Colorado House 2026 Legislative Day 113

You're welcome.

Colleagues, please join me in the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, and our God, and indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Representatives Bacon. Barone. Bay-Snecker. Bottoms. Bradfield. Bradley.

Brooks. Brown. Caldwell. Minority Leader Caldwell.

Carter. Representative Carter.

DeGraff. Duran. Duran. English.

Espinoza. Ferre. Flannell. Froelich. Garcia. Garcia-Sander. Gilchrist. Goldstein. Gonzalez. Gonzalez. Representative Gonzalez.

Hamrick. Representative Hamrick.

Hartsook.

Jackson. Johnson. Joseph.

Kelty.

Representative Leader.

Lindsey.

Luck.

Lukens. Mabry. Marshall. Martinez. Morrow. McCormick.

Pascal. Representative Pascal.

Phillips. Richardson. Ricks. Representative Ricks.

Routenel.

Rydin. Sirota. Slaw. Smith. Soper. Stewart K Stewart R is here Story Rep Story is excused Sukla, Taggart, Titone, Valdez A, Rep Valdez is excused. Velasco Weinberg Wilford Representative Wilford

Winter Amell Winter is excused Woodrow Woog Zokai and Madam Speaker

Passable.

With 55 present, 10 excused, we do have a quorum.

It's May 6th. Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is May 6th indeed. So, Madam Speaker, on this May 6th, let's bring balance to the record before chamber turns to the dark side. With that, I move the journal of Tuesday, May 5th, 2026 be approved as corrected by the chief clerk.

Good morning, Madam Speaker. It's an honor to serve with you. It is an honor to serve with you. Members, on Saturday, April 13th, the men's hockey team from House District 2, my district, achieved something amazing, historic, but not unexpected. The University of Denver Pioneers men's hockey team won their 10th NCAA hockey championship. Give them a round of applause.

11th.

Representative Representative Soper

Thank you, Representative Soper. Representative Camacho.

Representative Lukens.

Madam Majority Leader.

Thank you. Representative Brown.

Representative Woog.

For the record.

Representative Woodrow. Yeah, my bad, Madam Speaker.

Seeing no more Mr. Sheebel.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker.

Members, your attention, please. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Seeing no objection. Seeing no objection, the bills listed by the Majority Leader will be made special orders today, May 6th at 1121 a.m. Madam Majority Leader.

The motion before us pursuant to House Rule 14 is that debate on Senate Bill 5 be limited to one hour during special orders today. This is a non-debatable motion, and pursuant to House Rule 15E, it does require a majority of all members to pass. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Joseph, how do you vote?

Representative Joseph votes yes. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes yes. Representative Bradley, how do you vote?

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

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

Representative Rutenel votes yes. Representative Luck, how do you vote?

Representative Luck votes no. Representative Joseph, could you repeat your vote? Representative Joseph?

Thank you. Representative Joseph votes yes. Slaw, Soper, and Winter AML Winter Please Please close the machine. With 36 I, 24 no, and five excused, the motion is adopted. Representative McCormick. Members, you have heard the motion. Seeing no objection, Representative McCormick will take the chair. Thank you. Thank you.

Senate Bill 5 by Senators Weissman and Gonzalez, also Representatives Mabry and Zocay, concerning state court remedies for violations of federal constitutional rights occurring during immigration enforcement and a connection therewith making an appropriation. Representative Mabry.

Representative Zocay. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start by thanking the many advocates who have worked on this policy. Many people have showed up to testify on this bill and on other immigration bills through this process to share stories of truly very difficult moments in their lives, very deeply personal moments, and it has helped inform this policy and make it better. There has also been a number of advocates that have worked on an expanded version of this policy to be responsive to calls from our constituents. And what we have before you today is more limited in the course of immigration enforcement, but we appreciate all of the efforts that have been put forward to- Representative Zocay, my bad.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I withdraw my motion.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Move to layover House Bill 1425 until after Senate Bill 20.

Representative Zocchi, or Representative Mabry. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to Senate Bill 5. To the bill.

Members, please keep it quiet. so we can hear those in the well.

Representative Mabry.

Further discussion? Representative Soper.

Representative Bottoms.

Representative Barone.

Representative Nguyen.

Representative Richardson.

Representative Kelty

Representative DeGraff.

but they are law enforcement officers. They are enforcing the law. They're enforcing the law that you had the opportunity to change, but you didn't change it because human trafficking and sex traffic and drug trafficking was more profitable. Keeping people in a permanently exploitable and expendable status, unprotected by documentation, was more profitable. So you kept the individuals in an unprotected status. This crisis is your fault. we have neighbors that are living in fear because of the criminals that the governor imported and that are being protected by you and that are encouraged to flaunt the law yes we have constitutional protections because these rights are to all persons but the law also extends under them that congress has the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization and they have put themselves here in a deportable status. And if they want to, when you say that they are deprived or they are detained unlawfully, when they are here unlawfully, that is just an incredible contradiction. And nothing says sanctuary state like this. And so when you say that it's only going to cost half of an FTE, I think it's going to cost a lot more because I think with a bill like this, with legislation like this that says Colorado is a sanctuary state. We are funding people here to be here illegally. We are taking federal money. And programs, like you said, like SNAP and Medicaid that do things like require people to be actually citizens of the United States, yeah, that makes sense for the state to cut them, for the federal government to cut them because the state is in absolute violation of those agreements that we have made with other states And so our residents are facing cuts Our residents are facing cuts while you spend million on yet another program to support illegals And we have several more bills here today that are designed to support people that are here in an illegal fashion, and unprotected by documentation. Permanently exploitable, permanently expendable, just the way the human traffickers like them. That's on you. We have neighbors that are living in fear, citizens that are living in fear, because of the imported criminals by the governor. And Coloradans are told to, they're not only told to tolerate this lawlessness, they are mocked for being concerned. They are not only mocked for being concerned they are pillaged for being concerned. So when you say that they have constitutional rights they have the rights that are extended to all persons but governments are instituted among men deriving their just power from the consent of the governed. It is their government that has a right that has a responsibility. It is their government that has been instituted among men. Now, if their government is failing and we have an obligation to a select few, why do we not have an obligation to the others? Yet, when a country that has been importing some of their worst into our country is supported in an overthrow of a corrupt government that these individuals were fleeing, then you say that is improper even when that is the most efficient way to actually deal with this issue because you don't actually want to deal with the issue and so you bring in stuff like you want to keep it on the emotional you bring in Renee Good who tried to run over with an SUV a law enforcement officer you bring in Alex Pundy who brought a gun to interfere with law enforcement activity. That falls into this place, stupid games, you get stupid prizes. Nobody likes that those individuals had anything bad happen to them. But when you go down this route, when you promote individuals staying here lawlessly, when you promote them being here in violation of the law, then these things are going to happen. and when you create a sanctuary state, even more so create a sanctuary state, this is going to happen. The citizenship was centralized in the authority of Congress through the naturalization clause. Now, you like the supremacy clause when it restricts citizens, but you don't like the supremacy clause when it works against people here illegally. So Coloradans are tired of being pillaged. Coloradans are tired of being mocked. Coloradans are tired of having to pay for the ideology. If someone breaks the law and you want to talk about reasonable force, That is whatever force is required to overcome the resistance. The individuals that are here illegally were asked to leave legally. They were asked to leave peacefully. So what is their status now that they have flaunted that, that you have encouraged them to remain here, that you have aided and abetted people to break the law? What is their status now that this bill seeks to aid and abet those who violate the law? It doesn't mean they're here legally, because that is a federal determination. It just means they're here illegally. and they have put themselves in a removable and deportable manner and there's a way to handle that. The court process, which is probably something that they skipped for years because they were encouraged to do so by your regime, they were encouraged to skip those naturalization hearings. They were encouraged to miss those, stand them up, don't attend. And now there's the price, and the price that's being paid is your fault. The price that's being paid is 100% your fault because you exploited these individuals, you trafficked them across borders, you put them in a position where they don't have documentation to either move forward or move backwards, and now you want to capitalize, and now you want to profit on their existence. And now you want to say to the people that are enforcing the law, which is really funny because you guys have no problem enforcing and creating laws under which the citizens of the United States have to live. And those very laws are enforced by law enforcement agents, and as we say, a good intention isn't a good idea if it requires a gun. We have these laws. We have these laws for a reason. And you love to make new laws. You love to send people with guns after the citizens of Colorado for violating your new laws that violate the Constitution. You love that. You have no problem putting a 70-year-old whistleblower in prison under the same conditions that you decry here. You don't care anything about that. Your compassion is very one-sided, and it doesn't include citizens of the United States or Colorado. It's always couched in terms of visitors. So their governments are responsible for upholding these values. You don't have any issue that their governments, because you support the kind of governments that these people are fleeing. We're going to have to concur. And it creates the issue over and over, and now you want to bring, although you avoid the harm that you do yourself to the citizens and that you would do to these agents by trying to dox them, by trying to put their faces online, by trying to run facial recognition on them so that their families can be harassed. Yes, the same sponsors. And now you want to put them in harm. Now you want to make sure that they are let off the hook and stay here for longer trials. So I move L-001 to SB-005 and ask that it be displayed.

Ma'am, I moved L-001 to...

I think we're on a new section. This amendment means that if the plaintiff in the action brought pursuant to the same section is charged with a criminal offense rising from the same incidence that gives rise to the action brought pursuant to the section the court shall stay the action brought pursuant to this section until the completion of the criminal proceeding if there is a civil, because the immigration is a civil proceeding. That was made sure. So that is a civil proceeding. If there's an issue with immigration, there's a civil proceeding. You want to charge that. Let's resolve the issue first and then move on to the criminal proceeding. And that goes on page 5 after line 27. Because this is a rule of law issue. I ask for an aye vote.

House Bill 1430 by Representatives Basenecker and Sirota, also Senators Lindstedt and Amabile, concerning adjustments to transportation funding.

to the Transportation Housing and Local Government Committee report.

Further discussion on the Transportation Housing and Local Government Committee report.

Thank you. That is a proper motion. Give us a minute. the amendment is before us

So I would urge a yes vote. Representative Basenecker. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to my good colleague for his amendment. We missed you yesterday but for joyous circumstances so congratulations to your family. I would respectfully ask for a no vote on this amendment. As I understand it what this amendment does is it says that if initiative 175 fails and Senate Bill 135 passes it essentially takes revenue from Senate Bill 135 and uses it according to the formula indicated in this amendment I think this is indicative of the same problem that we have with Initiative 175 in as much as there is always going to be unless we find a different solution from 175 a one trade for dollars that happen here And so I cannot responsibly ask for a yes vote on this because ultimately it would take money that is intended for our schools and now pave roads with that same money. There is a conversation to be had about better funding our roads in the state of Colorado. This amendment is not the solution to that challenge. Respectfully ask for a no vote.

Yeah. Well, we've created a fund under 135, if that does pass, all the way through, that is directed by title towards education. funding is pretty mutable and it can be changed by legislation the only definitive amounts that are deemed to be useful for education under 135 directly is the 2% increase over what the school funding formula provides taken out of a potential increase in revenues of the entire amount that we devote to K-12. It is purposely written to provide a whole lot of excess revenue and a whole lot of space underneath our Tabor cap. I think it's a good use of money, and if we're talking about, I mean, I guess the easiest thing to do could have been just to wait and see what the voters say and then come up and react to what the voters would like us to do in this state. But I would urge a yes vote on this.

