have a political class at the federal level who is seeking to do just that. We in Colorado have a different set of values. We believe that doctors should be protected and that they should be able to practice legally protected health care that their patients need. The Medical Practice Act is our opportunity to make sure that people have access to care and that doctors are not intimidated by people like me and like all of us in this room or beyond or political appointees into not performing that care. We owe it to doctors to stand up for them to stand up for our values The amendment that I would have offered would have provided shield language to make sure that every doctor who is performing legally protected health care, gender affirming care, or abortion care, will be protected from political interference because families and patients should be making these decisions, not politicians. In the interest of our work together and making sure that we can continue to work together and not be held hostage, I have withdrawn my motion. But these are difficult times for trans people and for people who need reproductive health care and the doctors who serve them. I will vote yes, and I ask you all to vote yes on the Medical Practice Act. And I hope that we collectively can continue to protect those who serve folks who need life-saving care.

Representative Bradley. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just for clarity, this bill was presented in Health and Human Services. We all get to be on sunsets. I was not aware of the sunset process. Our caucus doesn't usually make us aware of sunsets before session begins. The representative that just spoke on a third amendment was not in Health and Human Services. I asked for a vote to be placed on this bill as a health care practitioner. the members of Health and Human Services voted for me to be put on this bill. I worked very hard with the lobby corps to be on this bill as a health care practitioner. The member that just spoke was not happy about that. I looked to get past that. But what that member just did was disrespectful to this entire process. I have never surprised you guys with amendments. I always talk to you about amendments. even if it's fresh off the press.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Speaker. We all have our disagreements on policy in here. You all know that I'm a pro-life representative because of what has happened to my daughter. You all have heard me speak from the well about what is happening to our children. I always speak about informed consent. I do not believe children in Colorado are getting informed consent. I do not believe their parents are getting informed consent. I will hold the doctors accountable that are not giving informed consent to our children when there are life-altering procedures taking place. We have to have a level of respect in this building. There has to be a conversation about an amendment you want to run. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for not allowing that amendment to be run. this is a very good bill to continue the profession of doctors in the state of Colorado. I am honored that my committee chose to put me on this bill as one of my five. Thank you to the members of Health and Human Services for not being bullied out of taking me off. Thank you.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1425. House Bill 1425 by Representatives Gilchrist and Brown, also Senators Doherty and Bright, concerning the regulation of applied behavioral analysis services and in connection therewith making an appropriation.

We're presenting two amendments today that were sort of a grand bargain of providers coming together with the administration.

the question before us is permission to run a third reading amendment on House Bill 1425. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Representative Joseph votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no. Please close the machine. With 51 I, 13 no, and one excused, permission is granted. Representative Gilchrist.

One moment. Please proceed.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of Amendment L-23 to House Bill 1425. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Representative Joseph, you're on mute. Yes. Representative Joseph votes yes. Representative Weinberg how do you vote No ma Representative Weinberg votes no Please close the machine. With 46 I, 18 no and one excused, Amendment 23 is adopted.

Briefly explain.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is permission to run a third reading amendment on House Bill 1425. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no. Yes. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Joseph votes yes. Representative Ricks. Please close the machine. With 49 I, 15 no and one excused permission is granted.

One moment. please proceed

Seeing no further...

Representative Gilchrist. Thank you, Madam Speaker. And again, this was heavily negotiated with providers who are doing the work in the field every day, who understand the process of RBT credentialing, and then also the administration and HICPF, who also understand the payment of the RBTs. A 45-day period is put into place once this bill passes, that will allow at the 45 period the RBT has to be credentialed and we draw down federal dollars for this so we would continue to draw down federal dollars for this and I ask for an aye vote

Thank you, and I guess I will rephrase because it wasn't quite answered. So yes, the 45 days, but I thought the amendment that was done in Appropriations Committee, and we were talking about it on second reading, said that we had until 2028. So is that when this implements in 2028, they now have a 45-day window, or is this after it's signed, or is it on August 13th due to the petition? I'm just curious when that 45-day window starts. And then going back to the first part, lines 1, 2, 14, I'm still not getting the answer. Yes, they're federal grants. yes, we're recognizing the federal certification process. However, per the way it was written on seconds, is we do want Colorado to be able to supersede, add extra regulations. We've seen time and time again when Colorado goes beyond what the federal scope is allotted, we have lost dollars because we go beyond what they've intended. So my question is, if this goes beyond those extra requirements that the federal standard has created, are we at risk of losing any of those Medicaid dollars because Colorado through the vote on second says we can go beyond it those are the questions I'm asking it's not an ask a question if it's been stakeholder not a question you know if we've talked about these things it really is two applicational questions when does the 45-day period start is it in 2028 is it after this becomes effective August 13th I know last year when we had this discussion colleagues we were very upset HICPF because they shortened the time frame for certified APA providers to go on to new requirements and this was going to push out rural areas. This was a concern from many parents who had children with autism that they did not have enough time to comply. This is why they wanted more time in the ruling process. So my question listening to those concerns that started this discussion last year with the 45 days are we gonna see another crunch because they were so upset they had a crunch last interim. That was their biggest thing of you're adding more regulations and less time to do this. So I'm just curious. Question one, when does that 45-day window start? And then question two, because this is why I'm concerned that if we go over the national certificates and Colorado has that ability, understanding states can go above federal, but if the state goes above what the federal is willing to recognize and it puts us at any kind of conflicting notions with the administration, with President Trump, can we then lose any Medicaid dollars? Those were my two questions, and I'm hoping to get those addressed as we're finally

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of Amendment 25 to House Bill 1425. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine, and members proceed to vote. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yeah. Representative Joseph votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no. Please close the machine. With 44 I, 20 no, and one excused, Amendment L25 is adopted.

Representative Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. And this is a message to House District 63 and for rural areas. There were strong attempts trying to be at the table to understand this multiple times. and ask in committee and ask on seconds with the promise that people could come to the table. And now on thirds, we're seeing things for the first time that are long, lengthy amendments. And we'll continue to work for House District 63 and rural providers trying to be that voice to understand how this is going to affect. What are the consequences with such a heavy regulated bill that's had little amount of time for stakeholding? And I do recognize there's been stakeholds at the table. But when others ask to come to the table, it would be much appreciated to be able to actually be welcomed. There are still many concerns and questions that have not actually been addressed. So while I recognize that there is a huge need for APA, from the stakeholders I've talked to, from my district, my rural providers, there is still anxiety. There's still concern. There's still the question of, with all of this happening, and so much without any kind of understanding or direct way to actually get the answers that have been asked to me, then asked to the body, without clear definitions or response, I will be a respectful no and will continue to try to be at the table for rural providers so we can make sure that, yes, we need these. And this is a close topic to my heart. I have seen how these things go through. I've seen how therapy is beneficial. My mom is a special education teacher whose specialty was in autism. And while working, you know, and seeing the benefits and working through the connections that in-house district theory we have, my promise to you is to continue working on this. But without an open door to the table, and with more concern this is going to chase out rural providers than help, I will be a respectful no.