To the bill, Representative Baisnecker. Thank you, Madam Chair. A little bit about House Bill 1430. And let me start by saying that this is not a bill that in any other circumstance we would bring before this body. So appreciate the conversation that we're going to have today, but need to mention in particular that HB 1430, the Colorado Budget Protection Act, is necessary to mitigate the harm that would be caused if Initiative 175 passes in November. It's estimated that this ballot measure would reallocate more than $700 million in state funds exclusively to roads in fiscal year 27-28, and more than $500 million diverted from the general fund that would otherwise be able to support education and health care, and nearly $200 million in cash funds that would require general fund backfill to avoid defunding the DMV, post-emergency medical services, and other key state functions. The truth of the matter is, no matter how you slice it, there is no way to implement such a broad cut without it significantly impacting critical services, including K-12 education and health care. There is simply nowhere else in our budget to cut from. To avoid these drastic cuts to critical services that our constituents rely upon, House Bill 1430 makes reductions in three key areas. First, it reduces $100 million of general fund expenditure on Senate Bill 267 debt service and $100 million general fund transfers to the state highway fund, both of which are backfilled with Initiative 175 funds. Second, it reduces gas excise taxes. tax and excise special fuel tax and third reduces road usage feet and certain registration fees. These reductions would be temporary for three years reverting to their current status in 2030 and would create general fund room when we're above the Tabor cap allowing funds to effectively offset 175 reallocations. To be clear however this is a very short-term fix to a very long-term constitutional problem that 175 would be creating. I do understand the perspective of those calling for more transportation funding, but I have to point out, Colorado has made meaningful investments in transportation funding over the past decade, generating more than $470 million each year in new funding for roads, bridges, and transit, and the majority of that funding goes to roads and bridges. These investments have improved over 2,500 miles of rural roads since 2021 and reduced the proportion of interstate miles in poor condition from 3.9% to less than 2% over the last three years. The entire state is facing a budget shortfall and while transportation funding needs are always present, as the state's elected representatives, we must make difficult choices to balance the budget each year. Simply put, taking from education and health care to pave a pothole is not the answer for our state. I respectfully ask for a yes vote on 1430. Representative Sirota. Thank you, Madam

Representative Taggart. Thank you, Madam Chair. It's an honor to serve with you. And it is an honor to serve with you, sir. Let me start with two points. One, I would acknowledge our roads are in awful condition. I don't think any of us are proud of our roads. Those of us who travel outside of the state and then travel back inside of the state realize that our neighboring states have done a much better job on our roads, on their roads, than we have done on ours. secondly i want to acknowledge that initiative 175 if our voters choose to go in this direction this initiative begins on january 1st and i would reinforce what my colleagues have said we just passed a long bill that was extremely difficult to balance, and this turns, if 175 goes into effect, it turns that budget upside down. If you have not read the fiscal analysis having to do with Initiative 175 and or the fiscal analysis for 1430, even though they are difficult reads, I think all of us need to become familiar with these two fiscal notes. And let me read you a couple of key points of the fiscal analysis having to do with Initiative 175. and why then 1430 is necessary. Under the general fund, the very first sentence says, the measure redirects an estimated $264.4 million in 2627 and $538 million, basically $539 million, in 27-28. This is a redirect of our sales and use tax that is used for K-12 education in other areas. that is immediate cut to K-12 and other areas. Immediate cut and I remind you of that with a balanced budget. How are we going to make up for that And those dollars now have to strictly go to road work Again, I would not argue that our roads are terrible. But are we as a body willing to take $264 million away from K-12? in the second half of the year? And are we willing to take $538 million the following year? And it may not just be K-12, but as we know, our two biggest areas are K-12 and Medicaid, and that's where it's going to come from. Let me read the second component. It obligates $670.7 million of the Highway Users Tax Fund next year and $1.4 million the following year. How are we going to pay for other things? within our Department of Transportation when those are obligated only to that. Add to this, when it comes to motor vehicle fuel excise taxes and fees, It again obligates, obligates $318 million in 26-27, starting January 27, to road transportation. My colleagues talked about where some of these other dollars go and where they fund. Going on further, it obligates $215 million in 2627 and $443 million in 2728 from registration fees strictly to road transportation only. folks I'm not going to stand up here and tell you the merits of initiative 175 but I believe I have some expertise when it comes to the fact that these funds are going to have to be made up someplace else in critical programs which we may not agree on all of those programs but I'll be damned if I'm going to take it from K through 12 under any circumstances. If this goes through 1430, which you may say is preemptive, and I would say it's not preemptive because of the fact this is a 26-27 budget year and we just approved the long bill. If we don't do something right now with 1430, we're in as much shirking our responsibilities because we know just from the standpoint of the sales and use tax, we know we out of balance by million immediately when million if it approved So there nothing in my humble estimation that is preemptive whatsoever It is, and 1430 is crafted specifically that it does not go into place under any circumstances if 175 fails. but if it goes through we have a responsibility and it's not preemptive we have a responsibility to figure out how we're going to balance this budget in 26, 27 and beyond and so whether you agree with how our Department of Transportation is spending its money that's a debate for another day But I hope you would agree with me, we can't do this at the expense of education and health care, and that's where the predominant dollars are going to come from. Thank you.

I don't have a problem necessarily with the Department of Transportation. What I'm saying as far as them spending their money in a certain place, that's not my argument. My argument is how we're spending our money, how we're spending the taxpayers' money across the board in this place. I have notes that I took last night in committee, which I'm going to remain in the, they're going to remain in their folder, than remain over here because I don't necessarily need to comment on discussion items from committee last night when we heard this bill. Instead, I'm just going to speak off the cuff about my concerns. My good colleague from the Joint Budget Committee, you know, we often refer to that as a bipartisan committee. It is not. It's not even close. It's not a bipartisan committee. Is there a construction of both parties? Yeah, sure, but it's four to two. Simple math tells me that's two-thirds. Simple math tells me that's actually us, Republicans, being in a super minority. That's what a super minority looks like. We have a super minority voice in the budget process. Is it difficult for our member, our Republican member of the Joint Budget Committee to be able to get things done? You better believe it is. Does it come with tremendous amount of compromise on his part, more so than the other two thirds.

microphone. I am not speaking for others. I am speaking for myself. Thank you. It sounded like you were speaking for a member of the Joint Budget Committee. Well, perception maybe. We look at things a little differently. I understand when I speak for myself the difficulty that the Joint Budget Committee has in being able to figure this out. I understand the amount of work that comes with that. Also, I want to recognize that, so that that way we can go ahead and address what somebody might perceive as impugning motives ahead of time, I want to recognize that I understand how difficult this is for the bill sponsors to bring. They don't want to bring this. They don't want to be in this position. They don't want to bring this bill. I get that. I have great respect for the bill sponsors, so whatever I say about this bill is not to them because this is not what they want to be doing. Oh, gosh, there I go again, speaking for others. this bill is it is preemptive as much as my member of the joint budget committee said it's not preemptive because of the time that it goes into effect it most certainly is preemptive it's preemptive in short circuiting the voice of the voters we have a priority issue here I have said it here at this microphone before I'll say it again, the balance that we have here, 43 to 22, makes it to where policy for one side is easier to get through. It doesn't make it right. It doesn't mean we're right. And I would tell you that the traction that 175 is getting, that's the voters telling you that they're kind of tired of not having their voices heard. this is them saying, look, we understand that we're not necessarily always going to get a fair shake. We're not necessarily always going to get what we want out of the General Assembly. But this is what we're left with. This is the only choice that we have available to us to ensure that our voices are heard. It's to go to the ballot. 1430 circumvents that. before it's even had enough signatures to make the ballot. But yet, I think we're pretty sure it's going to pass. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any need for 1430. This would send us back to the drawing board and force us to reprioritize. It probably, in many ways, would make things, as difficult as it is, perhaps more enjoyable for our members of the Joint Budget Committee because there are going to be concessions that will have to be considered that I think otherwise are not. Is it our job to run a bill to cut the knees out from underneath a ballot measure? Is that our job? Really? That's what this does. That's what 1430 does. 1430 is an effort to circumvent the voice of the voters It is running legislation to cut the knees out from underneath a ballot measure before the voters have had a chance to even see it on their ballot. I don't like the front-range passenger rail. Maybe we should run a bill right now to cut the knees out from underneath front-range passenger rail before it's had a chance to be approved by the voters. That's going to be on the ballot. Is that our job, to cut the knees out from underneath the voice of the voters on that? I don't believe it is. Yes, if 175 passes and 1430 does not, we are going to have a budget mess on our hands. I understand very clearly that there is no new budget funding mechanism that's being discussed. I understand very clearly this money is going to have to come from somewhere else. I understand very clearly what the biggest two budget items are. It doesn't necessarily mean that that is going, we need to stop the false narrative. It has to come from that. It has to come from the big pockets, but now we have to ask ourselves, why have those pockets grown so large? Exponentially so. At least one of them. At a 9% clip. Triple the rate of inflation. Is that something that needs to be addressed? I believe the voters are saying yes. Because we think, the voters are saying through 175, we thought that we were funding roads. We thought that we were doing this. What are you talking about? That the money that we've been paying is actually not going for what we thought it was going to. We would like to ensure that this money is going to where we were told it was going. That creates a budget hole. Guess what, folks? We're already in a budget hole. Joint Budget Committee will come up here on either side and tell you we're already looking at about a billion dollars for next year. We are in that budget hole. We're not fixing it. We're patching it. Just like growing up in Lakewood, Colorado, there are only too many goat heads I could take to that tire and patch it before I finally had to just replace the whole thing. We've got to go back to the drawing board. We've got to reprioritize the way that Colorado voters are obviously sensing like they're going to. It's obvious that they want to tell us to reprioritize, otherwise I wouldn't be standing here talking about this. And surely the bill sponsors would not have wanted to come up here. They don't want any way to have to do this. They would not be here asking us to consider this bill. We're being asked to reprioritize. The voters are begging for us to reprioritize. I know it's a difficult decision, a difficult discussion to have. But I do not believe, irrespective of whatever the ballot measure is, irrespective of whatever bill we're talking about here, I don't believe that it is the job of this House, of this General Assembly, to work to pass legislation to eviscerate the funding mechanisms of a bill, or I'm sorry, an initiative that the voters have yet to even see. We're way out over the tips of our skis on this. And we're trying to silence the voters. I would say please consider that. Please vote no.

Thank you Madam Chair I just I feel this point needs to be reiterated over and over again The voters with Initiative 175 are being asked a very narrow question, which is, do you think it's a good idea to fix our roads? Well, I don't think there's anybody out there who doesn't agree, yes, we should invest in fixing our roads. And in fact, I would submit, we have been doing that. We, over the last several years, this General Assembly has put hundreds, plural, of millions of dollars reinvesting in our road and bridge infrastructure. We're doing that. I recognize that it is not enough. I recognize that we still have infrastructure in disrepair. But we also are somewhere at the bottom of the list in terms of funding for teacher pay. We are somewhere at the bottom of the list for investments in higher education. We are not able to meet the needs of Coloradans when it comes to funding our child care assistance program. thousands of Coloradans because of the actions of Congress due to HR1 and the failure to reauthorize the premium tax credit for health insurance are going to lose access to their health care because they can't afford it or because the government has set such hoops to go through to purposefully ensure that people are disenrolled So we are not fully meeting the needs of the people of Colorado in so many different ways. But Initiative 175 is asking a very narrow question about whether or not Coloradans think that we should invest more money to fix our roads. That's a simple question, simple answer. But it misses the rest of the equation. And if you actually ask people, do you think that we should defund our education system? do you think we should defund our health care system in order to pay for those roads? Well, I think then people get a different, you'll get a different answer. But that's not what that ballot question asks. But we here in the General Assembly have a responsibility to deal with that, and that's what we are doing with this bill. Over and over and over again, we ask the proponents, where should that $700 million come from? No one can answer the question. And my colleague from Douglas County also said the same thing that the proponents of 175 have said, is that we'll just have to figure out, and it doesn't have to come from education, or it doesn't have to come from health care. But if our budget is actually made up of a third going to Medicaid and nearly a third going to K-12 education, that's where it's going to come from. You can't reasonably take it from the whole rest of state government. We would just defund the Department of Agriculture. I don't think anybody wants to do that. So nobody can come up with an answer as to where this $700 million would come from. But we're telling you where it will come from, and we don't believe that that is a choice that our constituents would actually have us make if they had the whole question. But they don They have a very narrow question and a special interest with deep pockets who will work to ensure that folks are only asked that very narrow question We are taking the very responsible path to try and explain this is where

Thank you, Madam Chair. You saved me from signing a card. Providing for our state highways, their maintenance, their construction, the safety of our traveling public is a role the government, our government, this state has to fulfill. So, yeah, these are hard decisions. And where do you get the money? Well, the reverse of that is true. How long are we going to under-resource our roads? Until I-70 is gravel? That's not an option either. Heard HR1 again. when we didn't like what happened, but somehow we found the money. Now we're facing a ballot measure where the people may demand that we prioritize putting money to roads. And we're saying now there's no place to get the money. But if I can remind you, we found money to balance this budget by selling tax credits, not something I was fond of, Tapping into our reserves, not something I was fond of. Taking money from the unclaimed property trust fund, principal and interest, not something I was fond of. Doing a workaround to credit ourselves for future TAVR refunds, absolutely not something I was fond of, but something we were willing to do to meet the state's priorities. So I'd ask you, what are we willing to do to make the people's priorities a priority in this house. That's who we work for. They're frustrated. As a legislator, I understand why this bill was brought. As a citizen, I know that our roads need help. As a taxpayer, I don't really like the answer is if you devote, if I vote to devote more money to our roads, then we're going to do an end run with this bill to take money away from going to the roads and also reduce monies under the Tabor cap so you can also keep my refund. I mean, it's just bad news all around. And again, I think we all see where this is going to go. There are two potential ballot measures. One is referred, has to work its way through this building. The other has got signature collection going on. The one for road funding asks people if they would like the money they're paying to go to roads to go to roads. That's really an easy yes, and it's an easy message. It may not be a complete one, but I don't think if people have been paying attention over the years and the repeated ballot measures that have gone out to support school funding and have failed, that people are unaware that school funding is tight as well. Certainly there's a lot in the news about Medicaid costs as well. I think the people of the state are a lot more informed than give them credit for. The other ballot question will be, would you like to give up your TABOR refunds forever so we have more room to collect revenue and spend a portion of it on schools and tuck away the rest for under a fund title that will probably change or have many, many, many other uses added to it over the years if there's money in it. That one will probably fail. That's why we're focused on this one. I do think this is preemptive. I don't like special sessions. They've become much less special over the years, but to speak before the people have a chance to I don't think is right. The measure is constitutional, and that would definitely put the legislature in a bind, and that's maybe our perspective looking outward, but I think it was very purposefully made a constitutional measure because the people have been watching this chamber, this building for many, many years and realize that we're not going to make good on our promises and the best they can do is lock funding for roads into the Constitution. It's not elegant. It's not the best way to approach this, but I think it's going to happen. I think this bill is premature. I understand very much so that if it passes, it's going to disrupt us in the middle of a budget year, a very painful one, and in the middle of building another as we start into building a budget for the following year. But maybe the best way to address that would be to recognize that it may pass and figure out how we would deal with that one year's, that one half year's lack of funding. I suggested on the bench that maybe we'd look at taking down the state reserves a little more. That's very risky, but it is a source of money that we actually fully own and have control of, and it would get us through that half of the fiscal year where we're building the budget for the next year with a set of priorities that have been given to us by the people. But this bill doesn't do that. This bill just simply says, go ahead and vote for more money. We'll make sure that no more money goes to roads. And in doing so, we're also going to move some revenues out from under the Tabor cap. So we'll punish you further by withholding potential Tabor refunds. I don't think it's the right bill. It's certainly not the right time, and I would urge a no vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First, let's understand what the definition of preemptive is. Preemptive refers to an action taken in advance to prevent or deter an anticipated situation or action. It means acting first to stop something from happening, and in this tense, it's the vote of the people. Often by controlling the situation beforehand. And this bill means to do just that. By voiding the vote and the voice of the people. Second, my colleague said we're in a budget hole. I disagree. It's a crater. Because no one knows exactly how to budget in this place. Nor does this assembly know how to prioritize. I personally offered million million in easy cuts during a long bill And the RJBC refused them all. They chose to do that. I put $74,000 back into the purse of the people, which was voted on unanimously by this body and unanimously by the Senate. But yet again, the JBC reversed it. They gave it back to the governor's gardening fund. So give me a break. Then using K-12 as a threat chip is very typical. using the children of Colorado to skirt responsibility. Third, let me tell you why I am in absolute opposition to this bill. Let's get to what it really boils down to. At its core, this bill is not just bad policy. It's a direct affront to the rights, to the choices, and the intelligence of the people of Colorado. We serve here at the consent of the people of Colorado. Our job is not to outmaneuver the people, not outsmart them, and certainly not to override their voice when it becomes inconvenient. And yet, that is exactly what this bill does. Coloradans have been clear time and time again that they value their ability to make decisions about their own money, their own lives, and their own future. They expect transparency. They expect honesty. And they expect that when government takes their hard-earned dollars, it does so with their knowledge and their consent. This bill violates that trust. It takes money from the people, money they earned, money they budgeted, money they rely on, and it redirects it through mechanisms that are anything but straightforward. Call it a fee. Call it a program. Call it an adjustment. The reality is simple. If this government is taking more money from the people without clear, honest consent, That is not good governance. That is a form of theft. And what makes it worse is how it's done. This bill is structured in a way that masks its true impact. It relies on complexity instead of clarity. It asks the people of Colorado to accept something they would likely reject if it were presented plainly and honestly. That is not transparency. That is deception. Absolute deception. We should never be in the business of tricking the people we represent. We should never pass laws that depend on confusion to succeed. And we should never assume that the people of Colorado won't notice. Because they will. And I know I will make sure of it. And when they do when they do see that damage is not just financial it is a loss of trust It is a signal that their voice matters less that their choices can be worked around and that their government believes it knows better than they do That is an attack and an insult of their intelligence. The people of this state are not naive. They understand fairness. They understand accountability, and they understand when something doesn't add up. This bill does not add up. It undermines choice. It sidesteps the will of the people. And it takes their money in a way that is neither honest nor transparent. This bill is a threat to the people. Saying, if you dare pass ballot measure 175, if you dare pass it, this body will reverse what you voted for. That the people's vote doesn't matter. Doesn't matter squat. Let that sink in. This bill should be deemed illegal. Every voter in Colorado beware. The only shame is this bill. We can and we must do better than this. If we believe in representative government, then we must respect the people we represent. If we believe in rights, then we must protect their ability to choose. And if we believe in integrity, then we must be honest about the cost of what we pass in this chamber. HB 26-1430 fails all three, shamefully. For the sake of the people of Colorado, their rights, their choices, and their trust, I am urging, I am asking for a no vote.

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

Members, I want to address a couple points. First, I hope, I truly hope that folks are paying attention to what we're doing here today. And I truly hope that your constituents ask you about 175 and 1430. And here's what I hope you can say. I hope you're able to say that when it came down to it, you deemed cuts to education to be absolutely devastating to our communities. That you understood what we heard in committee yesterday, that if you fill a pothole only to close a rural hospital, you have not achieved your goal. And if you drive up tuition across our state for a binary choice that the voters are being presented with that does not capture the entire complexity of the situation, then we have not done our jobs here. There was words thrown out like theft and integrity. I reject that characterization of our work here. You should, too. We might disagree on policy, but I will not have our work here categorized in such a manner I also heard that this takes the taxpayers money Friends, a read of the fiscal note shows you that it actually reduces taxes and fees on the average Coloradan, not the least of which, given the prices at the pump, include the gas tax and the special fuel tax. That actually might be a relief that folks are looking for, even though I disagree with why we're having to do that. There's no additional revenue in 1430. What it does do is protect core services that your constituents will continue to rely upon. So there's a false choice presented to you. My ask is this. What will you say when your constituents say, why are they cutting health care in my community? Where were you in that moment? Why are they impacting education funding when we just passed a budget? Where were you in that moment? This is not a question of integrity. It is a question of how we will respond when core services that people will continue to rely upon in our state are threatened by outside-the-building initiatives. What people are being asked when they are asked to sign that petition is simply this. Would you like to fix roads in our state for no additional taxes? Heck, I'd sign that. But now if you ask them the full question, would you like to go to a four-day school week as a result of that signature? Would you like to have clinics in your community closed? Because the emergency rooms will stay open. But would you like to drive four or five hours to deliver a baby? Because our health care providers have already taken a painful round of cuts this budget cycle that we agreed we had to do. The issue is much more nuanced than what the voters are being asked. But what needs to be said in this chamber is what we will do to protect the priorities that we know people in our community will rely upon. That is what 1430 does. And so respectfully, I would ask for a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And let me respond. Listen again. during the long bill I offered $120 million worth of reasonable cuts across the board that didn't have anything to do with education had nothing to do with affecting hospitals had nothing to do with what the sponsor just said that just came up here and talked about none of that those cuts had anything to do with any of that but yet they were still turned down because by gosh how dare we how dare we actually try to have an input on the long bill, as we all should be part of.

Speaker Pro Tem Basinecker

And I would just like to point out, the ballot measure 175 says, what the money is intended for, it shall go to. And if that's what the people want, that's what they vote for, that's what shall be done. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, or Madam Chair. I understand what the bill sponsors are concerned with, but here's my issue. This bill says that citizens aren't smart enough to know what's best for them. Voters are being told you can pass your initiative, but don't worry. The legislator already has a backroom workaround ready to blunt its impact. This is a direct insult to the judgment of the people we serve. It says, in effect, we know where you want your tax dollars to go, but we're already planning to undo it. This bill is a preemptive veto of the people's will. Instead of engaging with citizens' frustrations over congestion, crumbling roads, and broken trust around transportation dollars, this bill protects the status quo. If you believe in the ballot initiative process or if you have ever encouraged your constituents to get involved, to sign a petition, or to show up and vote, then you can't support a bill that is drafted as a backup. You also can't say your voice matters and then say we've already planned around your voice because you don't know any better. Supporters of this bill will say it's about avoiding budget chaos and it's about stability and responsibility. Stability should not become a code word for sidestepping the voters. Responsibility should not mean writing laws that assume the people will make the wrong decision and that we must quietly correct it in advance. If we are concerned that a citizen's initiative may have unintended consequences, then our job is to make that case to the public, not to take the sneaky approach. It is not our job to quietly pass bills with mechanisms that nullify a future vote some of us happen to dislike. The initiative process is the people's legislative power, and it takes away that power. My constituents' voice matter. Your constituent voices matter. And we are here to serve their interests and represent them. When they say they want more certainty that their transportation dollars will actually reach transportation products, our response should be to listen, to debate, and if we disagree to persuade them openly not to construct a bill that tells them that they're just not smart enough to understand the consequences of their own choices. For that reason, or for the sake of a genuine partnership between this body and the citizens that we serve, I urge a no vote on this bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. a couple of points. A budget by its nature is preemptive. Does everybody understand that? A budget by its nature is preemptive. And if you don't believe that, for those of us that have done budgets, and I think I have a little bit of expertise as compared to what was said to me in this area, that we don't know how to budget. You don run a multimillion international company and not know how to budget Budgets are preemptive And that's one of the reasons that we, when we create budgets, we create assumptions for those budgets. And then we analyze those assumptions as the year goes on. What we're doing, in fact, right now, is making the assumption that 175 will in fact pass. We're not saying to our voters under any circumstances that they should pass 175. There's not a single person that has come up here and said, we are going to say we don't want them to pass 175. That's up to our voters, not up to us. But we have an obligation to those same voters to take action, whether you believe it's preemptive or not. I don't happen to believe it is, because we're within two months of the 26-27 budget year. Two months. and if we make the assumption that 175 may pass, we have an obligation to the citizens of this state to take action. And that's what 1430 does. Now, if you don't want us to take that action, my name, by the way, is not on this bill, if you don't want us to take that action, then get prepared to come back here in November. for a special session, because we will have to make modifications at that point. I want to remind you of some of the criticism that took place in the 26-27 budget long bill that we just presented. We had to cut almost $350 million out of Medicaid. Let me repeat that. almost $350 million. And I remember sitting on that bench taking criticism of IDD, taking criticism of PBT, taking criticism of provider rates. Well, if we have to come back here in special session, what do you think is going to happen? We also are taking criticism, and rightly so, from our educators in K-12 that we could not do anything out of the general fund this year in terms of increases. It's all coming out of the state education fund to the degree of about $250 million. We know full well doing that that the state education fund is heading for a cliff. If you don't know that, you should know that. It is heading for a financial cliff. So if 175 goes through in a special session, guess what? We're going to be talking to you about cutting both general fund and potentially state education fund for K-12. Well and let me remind you something When we come back here in special education or for a special session there be 25 at least of us that will not be here the next two weeks later or a month later. Is that what we want? Or do we want us all that are here today to be tackling this issue? and I'll finish by this statement. I come to this chamber as both a JBC member and a member of my caucus and a member of 65 people with the honesty and integrity that was brought to me by my family and by my religious background and my friends. I will not accept somebody telling me I'm deceptive. That is getting at the core of who I am. There was nothing in the JBC process that was deceptive whatsoever. You may not agree with everything we recommended, and you may not have gotten everything you wanted, and I sure didn't get everything that I wanted. But that's the process of being 65 people in here and six members of the JBC. I will not tolerate being called deceptive. And I will say, when there is a ballot measure, and that ballot measure is very focused, one of the obligations we have as a group is to say there are consequences to being that narrow. And 1430 touches on that. Thank you. Representative Johnson.