that kids deserve better 53 pages though ink still wet just like the good representative came down and said multiple amendments again right now and clearly don't have any idea don't know if we can go back to our districts if they agree with this. Don't know if the families agree with this. A bunch of people from the ABA service community said they wanted a fee service model, not a state mandated one size fits all model. I don't even know if they agree with this and they're from the community. The sponsors will tell you that they sat them down at the table and sat them down at the table, but the 45% of people being represented by all of our districts don't get a seat at that table. Continue to not get a seat at that table. I would urge a no vote. Thank you. Representative Gilchrist. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am so proud of this bill. As a parent of an autistic kid and someone who works in child welfare and sees the abuse and the impact on kids, this bill protects kids. And if it doesn't pass, we put kids at risk. I have spent many of my hours in this legislature, this session, working with stakeholders, pulling people together to make sure that we don't have any unintended consequences, that this does not impact small providers, that big providers are still able to do their work. This is a good bill that will protect kids. And I ask that you vote yes. Representative, seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1425 as amended on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yes for today. Representative Joseph votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no. AML Winter Please close the machine With 45 I, 19 no and 1 excused House Bill 1425 is adopted Co-sponsors Thank you. Please close the machine. Members, we will be heading into consideration of Senate amendments on House bills, and we'll take a five-minute recess before we begin. The House is in recess. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. The House will come back to order. Members, we are moving to consideration of Senate amendments to House bills. Looks like we've got a lot of bills ahead of us. I'll give the first bill sponsors a running start. House Bill 1010. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move to proceed out of order for consideration of amendments to House bills. Seeing no objection, we will proceed out of order for consideration of Senate amendments to House bills. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1010. House Bill 1010 by Representatives Wilford and Jackson, also Senator Danielson, concerning increasing support for older adults in the workforce. Representative Wilford? Thank you, Madam Speaker. We move to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1010. Please proceed. Representative Jackson. Thank you, Madam Speaker. So what happened is in Section 5, Lines 7 through 20, they ended up removing that section regarding governor appointments and higher ed And we are okay in agreeing with that and ask for an aye vote. Representative Kelty. Thank you, Madam Speaker. On this, on HB 1010, when we went through seconds and thirds, we spoke about this bill, and one of the positive things about this bill is that we were able to put on there that we were designated an older adult, a senior citizen, to represent said senior citizens on the said senior citizen, older adult support and representation in the report force bill. So in the Senate change, they removed the requirement for a designated older adult representative on the State Apprenticeship Council. I find that ironic that we're taking off the requirement to have someone who is in, understands, and has been through the workforce as a senior citizen, but yet we're taking off the requirement for said senior citizen or a senior citizen to actually represent them. I find that absolutely absurd, and I'm asking for a no on the consideration from the Senate amendments only because that makes no sense. Representative Wilford. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. And, you know, Representative Kelty, I share your frustration in recognizing that the Senate does not always get everything right. However, I am comfortable with the changes that they made here because they didn't necessarily eliminate the older adults from being able to be appointed to the advisory committee to the Colorado Commission on Higher Education. the governor still the commission still shall select and designate one member who is at least 55 years old and either is actively involved or has an interest, knowledge or experience in advocating for the interests of individuals engaged in higher education who are 55 years or older so we do maintain that seat but the amendment spoke specifically to other governor appointments. So I hope that helps. The other pieces of the bill, just as a reminder, I know it's been a very long time since we looked at this bill, encourages and more than encourages requests that the Department of, or I'm sorry, the, shoot, the Commission on Aging meet regularly and coordinate with the State Workforce Development Council. And as a reminder, this will help to ensure that older adults are really continuing to be centered in the conversations about retooling our workforce, changing careers, and upskilling as needed. So we would ask for an aye vote. Representative Kelty. Thank you for that. And I still have to say that it's very disappointing that with something that is centered around having older or senior citizens in the workforce, that we're actually not requiring that one be on every level part of the decision-making and being able to represent said senior citizens To me it just ironic that something that meant for them they not being actually required to be part of any of that No one understands senior citizens better than we do, because I'm one of them. So I find it very disappointing. Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1010. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Joseph votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, no. Representative Weinberg votes no. Representative Bottoms is excused. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote? Representative Bottoms, you're on mute. Can you hear us? Representative Bottoms is excused. Please close the machine with 44 I, 19 no, and 2 excused. House Bill 10, oops, the motion to concur is adopted. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move for the repassage of House Bill 1010 as amended. The motion before us is the repassage of House Bill 1010 as amended. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Joseph votes yes. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote? No. Representative Bottoms votes no. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no. Representative Brown is excused Oh, he's right there You were behind the lamp Sorry Please close the machine 46I 18 no and one excused. House Bill 1010, as amended, is repassed. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1109. House Bill 1109 by Representatives Stewart K. and Joseph, also Senator Danielson, concerning the commission of a study to determine if additional consumer protections are needed for the deaf, hard of hearing, and deafblind community with respect to sign language interpretation services provided in the state. Representative Stewart. Thank you, Madam Speaker. We move to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1109. Please vote yes. Seeing no further discussion the motion before us is to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1109 Mr Schiebel please open the machine and members proceed to vote Representative Joseph how do you vote Yes. Representative Joseph votes yes. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote? No. Representative Bottoms votes no. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no. Please close the machine. With 53 I, 11 no, and one excused, the motion to concur is adopted. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1109. I move for repassage of House Bill 1109 as amended. The motion before us is the repassage of House Bill 1109 as amended. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote? No. Representative Bottoms votes no. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Joseph votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no. Please close the machine. With 45I 19 no and 1 excused, House Bill 1109, as amended, is repassed. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1113. House Bill 1113 by Representatives Sirota and Wilford, also Senators Wallace and Weissman, concerning modifications to laws regarding elections in connection with making appropriation. Representative Wilford. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move that the House concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1113. Please explain. Representative Sirota. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Senate made several amendments, a number of them technical and clean up in nature. I think I would highlight maybe a few things, one of which is in the introduced version, we had removed the language that allowed a person to protest another person's registration. The Senate added an amendment that I actually think was unnecessary, but I think we're willing to live with. It's a new process that the clerks and the Secretary of State's office has come to agreement on. They have also added language strengthening our voter intimidation laws within 100 feet of polling locations. There are provisions added to restrict the transfer of Coloradan's voter data to any third party without court order or directive from the Secretary of State to help intervene with presidential executive order, which is overreaching. and they have also created an amendment to add a definition to the state's definition of disaster to add elections emergency as a disaster, which would be constituted by an occurrence or threat of an inability to carry out our elections or their related legal code, and will allow for an emergency advisory group to assist with responding to said election disaster. On the whole, these are all very good amendments that really strengthen our election law, and I ask for your aye vote. Representative DeGraff. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do note in here that the Senate added very specific language. It looked like for whistleblowers. I think they should have added language for elected officials who have compromised all of our election machines by leaking BIOS passwords and publishing them online. I am a little concerned about declaring it the idea of an election disaster, because if you remember last year, somebody made the governor a disaster czar over all disasters, even self-made ones, like the economy. So I'm a little bit how that would work because, you know, since we don't have and just what that would be on an actual like anybody would have an actual disaster preparedness plan, not just. So hopefully that comes with an actual plan for an election disaster, not just something that turns the governor into a czar over the outcome. Representative Bradfield. Representative Bradfield. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1113. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Joseph votes yes. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote? No. Representative Bottoms votes no. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no. Please close the machine. With 42 I, 22 no, and one excuse, the motion to concur is adopted. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1113. I move for the repassage of House Bill 1113 as amended. The motion before us is the repassage of House Bill 1113 as amended. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote? Representative Bottoms, we could not hear you. Can you give me a thumbs up or a thumbs down? Representative Bottoms, motions thumbs down. Representative Bottoms votes no. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Joseph votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no. Please close the machine. With 42 aye, 22 no, and 1 excused, House Bill 1113, as amended, is repassed. Co Please close the machine Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1252 House Bill 1252 by Representatives Bradfield and Morrow also Senators Marchman and Carson concerning updates to state entities responsible for responding to emergency situations Representative Morrow Thank you, Madam Speaker I move to concur with Senate amendments on House Bill 1252 Please proceed Representative Bradfield Thank you Madam Speaker They had two amendments and the first one is L004 it expands the division of emergency management listed duties to include many things and I both Representative Morrow and I have just really thought that that was fine. Go ahead. No. Representative Morrow. Thank you, Madam Speaker. And the other amendment clarifies that the Colorado Commission of the Indian Affairs is housed in the Office of Tribal and American Indian and Alaskan Native Affairs, strengthens its coordination and staffing duties, and adds term limits to the Commission and we ask for an aye vote. Seeing no further discussion the motion is to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1252. Mr. Schiebel please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Bottoms how do you vote? No. Representative Bottoms votes no. Representative Joseph how do you vote? Yes. Representative Joseph votes yes. Representative Weinberg how do you vote? No, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no. Please close the machine. With 53-I, 11-no and one excuse, the motion to concur is adopted. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move for the repassage of House Bill 1252 as amended. The motion before us is the repassage of House Bill 1252 as amended. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote? No. Representative Bottoms votes no. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Joseph votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no. Ricks Please close the machine With 52 I, 12 no, and 1 excused House Bill 1252 is repassed as amended Co-sponsors Please close the machine Mr Schiebel please read the title to House Bill 1343 House Bill 1343 by Representatives Morrow and Clifford, also Senator Marchman, concerning expanding the use of electronic processes in proceedings involving the State Administrative Procedure Act. Representative Clifford. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move that the House concur with the Senate amendments to House Bill 1343. Please proceed. We were able to take a portion of this bill and move it into the competency bill that we passed earlier today, and we had to make some conforming amendments in order to accommodate that. Seeing no further discussion, the motion... Oh, Representative Morrow. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Senate's changes, sharp and small, help strengthen language for us all. I rise, concur, concise and steady. So 1340 leaves this chamber ready. 1343. The motion before us is to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1343. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Bottoms votes yes. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Joseph votes yes Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? Yes, ma'am Representative Weinberg votes yes Please close the machine With 64 ayes, 0 no and 1 excuse The motion to concur is adopted Madam Majority Leader Madam Speaker, I move for the repassage of House Bill 1343 as amended The motion before us is the repassage of House Bill 1343 as amended. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Bottoms votes yes. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Joseph votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? Yes, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes yes. Valdez Please close the machine With 64 ayes, 0 no and 1 excused House Bill 1343 is repassed as amended Co-sponsors Representative Weinberg, co-sponsors Please close the machine Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1346 House Bill 1346 by Representatives Titone and Woodrow, also Senators Kip and Snyder, concerning allowing the Department of the Treasury to sell unsold insurance premium tax credits to entities that are not insurance companies. Representative Titone. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move that the House concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1346. Move. Please proceed. The Senate got into action to add their two cents for distraction. They said the same thing the same string they bring Concur is the only action Representative Woodrow Colleagues there once was a bill on tax credits The Senate it made a few edits Taxes, insurance, we seek your concurrence. And no, AI didn't write. I didn't write. Neither did mine. Seeing, ah, Representative Woodrow. Yeah, the Senate clarified that new certificates get issued to purchasers. We asked for an aye vote. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1346. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote? No. Representative Bottoms votes no. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Joseph votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? I'm sorry. Representative Weinberg, did you say no? Yes, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no. Representative Weinberg, I apologize. How do you vote? Shockingly, yes, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes yes. Please close the machine. with 45i 19 no and one excuse the motion to concur is adopted madam majority leader madam speaker i move for the repassage of house bill 1346 as amended representative gonzalez thank you madam speaker and again it's no surprise i rise in opposition to this bill again when we were facing very tough cuts that we all had to make tough decisions on especially to move on the ballot. When we have unused tax credits, this is something that we should scale back. When we're having tax credits that are not used, we should be rolling back these tax credits that are not being used at a time when we're cutting Medicaid, we're cutting provider rates, we're cutting across the board, and yet we're selling unused tax credits when we could be cutting that back. And while we also talk about Tabor refunds, and we say that we're getting zero Tabor refunds, tax credits eat at Tabor refunds. So again, I mean, I think that this is something that we should really reevaluate in the future going forward, is instead of cutting, we should probably cut some tax credits that are unused. So vote no on this bill. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the repassage of House Bill 1346 as amended. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Joseph votes yes. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote? No. Representative Bottoms votes no. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no. Please close the machine. With 41I23, no one won excused, House Bill 1346, as amended, is repassed. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1076. House Bill 1076 by Representatives Paschal and Lindsay, also Senators Bala and Linstead, concerning modifications to select statutory provisions relating to transportation. Representative Paschal. Thank you, Madam Speaker. We move to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1076. Please proceed. Thank you. Okay, I think the dead cats are out of the room. Okay, we passed 1076, straight up and clean, but Ball and Linstead apparently can't be part of the team. Passing two amendments, one six pages, and one three. Oh my, and golly gee. Now we are back in the House, T minus eight. Let's get this done, people, it's getting late. Representative Lindsay. Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's an honor to serve with you. It is an honor to serve with you. Obviously, this is a CDOT cleanup bill, so bear with me. And I have the wrong glasses on, so I can't see very far, which is good, because I don't want to be embarrassed by when you're looking at me. I ask for forgiveness from Chapel Road. But I said, D-O-T-T-O-G-O, cars and trucks plus my granny's moho. On our highways and traffic will grow The Senate added more and we're going with the flow D-O-T-T-O-G-O Ride and drive, stay safe in snow And have more fun than you'll ever know D-O-T-T-O-G-O Representative Marshall, see what you started? Representative Paschal Thank you, Madam Chair Okay, strap in. First thing is motorcycle licensure cleanup. There was a request from the Colorado State Patrol and the Department of Revenue in House Bill 24, 1021. There was a technical oversight that omitted the word endorsement from the statute. Oh, don't I? What do you want to do? You go then. You go. No, I'm done. I'm just saying you don't have to read every single one. Okay, there's a lot of stuff. Does anyone want to hear all of it? Okay. Kelty. Representative Paschal, please proceed. Thank you, ma'am. It eliminates a statutory conflict that clarifies that if an individual renews their license online, they must attest that they had an eye exam by an optometrist or ophthalmologist within one year. restores the five-year driver license renewal cycle. Okay. Are you done now? All right. More stuff. If you really want to know, go read it. We ask for an aye vote. Representative Kelty. I request that the sponsors continue to explain more of the amendments. Seeing Representative Paschal. It's online. You can read up on it. Seeing Representative Kelty. Way to represent your bill. Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the motion to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1076. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote? No. Representative Bottoms votes no. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Joseph votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no Please close the machine. With 42 I, 22 no, and one excuse, the motion to concur is adopted. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move for the repassage of House Bill 1076 as amended. The motion before us is the repassage of House Bill 1076 as amended. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine, and members proceed to vote. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote? No. Representative Bottoms votes no. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Joseph votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no. Please close the machine. With 42 I, 22 no, and one excused, House Bill 1076, as amended, is repassed. Co-sponsors. Please. Close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1123. House Bill 1123 by Representative Stewart Kay and Mabry, also Senators Mabley and Weissman, concerning measures to prevent sexual abuse in jails and in connection therewith making an appropriation. Representative Stewart. Thank you, Madam Speaker. we move to concur we move that the House concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1123. Please proceed. A bill was born in the lower hall to shield the ones behind the wall where silent shelters what should not stand and harm too often goes unmanned. The House gave shape, the House gave voice to grievance, remedy, and choice then sent it on with hopeful pen to be considered once again. The Senate took it, weighed each clause, proposed amendments, gave a pause, trimmed a definition here, redrew a line, clarified intent, refined design, reporting structures sharp and clean, the role of oversight more keen, the scope of jail, the duty owed, the path of complaints meant to go. What left the House came back transformed, not weakened, but more carefully formed, a sturdier frame for what it meant. Hold on. when Amable and Weissman lent their hands to language tested twice, once for passion, once for precision's price, and so the bill, between two chambers tossed, gained more in shaping it than it lost. Representative Mabry. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Now I'm going to explain how Rep. Weissman really legalized this bill up, so my comments are not going to be nearly as exciting. Okay, so the seven amendments were brought in the Senate. Three of the seven were clean up. We standardized the definition of local facility. We updated the strip search definition by replacing an arrested person with a person. and there was a cleanup amendment brought to deal with a misnumbering on third reading Then there were some pretty substantive amendments So folks in Judiciary Committee will remember we had long discussions about body cameras versus a strip search being done in a room that has a camera in it. So with L19, we flipped the rule so that strip searches need to be done with the body-worn cameras, and we're requiring notice and tagging requirements on that footage. We have narrowed the video access protections to apply only to strip search footage rather than all jail video. We added a new section requiring every sheriff to coordinate with their vendor to implement a strip search tag on the footage. And then the standard was changed to add a new prong about the circumstances and set of conditions that might lead one to believe it was reasonable to conduct a strip search in the circumstances. And we ask for a yes vote. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1123. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote? No. Representative Bottoms votes no. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Joseph votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no. Please close the machine. With 42 I, 22 no, one excuse, the motion to concur is adopted. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move for repassage of House Bill 1123 as amended. The motion before us is the repassage of House Bill 1123 as amended. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote? No. Representative Bottoms votes no. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Joseph votes yes. Please close the machine. With 42 I, 22 no, and one excused, House Bill 1123, as amended, is repassed. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1207 House Bill 1207 by Representatives Jackson and Bacon also Senators Kip and Danielson concerning employer accountability through disclosure of demographic workforce data and in connection with making appropriation Representative Jackson Thank you Madam Speaker I move that the House concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1207 Please proceed Thank you So in the Senate they made a couple of amendments One being that this would apply to workers that as of March 1st of this year. So as of this year in March, if these companies had to submit this information, this bill would apply to them. Also, they removed the safety clause, and now it is subjected to a petition clause. And lastly, there was a typo that was changed on page one, and we would ask for an aye vote. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1207. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine. Members proceed to vote. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Joseph votes yes. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote? No. Representative Bottoms votes no. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no. Please close the machine. With 42 I, 22 no, and one excused, the motion to concur is adopted. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move for the repassage of House Bill 1207 as amended. The motion before us is the repassage of House Bill 1207 as amended. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote? No. Representative Bottoms votes no. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Joseph votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no. Representative Luck. Please close the machine. With 42 I, 22 no, and when excused, House Bill 1207 is repassed as amended. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of the House Bill 1226. House Bill 1226 by Representatives Wilford and Frillick, also Senators Weissman and Cutter, concerning measures to reduce emissions from certain electric generating units in the state. Representative Wilford. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move that the House concur with Senate Bill, or I'm sorry, Senate amendments to House Bill 1226. Please proceed. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The changes that were made in the Senate and we're primarily technical and clean up, and we ask for an aye vote. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1226. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote? No. Representative Bottoms votes no. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Joseph votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? Representative Weinberg votes no. Please close the machine. With 42 I, 22 no and one excused, the motion to concur is adopted. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move for the repassage of House Bill 1226 as amended. The motion before us is the repassage of House Bill 1226 as amended. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Joseph votes yes. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote? No. Representative Bottoms votes no. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no. Representative Brown Please close the machine With 41 I, 23 no and 1 excused House Bill 1226 as amended is repassed Co-sponsors Bless you Please close the machine Madam Majority Leader Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1322. House Bill 1322 by Representatives Valdez and McCormick, also Senators Cutter and Mollica, concerning civil actions against certain individuals engaging in conversion therapy efforts. Representative Valdez. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move that the House concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1322. Please proceed. Representative McCormick. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Senate put on some amendments that will actually, they struck some subsections in the bill that were actually determined to be extraneous to the central goals of the bill. The bill will continue to do what it was set out to do. And so we're okay with what they did over there. and it also clarifies that the bill states very plainly that the section in that bill does not create a new cause of action. And so we urge an aye vote on concurrence and then an aye vote on the bill. The motion before us is to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1322. Mr Scheeble please open the machine and members proceed to vote Representative Joseph how do you vote Yes Representative Joseph votes yes Representative Bottoms how do you vote No. Representative Bottoms votes no. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no. Clifford? Please close the machine. With 42I22 no and one excused, the motion to concur is adopted. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move for the repassage of House Bill 1322 as amended. The motion before us is the repassage of House Bill 1322 as amended. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Joseph votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote? No. Representative Weinberg, sorry, Representative Bottoms votes no. Froelich. Please close the machine. With 41 I, 23 no and one excused, House Bill 1322, as amended, is repassed. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1028. House Bill 1028 by Representatives Garcia and Velasco, also Senator Cutter, concerning second language diploma endorsements for graduating high school students. Representative Garcia. Y'all, it is well past five. Can we stop with the rhyme? We will never get back the time. Just vote yes with the little green button, then we can go off to committee to listen. We accepted an amendment to allow all who voted no to vote yes, because you made a mistake, I'm sure you'll confess. But if you must know, we were overzealous, and we took out a reference that made someone jealous. So we return the words, institution of higher education. So here we are. I want to go on vacation. Representative Velasco. Thank you, Madam Speaker. And we move for the House to conquer with the Senate amendments. And to speak multiple languages rocks to celebrate it and elevate it even more. Now kids can have their cultures recognized. High school rocks even more. Si se puede. Oh, did you do that? Did you? Did we move that? Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1028. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Joseph votes yes. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote? No Representative Bottoms votes no Representative Weinberg how do you vote Yes ma Representative Weinberg votes yes Please close the machine. With 44 aye, 20 no, and one excuse, the motion to concur is adopted. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move for the repassage of House Bill 1028 as amended. Motion before us is the repassage of House Bill 1028 as amended. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Joseph votes yes Representative Bottoms, how do you vote? No Representative Bottoms votes no Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? Yes Representative Weinberg votes yes Please close the machine With 47 ayes, 17 no and 1 excused House Bill 1028, as amended, is repassed. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1069. House Bill 1069 by Representatives Ferre and Stewart Kay, also Senators Mullica and Simpson, concerning increasing the availability of emergency medical services. Representative Stewart. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Have no fear. This is the last time I'll be down here today. I move that the House concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1069. Please proceed. Oh, my goodness. So defrayal is a bad word in DOI. I consider it a betrayal. We had to strip out the commercial plans in order to make sure we could make treatment in place happen and save the state so much money. Please vote yes to concur with us. Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1069. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Joseph votes yes. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Bottoms votes yes Representative Weinberg Representative Weinberg votes yes Please close the machine With 64 ayes, 0 no and 1 excused The motion to concur is adopted Madam Majority Leader Madam Speaker, I move for the repassage of House Bill 1069 as amended The motion before us is the repassage of House Bill 1069 as amended Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yes Representative Joseph votes yes Representative Bottoms how do you vote Yes Representative Bottoms votes yes Representative Weinberg Yes ma Thank you. Representative Weinberg votes yes. Please close the machine. With 64 ayes, 0 no, and 1 excused, House Bill 1069, as amended, is repassed. Co-sponsors. Representative Weinberg, co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1078. House Bill 1078 by Representative Smith and Hamrick, also Senators Marchman and Kirkmeyer, concerning increasing the number of off-campus courses offered by institutions of higher education to students in concurrent enrollment programs and in connection therewith, making and reducing an appropriation. Representative Hamrick. Thank you, Madam Speaker. We move that the House concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 261078. Wow, the gobbles are gone. There we go. Representative Hamrick, please proceed. Thank you. The House sent their bill to the floor to open the off-campus door, but the Senate said, wait, if the funds aren't quite great, we won't let you add any more. Representative Smith. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Senate had one amendment which assures that starting in funding year 28-29, additional courses will not be approved if there is not sufficient funding for the oversight of audits and approvals of concurrent enrollment courses offered by four-year institutions. It also adds a footnote to the 28-29 long bill to specify if it gets funded, and we ask you for a yes vote. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1078. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Joseph votes yes. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Bottoms votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? Yes, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes yes. Please close the machine. With 64 ayes, 0 no, 1 excused, the motion to concur is adopted. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move for the repassage of House Bill 1078 as amended. The motion before us is the repassage of House Bill 1078 as amended. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Joseph votes yes. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote? No. Representative Bottoms votes no. Representative Weinberg? No, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no. Please close the machine. No. With 55I, 9-0-1 excused, House Bill 1078, as amended, is repassed. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1132. House Bill 1132 by Representatives Froehlich and Lindsay also, Senators Kippen-Bridges, concerning increasing pollinator habitats through the conservation of native plant material on lands in the state. Representative Lindsay. Feel free to buzz instead of gobble, but we move to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1132. Please proceed. Representative Froehlich. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Pollinators rock and are seriously balling. Native plants are where they get their pollen. The Senate did a classic move, small technical fix, so we approve. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1132. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Joseph votes yes. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote? No. Representative Bottoms votes no. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? Yes, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no. Representative Weinberg, could you repeat your vote? Shockingly yes, ma'am. Thank you. Representative Weinberg votes yes. Please close the machine. With 48 ayes, 16 no, and one excuse, the motion to concur is adopted. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move for the repassage of House Bill 1132 as amended. Motion before us is the repassage of House Bill 1132 as amended. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Joseph votes yes. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote? No. Representative Bottoms votes no. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no. Velasco and Zokai. She's a millennial. Please close the machine. With 44 I, 20 no, and one excused, House Bill 1132, as amended, is repassed. Co-sponsors. That explains a lot. Please close the machine. Mr Schiebel please read the title to House Bill 1210 House Bill 1210 by Representatives Bacon and Mabry also Senators Weissman and Judah concerning limiting the use of intimate personal data to make inferences that impact a person's financial position. Representative Mabry. Madam Speaker, I don't know what they want from me, but the more data they come across, the more problems we see. AML Bacon. B-I-G, B-A-N-K-S. No surveillance is used against us. Businesses all mad because we pass this. They can't tap myself or peep my browsing list. Representative Mabry. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, we move to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1210. Please proceed. Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I'll first talk about the fact that we worked with financial institutions like banks, mortgage lenders, and credit unions to exempt them from provisions of the bill because we believe that existing federal law prevents the sorts of predatory behavior this bill aims to prevent and to reduce any redundancy or confusion. and this moved the banks, credit unions, mortgage lenders to neutral on the bill. We also added a clarification about ride time and distance and about how those things are not surveillance data, which brought one of the big ride share companies to neutral. And then we brought some further clarifications on the discount language in this bill again. And this bill did not impact discounts, but we were willing to add some clarification if that made certain stakeholders feel more comfortable. And then finally, we did some work with the insurance companies to make sure that the law did not touch on existing requirements on the companies regarding the use of consumer data and algorithms. Again, never believed that the provisions of the bill impacted the practices of the insurance companies, but if they wanted clarification language, we were happy to provide it. AML Bacon Thank you members and we do want to let you know if anyone can figure out that allegory or that example we will buy you lunch Representative, no Seeing no further discussion the motion before us is to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1210 Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yes Representative Joseph votes yes Representative Bottoms, how do you vote? No. Representative Bottoms votes no. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no. Please close the machine. With 43 I, 21 no, and 1 excused, the motion to concur is adopted. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move for the repassage of House Bill 1210 as amended. The motion before us is the repassage of House Bill 1210 as amended. Mr. Schievel, please open the machine, and members proceed to vote. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Joseph votes yes. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote? No. Representative Bottoms votes no. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no. English and Marshall Please close the machine. With 41I-23-01 excused, House Bill 1210, as amended, is repassed. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. I definitely do. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 26-13-17. House Bill 13-17 by Representatives McCluskey and Taggart, also Senators Bridges and Frizzell, concerning creating a unified system of post-secondary talent development and in connection they're with creating a committee to develop a plan to transition oversight of workforce development programs to the Department of Higher Education. Representative Taggart. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. I move to concur with Senate amendments, well, only one amendment, to House Bill 1317. Please proceed. Still weak. Madam Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. Members, the amendment that we ran changed the transition advisory committee so that they will now consider how the department can support after school and out of school time programs that offer career readiness learning opportunities. We ask for an aye vote. Members, the motion before us is to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1317. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members, please proceed to vote. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote? no representative bottoms votes no representative joseph how do you vote yes representative joseph votes yes representative weinberg yes sir representative weinberg votes yes Please close the machine With 59 aye votes, 5 no votes, and 1 excuse The motion to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1317 is adopted Majority Leader Duran Mr. Speaker pro tem, I move for the repassage of House Bill 1317 as amended. The motion before us is the repassage of House Bill 1317 as amended. Mr. Sheebel, please open the machine. Members, please proceed to vote. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote? No. Representative Bottoms votes no. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Joseph votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, sir. Representative Weinberg votes no. Reps Brown, Duran, and Valdez. Please close the machine. With 56 aye votes, 8 no votes, and 1 excused, House Bill 1317 is adopted. Co-sponsors. of course Please close the machine Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1336. House Bill 1336 by Representatives Lindsay and Winter, also Senators Pelton and Cutter, concerning measures to increase access to pharmacy services. Representative Lindsay. Thank you, Madam Speaker. You all know I have four kids. They're all grownups now, but 15 years ago, this was a grocery list of mine. Litter for cats and also some kibble. New sippy cups because the old ones dribble. Three gallons of milk for all of these growing bones. Oh, and Neapolitan ice cream plus some waffle cones. Some fresh chicken and veggies for my weekly meal prep. And a quick stop by the pharmacy to test and treat my kids for strep. AML Winter Thank you Madam Speaker I move to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1336 Please proceed Thank you very much Colleagues, there was a lot of stakeholder work on this bill and with further negotiations it resulted in an amendment in the Senate to narrow the bill somewhat for the test and treatment portion but in a manner that proponents are more than comfortable with it was a good compromise that will still resolve in a policy that will expand access to affordable health care at zero cost to the state. And with that, I urge an aye vote. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1336. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yes, Madam Speaker. Representative Joseph votes yes. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Bottoms votes yes Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? Yes, ma'am Representative Weinberg votes yes Please close the machine With 64 ayes, 0 no and 1 excuse The motion to concur is adopted Madam Majority Leader One more time Madam Speaker, I move for the repassage of House Bill 1336 as amended. The motion before us is the repassage of House Bill 1336 as amended. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Joseph votes yes. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote? No. Representative Bottoms votes no. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no. Please close the machine. With 57 ayes, 7 no, and 1 excused, House Bill 1336, as amended, is repassed. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move that the House proceed out of order for consideration of conference committee reports. Seeing. No objection. The House will proceed out of order for consideration of conference committee reports. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1084. House Bill 1084 by Representatives Espinoza and Camacho, also Senators Weissman and Linstead, concerning voter transparency requirements to expand information about the funding of initiated statewide ballot measures and in connection therewith, requiring the abstract of the fiscal impact statement for certain initiated statewide ballot measures to describe the measure's likely effect on the main areas of state expenditure. Representative Espinoza. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move that the House adopt the first conference committee report on the first conference committee of HB 26-1084. Please proceed. The specific title fades away, shifting information that must stay. Move to the voter book, wrapped in blue, the transparent effect comes into view. When new proposals take the stage with lofty promises on the page, the blue book shines a steady light to show the cost and do it right. Representative Camacho. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Senate tried to make this bill more clear, keeping voters informed when new costs appear. It keeps the focus on what could be reduced, so no one's surprised when nothing's obscured or excused. I'm asking we concur and move this forward today because with six days left, we cannot let the Senate get in the way. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of the first report of the first conference committee to House Bill 1084. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Joseph votes yes. Representative Bottoms, how do you vote? No. Representative Bottoms votes no. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no. AML Bacon is excused. Please close the machine. With 41 I-22 no and to excuse, the motion is adopted. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move for the repassage of House Bill 1084 as amended by the committee report. The motion before us is the repassage of House Bill 1084 as amended by the first report of the first committee, conference committee. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Joseph, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Joseph votes yes Representative Bottoms, how do you vote? No Representative Bottoms votes no Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, ma'am Representative Weinberg votes no Please close the machine With 41 I, 22 no and 2 excused House Bill 1084 as amended is repassed Co-sponsors Please close the machine. Madam Majority Leader Madam Speaker I move for the House to proceed out of order for consideration of adherence Seeing no objection, the House will proceed out of order for consideration of adherence. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 87. Senate Bill 87 by Senators Wallace and Pelton Beals, Representatives Winn and Lindsay, concerning authorizing legislative leave from employment during a legislative session for certain members of the General Assembly. Representative Lindsay. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move that the House recede from its position on SB 87. Please proceed. Thank you. Members, when this bill left the House, we basically sent it to the Senate at reflecting law that already exists. So there is no need to pass law and put words in a statute to reflect what people can already do, what employees and employers can already do. When it went to the Senate, they all agreed to put the bill back the way that it came from the Senate, and we agree with what they did there. So we don't need to be passing, put words in the statute that mean nothing. And also, just to speak for the bill itself, we do offer military members leave when they go on active duty. We also offer family leave when people need to take care of their family members or have babies, things like that. And we do that because those things are really important. They're important to our society, that people can go and serve and protect our country and then still come back and have their jobs and have that not be disrupted because of their service. It's also really important as we have babies and propagate our species or take care of our young ones that we don't disrupt our work life, and that is also a benefit to our society. I would argue that our work here is also a service to our communities, and for those of us that are not independently wealthy, married to wealthy spouses or have jobs that are very flexible, I think it's helpful to have that lack of disruption there. I also want to say this bill is not for me and Rep Wynn here. We have made the decision. We did decide to take the pay cut to come do this job. But I want you to consider all of the people who will never make it into this room because they already decide I can never do that. because of the income things. And so just think of all the voices that will never be in this room because they do never make that decision. So with that, Representative Wynne. Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is an honor to serve with you. It is an honor to serve with you. I agree with my co-prime sponsor on this House rescinding position because this only affects, again, 100 lawmakers here at the General Assembly. 65 in the House, 35 in the Senate. And this bill, again, the goal of this objective of this bill is to make sure that people from all walks of life can come and serve in the people's house. So that is why we are adhering with this. So I ask for a yes bill. The motion was to recede. Sorry, to recede. My apologies. I ask for a yes bill on the recede bill. Thank you. Thank you Representative Wynn Representative Luck Representative Luck Thank you Madam Speaker

Representative Espinoza and then Kelty.

Representative Kelty.

Seeing no further discussion the motion before us is to recede from the House position on Senate Bill 87 Sorry. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Joseph, how do you vote?

Representative Bottoms, how do you vote?

Representative Bottoms votes no. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? Representative Weinberg votes no. Please close the machine. Thank you. Now please close the machine. With 23 I, 41 no, and one excused, the motion fails. Madam Majority Leader.

Senate Bill 87 will be laid over until May 14th. Madam Majority Leader.

Seeing no objection, the balance of the calendar will be laid over until Friday, May 8th. Yeah, I've also just got to go. Announcements.

Thank you. Representative Woodrow.

Representative Brown.

Representative Valdez.

Members, you are free to go. We are going to take care of some house business. Thank you. . Sorry, 1.25? Okay. Mr. Schiebel.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House stand in recess until later today.