balancing the budget and handling the budget of Colorado is no small feat. And I understand the stress and the frustrations and the tears that you guys work through. What we're also looking at is when the people feel their voices and heard in this body by the collective, not pointing out JBC or anyone, but as a collective, when they've said repeatedly, roads are one of our top priorities. I can speak strongly for House District 63, the counties of Morgan, Logan, Phillips, Cedric, Washington, and most of Weld County. One of the top priorities is the roads. I get a text message or a call daily talking about someone who just had more car damage. Weekly from my first responders or family members on another one who's gone to the hospital because of a wreck on the road. And unfortunately, there have been many deaths this year due to the potholes and the poor conditions we have on our roads. So when we talk about health care, we also need to look at the public safety. And we've been talking about public safety and where do we balance and where do we cut. And, you know, I think the reason that the ballot initiative is so narrow are the people are finally saying we need guardrails. We want this to go to roads. Back in 2020 or 21, we had a huge budget set aside for transportation. rural Colorado got a good portion of it unfortunately the portion that we got went to electric vehicle charging stations bike lanes it didn't go to the potholes or the lane expansions that we direly need so I understand the narrow scope of the ballot initiative saying the People are talking and we don't want this to go to transportation as a broad. We want it to go to road conditions as a narrow. Last year we were 47th on the road conditions of the nation. Bottom list. This year I think I read we're 48th. Our road conditions are getting worse. We don't want to be 47th, 48th on a list on who has the best roads because that means we have one of the worst. I am speaking for House District 63 when we say roads are a priority. And we understand that we need a balanced budget. We understand we must fully fund education. But at the same time, we also must make sure, when we hear about talking about the people's dollar, everything we use in this body is through the taxpayers. That is how government works, is through the funds of the people who told us to come here and work on their behalf. And colleagues, we might disagree on what the ballot initiative, if it's too narrow, not narrow enough, if these are where we want to put the funds. But that's why we're elected by our communities. 65 districts that we can go and talk with our community members and explain what the holistic of this will mean. That it will mean that we have to pull funds somewhere. That it does mean we have to balance. And that's our job to communicate to them. Because the works of government, the workings of how we do a budget, is confusing. Our jobs don't end on Sina D'Eye. It continues when we go and talk with our community members in town halls and we share them what's happening. Their duty is on us to tell them what this means, but the duty is also to respond when they tell us directly through a ballot initiative that may or may not pass, not telling the people of Colorado which way to go, but if they do something, by the majority of Colorado, it means we are obligated to listen to them because we're supposed to be their voice, not their controller. And it is going to be a hard time, but I know for House District 63, we've repeated years and years, and predecessors before me, It has been something that we've been begging the state is for infrastructure dollars specifically for roads to fix our crumbling roads that are leading to wrecks, deaths, damages upon infrastructure. It's what causes our freight sometimes to go up because when their freight gets damaged, that cost then goes on to the transportation of food, into the groceries. When we see first responders responding because another loved one has been hurt or worse, that's because of the roads. So there is a holistic thing that I think we need to consider, but at the end of the day, I just urge all of you to please, after we end the session next week, our jobs don't stop. Our jobs continue to go talk with our people and make sure they're fully understanding what a ballot initiative will do, and they fully understand what's happening, but then we have to listen back. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I know repeatedly we've heard up here today kind of the would-you-rather question. If we're going to fund this, what aren't we going to fund? And it's a little too late to be asking that question because it's not been asked for the last 20 or so years as our transportation dollars and the monies that get devoted to our road networks have dwindled. somebody's made that decision it wasn't publicly made at this podium we didn't decide that was the trade-off but it's become that I don't fault our JBC their job is to find money to cover the costs of the bills that we pass in this house there a whole lot of things that are not core services that we continue to fund from this building Those don't get asked about. We're being asked to pit core service against core service. I don't think that's quite where we should be having the discussion, but it's the discussion we're having today. But just if you're tracking, in Colorado spends roughly $69 per person for transportation today. That's down from $125 per person in the 1990s. If that trend continues, we'll be down to about $41 per person in the next 20 years. But I would dare say that we are spending more per pupil on schooling than we were in the 1990s. We're certainly paying more per person in medical costs than we were 20 years ago. And inflation hits all areas, but that per person spending in the state on the transportation side has gone down. So decisions have been made. Trade-offs have been made. And now we're being asked again, if you fund this, then what else aren't you going to fund? Well, this is the thing that hasn't been funded. while all others have continued to be. Gasoline tax is cut in this bill, and it's nice to cut taxes, but we haven't seen an increase in our gas tax since 1991. 22 cents is what it's been. That's almost the purchasing power that's cut in half with inflation, and now this bill is going to cut that. So CDOT's been telling us that they're about $350 million short each year and what they just need to keep up with the pavement we have. They're not getting that. The decision, the trade-off's been made repeatedly in this building, and transportation has been on the losing end of that every time. It hasn't been considered equally with the other core services that have been talked about. it's probably time that the people do point out that they want this service taken care of at least on equal footing with the rest. And then to bring a bill that says, you know, it may not be preemptive, but it's certainly set up to nullify any vote, that if you vote yes, we're just going to cut the funding that would have been going otherwise, and you're not going to see any benefit to what you voted for. And that's just not right. And this is painful and it's frustrating because we don't control what people put on the ballot. We can balance bills against bills in appropriation, but if we're told from the outside that we've got to make this spend, that gets frustrating. It's as frustrating, I'm sure, as it was to some folks when H.R. 1 came down, and externally we were told you weren't going to get revenue to be able to spend. So the frustration is real, but the solution is what we've got to be working for. And the solution can't be before you even vote, we're going to tell you that if you vote yes, your vote will be meaningless. And if you vote no, perhaps the can will get kicked down the road some more. I look at this as certainly not the best solution that this state could have, at least the ballot measure But it a forcing function to force us to do the job we should have been doing as a body for a long time And that not just budgeting year to year It's recognizing that there are priorities in this state that have to be addressed and have been left unaddressed for decades. That priority is our roads. Every time there's been a chance, funding for our roads has come out on the short end of the stick. That's just become absolutely recognizable to everybody in this state, and I think our voters are going to confirm that this fall. But this bill doesn't fix the problem that's been identified. It just fix a budget.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it. Colleagues, we've heard a lot of discussion around this today, and we're in a tough predicament, and there's no doubt about that. I was waiting for my bill to come up yesterday in committee, and I was able to listen to a lot of this. And actually, we're in a really bad spot all the way around. I think speaking, I'm trying to, I hate to use the word, down the middle of the road on this. I don't think either side is wrong in their assessment either way. I think this is just a tough spot for legislators to be in, and that's what we got elected to do, is push the red or the green button. I know there's times everybody in here wishes there was a I'm not sure button, but on this one there isn't. Some of my colleagues have got up and talked, especially from a rural perspective. When we look at roads, roads are huge for commerce for us. We don't have the storefronts that you all have. Most of our stuff is exports and imports in and out of our districts, whether it's agricultural goods or pass-through that we see even through our communities, just getting truckers to stop and put gas in trucks, spend a few dollars in a community. So roads are really important for commerce in our districts, and that's why rural Colorado always gets up here and battles so hard for our roads because they are our lifeblood as we see our main streets start to dry up and we see things start to happen. Roads are ultra-important for us for that commerce and then for us to be able to get our crops in and out of fields, get cattle to move across the state. And I hate that we have the discussion all the time, and I think I'm fair about this all the time, talking about trying to not beat each other up too much but choosing education over choosing roads, I don't think that there's anybody in my caucus that would stand up here and say that they would want to choose roads over education. And I'll speak for them when I say that. I would guarantee that 100% of my colleagues wouldn't get up and say they would want to choose roads over education one bit. And I don't fault the JBC either when it comes to what they have to deal with because the good representative from the Western Slope, he's basically a businessman, and he's appointed to the JBC to sit down and look at the state like a business. And it's hard to make those business decisions within the JBC, and I 110% commend the job that they do. And I don't agree with everything that they do, but I could only imagine the pressure. Look at the pressure we have as legislators and then add the amount of pressure that the JBC does to try to juggle 100 different personalities in this building, juggle the state budget, juggle the outside pressures. I could only imagine, and I commend them for that. and I think we're talking about the initiative and the problem it's going to cause and that people are only going to have one decision and I think when it comes to signing the petition, I agree with you, but at the end of the day, I think all of us know in here the millions and millions and millions of dollars that are going to be spent if this does make the ballot, which is going to lay out the case either way. We've all been in politics long enough to know that if this does make the ballot, we should start a pool to see how many millions of dollars are going to be spent making this argument to the voters of Colorado So I just want to lay that out to level set that I don think that people are going to go to the ballot and just see roads Any of you we don have a whole lot of time to watch TV but I seen enough political ads already in the last month and a half to make me want to throw the TV out the window. And I think we're going to see a lot of ads when it comes to voters making a decision on this. So I don't think that the voters are going to make a decision based off of a single issue. And what it comes down to is at the end of the day, the voters will decide because it is a force mechanism, like my good colleague from Albert County did say. This is a force mechanism, and we've seen that with a few other ballot initiatives that have been on in the last couple years. We all went through a special session where essentially this building was locked down based upon a ballot initiative and a grand compromise that was struck, and we did that in a special session. So this is a force mechanism of the people, but I'm also very consistent when I get up here and say that I think that there's times that we don't have our priorities lined out I think that there's times that we over commit we overspend and we really have to take a hard look in the mirror what our priorities are and I think that there's wants and needs and when I was raised you know my parents said there's the wants that you have and there's the needs that you have and I think somehow we've blurred those lines of wants and needs. And you can't give from a cup that's empty. And that's a term used in rural Colorado all the time where you can't squeeze blood from a turnip, but you can't give from a cup that's empty. So even though people come with the most extreme situations, and I know that everybody in this building has a heart for their constituents, and there's days that we vehemently disagree in this building, but I would say the majority of people come here to represent their districts, and that's what you're elected to do. But sometimes we have to step back and look at our constituents, and I think especially for myself and my colleagues, there's a lot of times we have to go back to our constituents and say these are issues that you wanted to prop up, these are the things that you wanted supported, and guess what? We tried our darndest, but we couldn't get them done. The math isn't there for us. The math don't math. I think what's important is, I said this the other day, is there's going to be a time when now you're going to have to go to your constituents and have those hard conversations with them, just like we have to every year when we go home. You're going to have to look at your constituents and say, the math don't math, and we don't have the money. And it may be a want, but we've got to take care of the needs. And this will self-correct by the voters, and it won't just be this ballot initiative. I think that yesterday when I brought up that supermajorities aren't a good thing, and I had colleagues on this side of the aisle shaking their heads and agreeing with me, because I think good policy comes from give and take, and unfortunately there doesn't have to be a lot of give and take. I think there's been relationships built in this building where there is give and take, but I think when we get down to certain policies, walls are put up, and that's just what it is. That's personalities, that's politics outside the building, whether it's national politics or state politics,

Representative Zegraff.

and would you also watch your language? Sure.

Representative DeGraff, to the bill specifically, please. Well, ma'am, we're talking about roads, and we're talking about the sponsors are saying,

Representative DeGraff, the bill doesn't talk about RTD. Let's keep it to the bill.

Representative Sucla.

To the bill, Representative Zucla.

Representative Sucla, to this bill, please.

Watch your language, please, Representative Sucla. Representative Slaw.

So any further discussion on the bill Seeing none the question before us is passage of House Bill 1430 as amended All those in favor say aye Aye All those opposed no No The ayes have it House Bill 1430 as amended passes Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of House Bill 1029.

Representative Hamrick.

Ditto.

Representative Hemrick. In the Appropriations Committee, we put on L-006.

discussion on the committee report? Seeing none the question before us is passage of the appropriations report to House Bill 1029. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed no. The ayes have it. The appropriations report is adopted or is passed to the bill. Representative

All right, to the amendment, Representative Hamrick.

Is there any further discussion on L-005? Seeing none, the question before us is passage of L-005 to House Bill 1029. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. To the bill, Representative Hamrick. Thank you, Madam Chair.

This bill matters because right now students are represented only and it's an advisory committee and that position does not vote. Students are the people most directly impacted by CCHE policies regarding affordability, transfer pathways, student fees, program alignment, and the overall direction of higher education. This bill ensures the input is not just heard, but also counted. Specifically, the governor will appoint one student from a four-year or graduate research university and one from a community college, local district college, or area technical college to ensure continuity and expertise. These members will serve two terms and may complete their service even if they graduate before their terms expire. By moving student representation from a secondary advisory committee directly to the governing body where decisions on affordability and student fees are made Colorado joins at least 10 other states in adopting a more fair and student approach

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, sponsors. Having listened to this in committee and did get some feedback from those who testified, especially the higher ed students who are testifying, I move L004 to House Bill 1029 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. What this amendment does is make sure that one student is with one affiliation and that the second student is not within the same affiliation. I do appreciate that we have a member that comes from a community college or a two-year college and a member that comes from a four-year college. But in the name of making sure that we have all the voices of our students represented, asking that both those members are not of the same affiliation when appointed. When I was talking with some of the students who testified, they said that is the purpose of higher ed, to learn, to figure out where I'm at. And I don't want to make sure that we're not stopping any other growth, understanding that affiliations may change as they progress in their education, but at the time of appointment, we really should be seeking that they are from different affiliations, and I urge a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I support this amendment. This is one of the things that really halted my support of this bill and committee is when students go to college, they should be exposed to diverse opinions. And the way this bill is written, as written, it says that the students appointed can be from the same political party. And I think it just helps establish more diversity on a council, on an advisory committee, for there to be proactive opposing parties. So I support this amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. While I love working with the representative from Morgan, Logan, Phillips, Sedgwick, Washington, Weld, and Yuma counties, and it's a great idea, we already do it. So as it now stands, no more than a bare majority of the members of the Colorado Commission of Higher Ed can be from the same party, and the added student members would be part of the already established equation. So I ask for a no vote on this amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And the way I read the bill was that it's for the commission excluding the students, which is why on the amendment I offer, I say page 2, line 20, strike commission excluding the student members and substitute commission. So we're accounting for the whole with the members being part of the commission. So this way it keeps it in balance because right now it says excluding the student members and so the students having voices really want to make sure that we get a diverse perspective from the students as well.

Aye.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In committee, we also heard how individual institutions of higher ed can have their own boards that describe how they want to create their commission, how they want to run that specific campus. However, what we're talking about is looking at the whole state and all of higher ed, which is why when we're looking at all of higher ed, I want to make sure we're affecting Coloradans, those who live in the state and that will live with the policy that's being discussed, or the influence, because I understand in appropriations that was amended, that way these students are no longer voting members, but they still have a voice at the table, and I want to make sure their voice is for the betterment of Colorado, not from students who live outside of Colorado, maybe New York, maybe New Mexico, Wyoming. They come for two years, three years, four years, and then they leave, but we're stuck with that policy. This is why I move L-007 to House Bill 1029 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As I was mentioning, this amendment would say the student member appointed must not be from a foreign national, because we do get a lot of student athletes and those on academic scholarships from outside of the U.S., and not those who are out of state. This is meeting the in-state student requirements, so if they were going to get the institutional in-state rate, they would qualify. We're following those same standards that we already follow for that lower access to tuition, because if they're going to affect our policy in Colorado, they should live in Colorado where that policy is affecting. I urge a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And to the good representative from Morgan, Logan, Phillips, Cedric, Washington, Weld, and Yuma, We appreciate this amendment, but I'm asking my good colleagues for no vote. Any further discussion on the amendment?

Aye.

No.

House Bill 1418 by Representatives Okayan Camacho, also Senators Mauble and Roberts. Concerning the provision of services to young people and a connection therewith requiring certain social media platforms that provide online gaming services, products and features to young people to impose a fee on each add-on transaction and remit the fee to the youth Mental Health Services Access Enterprise, which enterprise is created in the bill, and directing the enterprise to use the fee revenue to operate and fund certain programs that provide mental health services to young people.

All right, Representative Zocay. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is an honor to serve with you.

Madam Chair, I move House Bill 1418 and the Finance and the Appropriations Committee reports.

but that it is the Enterprise's authority. And we have some amendments. Great. Representative Camacho.

Give us a minute as it's properly displayed. All right.

Representative Richardson. Really? All right. Thank you. has to be displayed. All right. Give us a moment to sub out the new amendment for this amendment. And then see if I was... What's that? Is it... Okay. All right. Cool. All right. Tell us about your amendment to the sub-amendment. All right. This is a substitute amendment to what the sponsors had provided. We do... Is this thing on? Okay. It just seems a little lower than normal. Okay. We can hear you. All right. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. This amendment does a couple of things. One, there are concerns about the emotional impacts that gaming has on some folks. This amendment really focuses the monies that might be collected only to games that have a mature rating. that we're not worried about the emotional impacts of somebody that's playing Minecraft or something like that. And it's relatively simple. And I'd love to hear what the sponsors have to say.

vote. Further discussion on L25? Seeing none, the question before us is passage of L025. Do the Appropriations Committee report? All those in favor say aye. All those opposed no No The no have it Amendment L025 fails Back to amendment L027 Any further discussion Oh Representative Zokai Thank you Madam Chair We were cleaning up this definition from Stakeholding and asked for a yes vote Any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, the question before us is passage of L-027 to the Appropriations Committee Report. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The Appropriations Committee Report is... I'm sorry. L-027. 7 to the Appropriations Committee report is passed. Thank you. To the Appropriations Committee report. That's me. Representative's okay.

We are on this still. L26 is properly displayed.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of L26. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. L26 passes. To the appropriations report. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of the appropriations report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The appropriations report passes. To the finance report.

is the passage of the finance report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The finance report passes. To the bill, Rep. Zokai.

Rep Camacho.

Rep. Barone.

I just play to have fun. But that's besides the point. What I'm seeing here is more fees, fees, fees, and more fees, another enterprise that funds something that, yeah, I can agree with mental health. But that comes back to what we always argue of prioritizing our budget. I can get behind funding mental health all day long as long as we prioritize our budget and cut the things that we don't need. Now, how is putting a fee? I understand the problem that the bill sponsors are coming with. Kids are on their phones a lot. Some kids are called iPad kids. Fortunately, mine aren't. My son didn't get his first phone until he started middle school this past year. He's going to be 13 this August. So it was about time to get his cell phone. Of course, it is heavily guarded by ourselves. We have our own parental guides on our phone. My wife and I can limit his Internet time. We can limit his gaming time, everything like that. So it comes back to parenting. when parents get involved in their kids life no matter how busy we are I mean I here for 120 days every year and then when I not here I working in the oil field up north in HD48 But we still get involved in our kids lives. We limit their screen time. They come home, they watch a movie, a couple shows and that's it. Go outside and play. but we get involved in our kids lives no matter how busy you are my wife is my wife is a parent she's a teacher uh at an elementary school of course she has more time in the summer actually i just got news yesterday that she got hired to work in the summer as well that's good news but we still get involved in our kids lives it comes back to parenting i don't understand how putting a fee on on a game in game purchase is going to solve that problem. To me it seems like we are just now profiting off the backs of parents, kids, disguised as a solution. You know, we should, you know, that welcome to colorful Colorado sign, we should add on there to the bottom. We will feed you to death because we're adding more fees every session. Now, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I'm pretty sure it's pretty high and I can probably find that too. I agree that games and some games require mature age, but it's also plastered on the game itself. M for mature. It says it in the commercials as well. So that's when parenting comes into play as well. If we see that, we get involved in our kids' lives, and we see that M for mature, of course we're not going to let our kids play that game. I wasn't allowed to play. When I was younger, Grand Theft Auto, the first one, was coming out. My mom did not let me play that game. She knew about it. She knew about the rating system. It is very surprising my mom knew about that, but she knew about it. She was a great parent, and I still love her. And I'm glad for that. I'm glad she got involved in my life. I didn't hate her for that. I'm glad she did. Now, coming back to some things that the sponsor said about games that create a gambling addiction. I agree, there are some games that create a gambling addiction. Also comes back to parenting. We cannot just tell developers, you cannot create this game because it creates a gambling addiction. All casinos offer gambling addiction help. you can see that offer in all the commercials I mean, gambling addiction comes every year to come visit us here at the Capitol with Colorado Lottery like these casinos and Colorado Lottery and all these places they offer gambling addiction because they know that is a problem they want to be part of the solution I thank God that I don't have a gambling addiction don't get me wrong, I love to play some poker and some blackjack every once in a while but I have a limit and I thank my parents for that because they taught me that. And that's what we need to get back to. The right solution for this problem is not feeding it to death. It's going back to good parenting. The most you can get involved in a kid's life, they will thank you for life. I still thank my parents. When I go to the casino or I go out with my wife and there's a poker game going on, I have a limit. $200. I lose it. That's it for me. I win some. You know what? I get up and get out. Well, not really. I'm sorry. If you're on the heater, you never leave a table. But that limit is there. $200. That's my limit. I can afford to lose that. but I thank my parents for teaching me that, putting that into my head, that there are priorities in your life that you cannot spend more money than what you are able to lose. And that's what we should be having here in this chamber, priorities. We should not be living above our means. We should not be legislating above our means. Then this happens. We fee everything and we create enterprises because we didn't prioritize before. Now, I say thank you to the bill sponsors for bringing up this problem. I know this is a problem, but this is not the way to go about it as a solution of the problem, by feeding it. I urge a no vote on this bill. Rep Brooks. Chair, thank you. I want to thank my colleague for aging me. I think it was unintentional, but he's sitting there talking about how his mom didn't let him play Grand Theft Auto. I was playing Atari, Pong, Dig Dug. There wasn't any of this when I was younger, and that's a good thing, but my mom still did limit how much time I got to play Pong. I wouldn't even connect it in to no connection yours revenge is where it's at I don't challenge anybody in here to that look I'm not going to impugn motives I think the motives are pure however I do believe that it's just steeped in so much ideology and hopelessly optimistic ideology at that. You know, we do this a lot here. We say, look, we're trying to fix this problem. If we do this, then this will never happen again. And that's just, it's dishonest. It's inaccurate. it. You know, I am not, it's not me to cast, up to me to cast any judgment on what good parenting means. It's going to mean something else to somebody, to every parent. It's going to mean something different. But I'm going to tell you that if it's a problem that your kids playing more than five hours of video games, you can yank that thing from the wall. You can disconnect that stupid thing, right? There's a power button. You change it from the straight line to the zero. You can disconnect the internet. There are all sorts of other tools that even the questionably attentive parents can deploy in order to affect the behavior of their gamers. My kids are old enough now that I don track their online activity I did when they were younger and I limited the amount of gaming time that they had when they were younger The other piece of this, there are several pieces that really just don't fit together for me. Another piece is this presumption that the enterprise, that's one I don't like, we'll come back to that one, the enterprise that's being created is going to fund mental health. There's no direct correlation that those dollars are going to benefit the kids that are having a hard time with gaming addiction. There's no direct correlation there. You're saying that you're going to create an enterprise, you're going to create this funding mechanism to help with behavioral health, but yet it's not specifically for what it is you're trying to address. There's no direct correlation. Disconnect there. The fact that we're creating yet another enterprise, not a big fan of that. Shocker. But then also, Department of Revenue came in to committee. And I would like to think that the bill sponsors have had an opportunity to be able to reconnect with DOR after the committee financed. or like three different committee reports speaking specifically about finance, DOR came in and said, no, please don't do this. We don't know how we're going to track, remit, collect. We don't know how we're going to do any of this. And further, never really were part of the discussion. I don't know if that's going to sink in the way that it should, but when the Department of Revenue comes in and says, please don't do this, I think that that's something that maybe even if we say this is the greatest idea ever, I'm not, but even if we are to say that, that perhaps we can at least slow down long enough to listen to the Department of Revenue and say, you know what, let's operate on your timeline so that in that way we're doing something we know is at least effective from a revenue collection, fee collection, enterprise generating standpoint. There's another organization that came in, Behavioral Health. I can't remember. I can't hit my own rear end with a handful of rice when it comes to the health and human services space. So I'm going to have to rely on the bill's sponsors to remind me the other agency that came in to oppose their bill. I'm sure it will be very forthcoming. But yet there was another one that said, no, let's please not do this. Hit the like button. Hit the like button and you get that dopamine. That little, pfft, tasty. Everything that we do, this entire life of ours is constructed around these little dopamine releases that we get from social media. I'm not saying that gaming is not a problem, but everything else that our kids are involved with, the phones that they hold in their hands, the laptops they have, Every single thing is generated, is built to maximize engagement. That is where the like button came from. The like button didn't exist until some behavioral health nut job came up and said, you know what we can do to make people more engaged? We can do this. And people are going to love it. Oh, and guess what else we can do? When people shut the app, we can remind them that something has happened. somebody has liked something they said to get them to open it back up. Everything in this life of ours now is meant to generate more and more engagement and tear us away from what we have going on in front of us This is one element. This is not going to be just the fix. It's clickbait. I'm seeing examples of it. I'm not pointing. I was. I'm not. I won't. It drives engagement. It's meant to do that. Is this an element that perhaps we need more time as parents? Yes, absolutely, but that's the key. We cannot legislate good parental behavior. I know we've got a lot of great ideas up here, the best ever. And next session we're going to come back with the best ever ideas again. but we're not able to legislate away evil, we're not able to legislate parental involvement despite our good intentions, despite the ideological optimism we have. If you disagree with everything I said, that's all right. But when the Department of Revenue comes in and says, man, we were not even consulted on this. We were not robustly stake held. Holder did. I would think that that might be pause for us to just say, hey, you know what? Let's walk away from the council, the legislative council for a little bit. Let's disengage ourselves and let's make sure that we're doing the right thing. I would ask for a no vote here. Brett Bottoms. Thank you, Chair. So I'm an avid online gamer. I have been for years. My gaming goes back before online. I had a Pong. That's not important right now. But I've been an online gamer for years and years, and I've watched all of the different things. And yes, this does pull people, adults, and children into this. There's no doubt about that. this hurts in the bigger picture. I'm not saying this, Bill. I'm saying the online gaming. There's a lot of negative that goes on there. I have never been talked to like that by some 14-year-old in Korea talking about my mother. I've never been talked to like that until I started gaming. and then I came into this room. So this is a negative thing and I do believe that there are addiction issues. I believe that there are behavioral issues. I've been saying this for years. One of my sons spent thousands and thousands of dollars on skins for a specific game and I finally went to him and told him, I think you have a problem here. And he said, I'm 29 years old, stay out of my life. So I respect that. but here's the reality this is an issue everything everything that has been said here this is an issue this is an addictive thing this is these are companies that are are preying on these kids so here's our option let's make a bill to where we charge them money and give it to the state that's our answer to this let's continue to hurt these kids let's continue to charge them let continue to make life more difficult for them so let charge them and give it to the state of Colorado I can even imagine that popping up on one of my gaming feeds Oh, by the way, you need to pay the state of Colorado for the privilege of being manipulated by companies. That's a great plan. That doubles down on just completely irresponsibility. And we're doing this in the name of helping. There's not one thing in this bill that will help one person. There's not one thing that will stop one kid from being manipulated. None of this. This is the thing. And by the way, this has been going on long before there was the Internet. I'm of the generation that they started putting toys in cereal. So the only reason you bought the cereal was because of that toy. So this has always been there. Companies manipulate. They do this. And I'm not saying that's good. I think it's horrific. But why are we making it worse by now charging them to be manipulated by these other companies? That makes no sense whatsoever. We become part of the parasites. This bill is a parasite up on the back of the bigger parasites. This just doubles down and makes it worse. I believe this does fall into the category of we've crossed the line and we now become part of the immoral context that we're saying we're trying to fight. We're not fighting it. We're contributing to it, and we're taking money from people. This is just a selfish attempt to continue to add to the money of the state of Colorado on the backs now of kids that are actually being vulnerable within this space, and we're going to be the bigger parasite in this. This is disgusting. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before. Rep. Camacho. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to point out a few things that weren't necessarily covered in some of our openings. 41% of teen gamers have been called offensive names while playing. So you've heard some of that testimony or some of that discussion here at the well today. 80% say bullying is a problem inside these platforms. Predatory adult contact is increasing every year. At its core, what this program is trying to do is recognize that the kids that are walking into our schools, our clinics and after school programs every day still need the care and the support to be able to do that and this bill allows that to happen so for that we respectfully ask for a yes vote. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none the question before us is the passage of House Bill 1418. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed no. The ayes have it. House Bill 1418 passes. Mr. Schiebel please read the title of House Bill 1427. House Bill 1427 by Representative Espinosa also Senator Snyder concerning updates to the Uniform Antitrust Pre-Merger Notification Act approved by the Uniform Law Commission. Rep. Espinosa. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 26-14-27. To the bill. Thank you. This bill was heard last night in committee, but let me give you a little bit of procedural history. You may recall that last year we passed the Uniform Antitrust Pre-Merger Notification Act. At that time, there was some discussion about whether the protections in the bill as we passed it were sufficient. I committed at that time to work with the Uniform Law Commission and learned that they were negotiating additional amendments to the uniform law through the state of California and the CITA organization that was impacted by this bill. As a result of those negotiations, the Uniform Law Commission then reconvened the drafting committee to review the negotiated changes to the bill. subsequently they sent their report to the to the executive committee of the Funeral Informed Law Commission who approved the report and sent to all 50 states and additional territories, the proposed amendments to the bill. Thirty days passed. At the end of those 30 days, then the recommendations were made final. We received those the beginning or middle of April, and at that time we requested that a bill be drawn this year for us to adopt these amendments. It's important to understand that these amendments are helpful in terms of making changes that will assist the efficacy of this bill. Specifically, we are extending the time for filing of this notice so it's not contemporaneous anymore with the federal government. We're defining the terms and obligations of the Attorney General for confidentiality and creating a system of destruction of the information or return of the materials if the Attorney General in the state decides not to move forward. All of these changes, additionally, the Attorney General has to give five business days notice rather than two before making a disclosure under the Act. We believe all of these changes improve the Act. We request that we stay in conformance with the uniform law that has now been adopted as amended, and we would ask for an aye vote on this bill. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of House Bill 1427. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. House Bill 1427 passes. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of Senate Bill 177. Senate Bill 177 by Senators Ball and Benavidez, also Representatives Gilchrist and Mabry, concerning a property owner's ability to petition to court for limited access to an adjoining property to make repairs. Rep. Gilchrist. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 26177 and the Judiciary Committee report. To the report. In judiciary we made a small change Stating that the requesting owner purchase insurance or post a bond to cover any damage or property Personal injury or loss of life that may occur because of the repair or maintenance And we ask for an aye vote on the committee report Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of the judiciary report All those in favor say aye Aye Those opposed no The ayes have it The judiciary report passes To the bill Rep Gilchrist Thank you Madam Chair So we are presenting Senate Bill 26, 177, Access to Repair Act. I also want to thank my great co-prime for his support and partnership on this bill. I had a constituent come to me this summer and to my Senate colleague and asked for help. Had an issue with a neighbor and wanted to be able to repair his home that had the only access was on his neighbor's property. and he hit a wall in the law and wasn't able to go beyond and actually make those repairs. And I was really inspired by that because not only did he see a problem, but he pursued a problem that could be solved for other people. And I was delighted to work with him to try to bring this bill forward to ensure that people who have this unique problem where they need access to repair something and they need access to a neighbor's property, that they have, if they have explored mediation and that does not work, that they are able to take this path. So what this bill does gives Coloradans an avenue to go through the courts to get limited access to a neighboring property to complete repairs or maintenance to their homes. We believe this is a narrow fix to a small problem in Colorado, but a real problem, and we hope that you vote yes today. Rep Mabry, is there any further discussion? It's a good bill, vote yes. Okay. Okay Seeing seeing oh Repslaw Oh excuse me That the farthest I run all day I appreciate this bill coming from the sponsors As a person who in another life builds homes, does remodels, does things like that, as a general contractor, I do recognize at times when this might be necessary, living on this side of the aisle. Normally, the pushback on this would be, oh, but private property rights. And I wholeheartedly believe in that. It is very important. That said, when we heard this bill in judiciary yesterday, I did ask how often we might see this be a problem where we need to see this. I think that it will be the exception. I think that it will be very rare. But I do think that there are some exceptional and extremely rare times where an individual or a contractor that they hire will have a need to access that person's private property from an adjacent or adjoining neighbor's private property. Hopefully, those individuals are neighbors and can work that out as individuals. But I do see there being times, though it may be very rare, where an individual will just need to be able to access their neighbor's property. And if that neighbor is unwilling to talk to them, it might leave that individual no redress other than to go to the court and ask to have something made so that they are able to access their own property from their neighbor's property. I can quickly and easily imagine some safety concerns where if you're not able to access some of your property that you wouldn't be able to. Under this bill, you have to prove that you cannot do this from your property, that you have to be able to be on your neighbor's property to be able to do this. I can imagine really easily some situations where that would be necessary. for some of those reasons and things like that I was a yes, I will continue to be a yes I think this will be the ultra exception but I think it will be an important ultra exception in the times that it will be that exception thank you is there any further discussion seeing none the question before us is the passage of Senate Bill 177 all those in favor say aye those opposed no the ayes have it, Senate Bill 177 passes Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of Senate Bill 138 Senate Bill 138 by Senators Doherty and Mullica and also Representative Stewart Kaye, concerning measures to reduce the administrative burden on the healthcare system. Rep Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is the best to serve with you. It's the best to serve with you. Madam Chair, I move the HHS Committee Report and Senate Bill 138. To the HHS Committee Report. To the Committee Report, I move amendment 16 and ask that it be displayed. One moment. L16 is properly displayed. Rep. Stewart.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of L16. All those in favor say aye.

Those opposed, no. The ayes have it.

We're still on the committee report.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of the HHS committee report as amended. All those in favor say aye.

Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The committee report passes. To the bill, Rep. Stewart.

One moment. L17 is properly displayed. Rep. Stewart.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before this is the passage of L17, all those in favor say aye.

Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. L17 passes. To the bill, Rep Stewart.

To the bill. Is there any further discussion?

Is there any further discussion? Rep Barone.

One moment. L14 is properly displayed. Rep. Barone.

Rep Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. I had conversations with Rep Barone and a coalition, and we're fine with this.

Aye.

Senate Bill 17 by Senators Doherty and Bright, also Representative Stewart R., concerning changes to out-of-network health care services dispute resolution processes for health insurance carriers.

Thank you Madam Chair I move Senate Bill 17 to the bill Rep Stuart Senate Bill 17 is the product colleagues of three years of work and extensive conversations between physicians, health plans, consumer advocates, and the Division of Insurance. All parties came to the table and found a workable path forward this year. To date, there's no known opposition to this bill. When an emergency physician believes that a health plan has underpaid for out-of-network services, the current dispute resolution process is broken, especially for smaller claims. The existing statutory arbitration process frequently costs more than the amount in dispute, making it economically irrational for smaller practices to pursue. On top of that, health plans allow batching of similar claims for in-network disputes, but actively block this same efficiency for out-of-network claims, forcing providers into costly claim-by-claim arbitration. Physicians often can't even tell whether a patient's plan is regulated by Colorado's DOI or by federal law, a distinction which determines which dispute process they can access, because health plans are not currently required to disclose it. Emergency physicians are legally and ethically obligated to treat every patient, regardless of insurance status. When health plans chronically underpay, there's no practical way to challenge it, and that threatens the financial sustainability of emergency medicine, particularly for small and rural practices. When arbitration costs exceed the underpaid amount, plans effectively keep monies that rightfully belong to the providers with no accountability. This bill ensures that physicians who provide life-saving emergency care often to patients who cannot pay at all have a realistic and accessible way to recover what they're owed. Rep. Gonzalez.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of Senate Bill 17. All those in favor say aye.

The ayes have it. Senate Bill 17 passes. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of Senate Bill 174.

Rep. Carter.

Rep. Carter.

To the bill. Rep. Carter.

Rep Soper. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, attorneys have rules of professional conduct, and part of that concerns how we market and around that. What lead generators are a third party that are able to skirt around the professional conduct rules? They're able to do things that attorneys couldn't do, so if they read in the newspaper that you've been injured in an auto accident, they will reach out to you even before you've begun searching for an attorney. They'll try to channel that lead to not just one law firm, but multiple law firms in exchange for payment. We're banning that payment in Colorado because this is an unethical practice. It's also one that gets people into trouble very quickly because this is ripe for fraud and abuse. We'll ask for a yes vote.

Aye.

House Bill 1141 by Representative Bacon, and also Senator Colker concerning civil rights violations involving discriminatory practices in public schools.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1141 and the Education and Appropriations Committee report.

AML Bacon. Thank you. Members, in appropriations, we introduced a strike below, quite frankly, to address the concerns around a fiscal note. House Bill 1141 was intended to be able to support families through administrative processes if they experience discrimination in public schools. Many of you may be aware that the United States Department of Education's staff attorneys, particularly in the Office of Civil Rights, have been peeled back. And so families are finding that they are not having success through the federal government's processes. We created an administrative process so that folks could get some help in resolving their issues around discrimination instead of just going to court, which they can still do. And so the state does have a division that can handle civil rights complaints. Particularly, we have a MOU with the federal government that the state can handle Title VII complaints and complaints with HUD. But we don't have a similar MOU for Title VI of the United States Civil Rights Act. And so Title VI is where we see a lot of our anti-discrimination laws. And so we had to figure out how we can support folks through admin processes, processes under our own state law, which is CATA. So ultimately the strike below just added some components of Title VI into state law in saying that it is a violation of our Anti Act and public accommodation if one is harassed based off of their protected status of age race sex religion and we said that disparate impact is a violation of public accommodations and CADA which means a policy is neutral on its face, but it only negatively impacts a protected class. Lastly, we said that universities need to designate and label who their Title VI coordinator is on campus so that folks know where to go when they want to pursue a federal discrimination complaint. And just for the folks who have followed this bill, I do want to say thank you, particularly to Hate Free Colorado and the Anti-Defamation League for helping us bring this bill forward. We know that as much as we love each other here in the state of Colorado, sometimes students are targeted for who they are, and they still need protections despite the fact that the federal government may not be enforcing or not enforcing but helping to make these determinations. and with that I ask for an aye vote on the appropriations committee, which again was a strike below, so I do believe we might go straight to the bill since we've done this before.

Aye.

AML Bacon. Members, I just explained the bill. Good bill vote, yes.

Those opposed, no.

Senate Bill 36 by Senators Gonzalez and Weissman, also representatives Bacon and Zocay, concerning increasing operational efficiency of existing prison population management measures and in connection therewithmaking, reducing, and appropriation.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 36.

Reps, okay? And the Appropriations Committee Report.

In the Appropriations Committee Report, we reduce the appropriation because we have more savings from this measure, and we ask for a yes vote.

Aye.

to the bill. Rep Zocay. Thank you, Madam Chair. The bill before us today is a result of a growing issue that we have discussed many times in this chamber and during our budget conversations, And that is that we are in a place in Colorado where we are being faced with choosing between funding prisons at the expense of health care, prisons at the expense of housing, prisons at the expense of crucial services for kids. We are making painful cuts this year. And at the same time, we are considering proposals or discussing proposals about purchasing private prisons. We have heard about crime going down, a topic that comes up many times in the Judiciary Committee, and about how over-incarceration has not made us safer. And yet we are increasing the DOC budget just shy of $100 million, including funding for 940 additional prison beds. JBC staff have noted that the big reason for this is that there are fewer discretionary parole releases that fewer discretionary parole releases are the primary reason for the largest projected increase in the male prison population over a decade. Over 5,000 people have hit their parole eligibility date and are still behind bars. They face obstacles. For those who have not reached the parole eligibility, they face obstacles in being able to complete coursework. There are obstacles in ComCore placement. And many who are going back into the system are not people committing felonies, but technical parole violations. This is a budget concern, but it's also just a human dignity concern. When we are reaching capacity, what happens is our staff end up being stretched thin. They are asked to do jobs that they are not best equipped to do. And people are housed in increasingly unsafe conditions. And rehabilitative programming breaks down. DOC has become dependent on cross-posting non-custody staff, teachers, case managers, maintenance workers. The equivalent of 22 full-time positions. and these disruptions directly contribute to parole denials and delays. It does not have to be this way. Members on both sides of the aisle have expressed concern over DOC management. The problems have been flagged year after year, but they have not improved. The thing is that we actually do already have prison population management measures, and they were designed to prevent the situation that we find ourselves in. Those measures passed unanimously in 2018. And what we have seen is that we have gaps in the current law. It was triggered for the first time last year, and there weren't clear timelines or real accountability, and therefore there was very little impact on the population itself. I mentioned earlier that 5,000 individuals have hit their parole eligibility date and are behind bars. with this prison population management measure being triggered, just 237 of those were reviewed by the parole board. And just 29, 12%, were granted parole. So this bill does a few things. It has timely notification when we are nearing capacity. It changes the threshold from 3% to 4% to give us more time for implementation. There is additional individuals that need to be notified when we reach this threshold. It strengthens community corrections as a critical population management tool. It creates clear expectations and timelines for the parole board. It has ongoing reporting so that we know which actions are being taken and whether they are working. And it improves coordination between courts, Comcor, and parole to safely manage population levels. And finally, it creates clear, structured pathways to move people who are already eligible, those who are past that parole eligibility date, those who have completed the required programming, and those assessed at lower risk through the system more efficiently. This bill helps us avoid the alternative, spending hundreds of millions of dollars on prison expansion when we have more effective, more humane, and more fiscally responsible options available and I respectfully ask for your support Okay And also did you want to

Yeah.

Move that one. Rev's okay. Thanks, Madam Chair. I am going to move L13 to Senate Bill 36 and ask that it be displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. What we currently have in the bill is that the threshold, it's triggered, prison population management measures are triggered at 4%, and they are off when DOC can show they're at 5% for 30 or more days. And instead, we, through negotiations and stakeholding, I thought it would be cleaner to have it turn on at 4% and off at above 4%. For example, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 also would allow them to turn off the management measures, and we asked for a yes vote. Rep Soper.

I move Amendment L10 as a substitute amendment to this amendment.

L10 is properly displayed as a substitute amendment to L13. Rep Soper.

Amel Bacon.

We're going to ask for a no vote here, but we understand the sentiments. Again, what my good colleague from Delta is referring to is we have two percentages that we have now added by way of triggers. We say if the state gets below, now we want to change it. The current law says below 3% vacancy. We want to change that up to 4% vacancy and including the jail backlog. for the first 400 beds in the jail backlog, then it would trigger these procedures. And then the bill says if the state can get back to 4% for 30 days, then we're lifting all of these protocols that we've asked for. And so we believe with stakeholding, not only with our coalition, but with the GOV and DOC, that the 4% and the conversation we had about the bed backlog is the place that we want to remain at. And so even though we see, I do believe that your amendments, because I see strike three and from, wait, wait, wait. Because I see the reference to five, I think the sponsor is talking about the maintenance number, right? And so to change that back to, 3 would be lower than what we're asking for with the trigger of 4. So we're going to respectfully ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

One moment.

Members, I view this as more of a technical fix within the bill because on page 10, line 7, what is being talked about is that there's an exception, and that's when it's a plea bargain for a specific number of years. That person would not be subject to the protocols laid out in the bill for early release. We wanted to add also if the person was convicted by jury and a sentence was imposed by the court for an exact number of years. So we don't really understand why it is that you would carve out someone who's subject to a plea agreement, but you wouldn't carve out someone who's now been convicted of a jury of their peers, and the court has sentenced that person to a term for an exact number of years that is assured. So we are asking for parity here between the two mechanisms for someone to be convicted and would ask for a yes vote. Rep. Zokai.

We are going to ask for a no vote.

Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of L11. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed no? The no's have it all. 11 fails. To the bill, AML Bacon.

Members, after what we just heard, I just do want to share.

That is the union that represents those who work in corrections. And they said please help us make this agency and their partner agencies be more efficient so that we can safely operate and that what we believe this bill does And so just to be sure in case you didn hear it this bill was finally the circumstances was triggered in August of 2025, saying that we are moving to a place where jails and prisons are about to be overcrowded. And so we are saying for those who are quickly approaching their parole dates who are not there for victims right to crime. So these are the lower level crimes, just to be really clear, that they should be moved more efficiently for parole as a judge and jury sentence them to. And so if we are going to ask for more capacity, we also have to do our part to do what it is we said we were going to do in the management of these agencies. And as much as, you know, people love and hate government, the best part of my days are when we, from across the aisle tell DOC to get it together. And that's what this bill does. Thank you. We encourage an aye vote.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of Senate Bill 20. Senate Bill 20 by Senators Brighton Ball, also Representatives Srotta and Gonzalez, concerning measures related to child care provider licensing and in connection there with 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.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 20 and the Education Committee Report.

So in the Education Committee Report, we had an amendment L10 where specified centers serving rural areas limited to licensed care providers and that's Health and Human Services Committee. So we basically simplified the committee to lower the number of people that were in there, and we asked for an eyeball on the Education Committee Report.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So Senate Bill 20 cuts red tape on small business child care. So as we face a critical shortage of licensed child care seats, this bill basically wants to eliminate excessive and duplicate bureaucracy that makes it unnecessarily difficult for child care businesses to open and stay open. Colorado needs a licensing and inspection system that protects children and allows qualified child care businesses to open quickly and stay open sustainably. So the bill does four main things. Number one, it encourages digitalization of documentation for child care providers, thereby reducing paperwork during inspections while adhering to appropriate privacy protections. Second, moving towards consistent state-led inspections by phasing out reliance on third-party inspectors were feasible in standardizing inspector training and oversight. Third, reducing fees associated with child care while simultaneously requiring local governments to prioritize and streamline approvals in the case of disputes. And lastly, establishing a child care licensure and quality task force to develop clear, actionable recommendations to improve Colorado's licensure and quality system.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that our child care providers do incredible work in this state. It is a really difficult job, difficult businesses to run, and this bill aims to make the work that they do easier by streamlining some of the processes that they have to go through, encouraging digitalization of the documents that they have to hold on to. It will help when we bring more licensing inspectors in This will actually save the state money So encouraging the state to continue down that path instead of contracting out these folks for more money and lesser quality results We will bring more folks in-house to do the work that will result in more consistent work for our providers and ensuring that this task force comes up with recommendations so that the licensing process for our providers is easier, less burdensome, is still protective of health and safety and quality, but streamlines the red tape that our providers have to go through. and I ask for an aye vote.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of House Bill 1425. House Bill 1425 by Representatives Gilchrist and Brown, also Senators Doherty and Bright, concerning the regulation of applied behavior analysis services.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1425 and the Appropriations Committee report.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In appropriations, we made several technical amendments, clarifying terminology, updating statutory references, adding terms, and extending the repeal of the licensing board, as well as changing requirements for licensing, scope of practice, and disciplinary action, and we ask for an aye vote. Oh, wait, I'm sorry. And I move. amendment L020 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a clarifying language about disciplinary actions in the scope of practice in the professional licensure, and we ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L021 to the appropriations report and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The providers requested that this be this amendment because they wanted to insert the word assessment into the bill to ensure that we have clarity on what an assessment is, and we ask for an aye vote.

Rep Gilchrist thank you madam chair we ask for an aye vote on the appropriations committee report

have it the appropriations report as amended passes to the bill Rep Gilchrist thank you madam chair I I move L017 to House Bill 1425 and ask that it be properly displayed One moment

This is an amendment that just allows for exceptions to be made in rule for children that are coming into these clinics that might need exceptions to the current facility licensure. and we ask for an aye vote. Is there any further discussion?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L018 to House Bill 1425 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment simply further defines clinic and further defines an applied behavioral analysis clinic. And we ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L022 to House Bill 1425 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment does two things. It changes the dates of implementation on or before July 1, 2028 from 2029, and it also ends a slight change requested by CDPHE and the providers to make sure that we have clarity on who needs immunizations, and we ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Chair. House Bill 1425, members, is a bill that's ultimately about keeping pace with the growing demand for behavioral health services in Colorado, making sure that our systems are reflecting today's reality. ABA therapy, applied behavioral analysis, plays a critical role in supporting individuals, especially children with autism and other developmental needs. As more families rely upon these services, it becomes even more important that the state has clear and consistent standards in place in order to ensure quality and accountability across the board. The landscape for ABA services right now can be uneven. Families are navigating a complex system without clear guidance on what high-quality care should look like, and providers are operating without fully standardized expectations. The goal of this bill is not to create unnecessary barriers, but to create consistency so that families can trust the care their loved ones are receiving no matter where they go. High quality ABA services can lead to meaningful improvements in communication, independence, and long-term well-being of individuals receiving care. It's also important to emphasize that this bill, thanks to my good co-prime sponsor from Denver, is mindful of the provider community, and we have worked diligently with them to make sure that this works for providers and parents as well as the needs of the state. A more consistent regulatory framework will actually support providers by reducing ambiguity and creating a more stable and trustworthy system overall. So overall, we think this is a thoughtful step in the right direction, and we ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to my co-prime for his partnership in this work. It has been a true labor of love starting back from the summer when we received overwhelming emails from parents of kids with autism who are receiving ABA therapy, applied behavioral analysis therapy, and were worried about some of the measures that HICPF was taking were going to restrict access. As we dug more into that, we realized that this is a space that absolutely needs regulation. We heard from the providers that they wanted professional licensure. There are other states that have professional licensure. And we heard from the administration about how important it is that we have facility licensure, given the fact that we have seen incidences of fraud and then also incidents of child maltreatment. So this bill today has those two things, professional licensure and facility licensure. And the most important thing is that it regulates the space with the balance that we ensure kids who truly need this support have that support and that we also regulate it so that those kids are safe, and we urge an aye vote today. And yes, aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And when talking about such a hefty bill in an area that we don't have enough ABA support, especially in rural Colorado, we're just asking for a little leniency. I move L015 to House Bill 1425 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Rep. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. What this amendment does, and I know because we are in the final countdowns of session, follow along, the board shall not adopt continuing education requirements that are more stringent than the continuing education requirements issued by professional credentials certifying entity, except were strictly necessary for public safety. This bill that we're talking about does a lot. A lot of the ABA providers I've talked to in my district are already struggling with the mandates already placed upon them. What we're asking is not to add more to them when they're struggling to stay in place and serve the communities they serve. We're saying that unless it's proven to be necessary for public safety, because we recognize public safety does need its own platform, that we stop adding more stringent education requirements that exceed what already is needed for the professional credentials certifying entity. Let's not add more burden onto those who are already struggling. We don't have enough. The sponsors mentioned we don't have enough. So let's not push out the ones we have, and let's give them some grace that we're not adding extra unless public safety comes into play. I urge a yes vote.

This is a good amendment just in considering in rural schools we do not have enough mental health specialists. We do not have enough ABA therapists. We do not have enough RBTs. It is tough to find enough specialists to support our students and our staffs with behavior support and so this gives a little bit more flexibility to our rural locations so this would be really really really helpful for our rural communities and I urge an aye vote.

are in support of this so I would urge a no vote. Rep Johnson. Thank you Madam Chair and just on behalf of House District 63 I would say that my rural providers have not been at the table many rural providers have not we're asking for the leniency because we are struggling to keep what we have we have been reaching out, trying to stakehold, understanding that this bill was only introduced last week, trying to be at the table, trying to catch folks who are stakeholding on this, really asking for the rural folks to be at the table so we're not pushing them out in the name of more. We're just asking for this leniency so I don't see in my district even less providers because we talk about the lack of resources in rural areas. In the name of trying to do better for some, let's not chase out the sum that we have in other areas.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of L15. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The no's have it. L15 fails. Rep. Johnson.

One moment. L13 is properly displayed Rep Johnson Thank you Madam Chair And I know we did hear from the appropriations amendments that it does move to 2028 That is not enough time What we asking is that the Board shall subject an individual who practices or offers

Rep Gilchrist. Thank you, Madam Chair. And again, thank you to the sponsor of this amendment and again the concern about allowing for providers to have time, I share that concern, which is why we created a process for that in the bill. And I think, first of all, just wanted to note that the amendment that we brought today that changed the date from 29 to 28, was a request by the providers to change the date of implementation so that they could get licensed under the facility licensure that is presented in the bill. So that was changed on behalf of the providers. And then I think also really important that the reason we are bringing this bill is because regulation is needed because there have been incidents of maltreatment for kids. So I don't want to delay regulation when we're talking about the treatment of kids. That is just absolutely essential. I also, as I said before, that we have worked really hard to have a balance, that this is not just about regulation, but this is also about access. And as a parent of a kid with autism, I care deeply about that. That's why I responded to all the parents that reached out to make sure that we had a plan. So we believe that this bill represents that balance, and we do not want to provide exceptions for providers that may or may not be doing the right thing. And the process to get licensed they will have time and they will be able to go work with CDHS to get that licensure And so I don think this amendment is needed So we ask for a no vote

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of L13. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The no's have it. L13 fails. To the bill, is there any further discussion? Rep. Garcia Sander.

it could create, like I said, a desert of ABA therapists in our rural area. So I hope you consider that and kind of think about what are the second, third, fourth order effects down the road. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And sponsors, I agree with what our colleague just said. We see There needs to be something. My issue is, on behalf of House District 63, we wish we would have been at the table. I've asked since last week for some of my providers and for me to be at the table. Rural Colorado would love a seat at this, and because this is only the first chamber, we have the Senate. Can we make sure that everyone who wants to be at the table can get at the table in these next few days before the Senate so we can make policy that works for all and doesn't harm some for the benefit of the majority? And not the majority in party, but the majority of Colorado of the state. I am just asking again, can we make this an open table stakeholding for everyone this is going to affect, because all of our children matter, in rural, in cities. Our parents need to have a voice. Our providers this affects is going to have a voice. And I'm just asking, because this is First Chamber, can we please make this a truly open stakeholding process so we can make sure that we are not fixing solutions now to make problems in the future? Can we please look at this? I know we only have six, seven days left, but that is still enough time to bring everyone to the table who has been asking. At this point, because I don't feel like rural has been strongly represented or even listened to, I will be a no. But I want to try for our children, those with autism, who deserve in rural or city areas to have their voice. My door is open. My district's open. We want to be at the table, and I hope that those who are listening take that to heart.

I move Senate Bill 26-182.

Thank you. Members, the bill we have here today, Senate Bill 182, has been a long time in the making. It started off as a different bill, Senate Bill 22, and after a lot of negotiating, a lot of working with different interested sides of this. We finally came to an agreement. My co-prime here, who's been excellent working on this, is going to kind of go into more detail, but let me kind of just lay out what initially brought me to this. And it is our Colorado Springs utilities is facing some really hard deadlines, and it's not for a lack of trying. they've uh they've done solar and wind and battery storage they've been working towards meeting um these state mandated goals uh for for quite a few years now and the realization is is uh reality is is bumping up against us on some of these deadlines in particular uh with our our coal fired power plant the the ray nixon power plant and so a long story short we we came to an agreement um with all sides here and what this bill essentially is going to do is going to give us some breathing room and give us an additional three years without closing the Ray Nixon plant while we're implementing and implementing new plans. And so the important thing here that I want people to take away is how important this is for El Paso County and Colorado Springs in general. We have 9 families 9 households in Colorado Springs who get a government assistance for their utility bills And we see it all across the state We already facing across the state We facing higher prices on our utility bills And without this bill here I think the reality is, is we're going to face something drastically higher. And so I really appreciate all the sides. I appreciate Colorado Springs Utilities for working on this, the Sierra Club, who has come together to work out this agreement here. I'm going to let my co-prime take it over and kind of give you a little more in depth on what the bill actually does itself.

Minority Leader Caldwell. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of Senate Bill 182. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 182 passes. Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the committee rise and report. You have heard the motion. Seeing no objection, the committee will rise and report. Thank you.

The House will come back to order.

Representative Lukens. Members, you have heard the motion. We do have amendments at the desk.

Representative Johnson. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move the first Johnson Amendment to the Committee of the Whole and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is asking for the body, now that you're all seated, to reconsider that we treat the students who are appointed to this new board the same as we would the rest of the commission. We are asking that we just have all voices heard and that both students cannot be, at the time of appointment, in the same affiliated party. This still allows for the flexibility that they are students. They may develop in their own personal beliefs throughout their college career, and they may change. But at the time of appointment, we really want to make sure that we are getting more voices heard at the table, and I would urge a yes vote.

As stated at this time, we are no on the amendment, but we are having further conversations for maybe a third amendment.

Yes.

No.

Yes, thank you.

No.

Yes, ma'am.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the Carter Amendment to the Committee of the Whole report, House Bill 1418. Representative Carter moved to amend the part of the Committee of the Whole to a section taken by the Committee in adopting House Bill 1418 to show that House Bill 1418 is amended lost. Representative Carter.

The amendment is withdrawn. Thank you.

Representative Johnson. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move the second Johnson Amendment to the Committee of the Whole and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is just asking again for reconsideration that we include all of Colorado and everyone at the table. For rural areas, we are already struggling to keep the providers, especially for ABA providers in our area. We are asking for more leniency. And I do recognize in the appropriations that it did move from 2028 to 2029, but we're still asking for some leniency because these rules are tough. This bill is thick. There's a lot of regulations. So we're just asking that for the first offense, that there is a corrective action plan included and a warning. Afterwards, if they are purposely doing it because they've already had the correction plan and warning, then we can add the disciplinary actions. But we're asking that we do a ramp onboarding so that way everyone can get here without penalizing and losing dire resources we need in areas already struggling. I would urge a yes vote for rural areas.

Representative Johnson, this is your second time to speak. You have 8 minutes and 47 seconds remaining.

Representative Gilchrist, this is your second time to speak. You have nine minutes, three seconds left.

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

Representative Bradley votes yes. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes no. Representative Routnell, how do you vote?

Representative Routnell votes no. Representative Luck, how do you vote?

Representative Luck votes yes. Representative Weinberg how do you vote Yes ma Representative Weinberg votes yes Representative Joseph Please close the machine.

Representative Johnson. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move the third and final Johnson Amendment to the Committee of the Whole and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Colleagues, this is saying, because I know it's kind of small on the screen, that the board shall not adapt continuing education requirements that are more stringent than the continuing education requirements issued by a professional credentials certifying entity. Professional credentials certifying entity means the national standard that we have had already, except we're strictly necessary for public safety. We allow that provision because public safety should be at the top of everyone's mind. But we're asking not to add more stringent requirements on top of all these extra regulations regulations and licensures that are already being placed on people so they can maintain what they have, keep up with it, and that we're not putting extra burden on the people who are struggling, again, especially in rural areas, to keep offering these services for the communities that need them. I am just asking that we sit with the credentialing certifying entity on what they've already said is required and not add more stringent things on top of them. I would urge a yes vote.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the third Johnson Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Bradley, how do you vote?

Representative Bradley votes yes. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes no. Representative Routenel, how do you vote?

Representative Routenel votes no. Representative Luck, how do you vote?

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

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

Representative Valdez votes no. Please close the machine.

Representative DeGraff. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move the DeGraff Amendment to SB005.

I move the DeGraff Amendment to the Report of the Committee of the Whole.

it is properly displayed Please proceed. I'm pretty sure I'll get that down by the time session's over. All right, so this just goes into the, if the plaintiff in the action brought pursuant to this section is charged with a criminal offense arising from the same incident that gave rise to the action brought pursuant to this section, the court shall stay the action brought pursuant to this section until the completion of the criminal proceeding. So if there is an underlying criminal charge that before we go after the agents that are enforcing the laws of the United States, that the charge against the individual would be adjudicated first, I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, constitutional rights apply equally whether or not you've been accused of a crime, and we do not believe your ability to defend your constitutional rights should depend on if you've been charged. That's not the way the system has ever worked, and we ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I get that, that all persons are covered to some extent, but not all persons are covered in the same capacity. In this capacity, we're talking about Immigrations and Customs, and you're talking about whether the individual was in violation or is in violation of Immigration and Customs rules, which would put them on the criminal side and in violation of those laws. And if they're in violation of those laws and resisting arrest, then you would have the issue of whether the force was unreasonable, because if the arrest occurred and whether they are covered by the same laws to the same extent, certainly the rights that all the self-evident create are endowed rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but they also don't have the right to violate the laws, the immigration laws of the United States. So if they are in violation of the immigration laws, which is what the immigration and customs officials would be doing, then we need to adjudicate that first to find out to make sure that the rights or the laws, excuse me, make sure that the laws are something that they are actually covered by. If you're talking about their rights, their self-evident creator endowed rights, those are securable by their own government. Their government was instituted among men to protect and secure those rights, not our government. So if you're looking at those issues, you're looking at a delinquency on the part of their government, not necessarily ours. So if there is a conflict, if there is something here, we need to first determine, because there is a clear link between the immigration enforcement as to whether that person is actually a citizen of the United States and whether if they are a citizen of the United States is going to determine what laws apply to them. Certainly the rights apply to them, but not all laws apply to them. So I ask for an aye vote.

Seeing no further discussion the motion before us is the adoption of the DeGraff Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report Mr Schiebel please open the machine and members proceed to vote Representative Bradley how do you vote Yes Representative Bradley votes yes Representative Lindsay how do you vote No

Representative Rootnel, how do you vote? No

Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? Yes, ma'am

Representative Luck, how do you vote? Yes, thank you

Representative Soper moved to amend the report of the Committee of the Whole to a Rissiation taken by the Committee and adopting the following Soper Amendment, L11 to Senate Bill 36 to show that Senate Amendment passed. That Senate Bill 36 is amended past. Representative Soper.

and ask that it be displayed. It is properly displayed. Please proceed.

Seeing no further, Representative Zocay.

Representative Soper, this is your second time to speak. You have eight minutes and 23 seconds remaining.

AML Bacon I just want to thank you Madam Speaker and thank you to my colleague for talking about plea agreements for what it's worth when we negotiated this the argument was that if you were part of a plea agreement that means you agreed to the term so when we're talking about motions to reconsider we do understand where you're talking about jury verdicts. That is, somebody was there, they participated in the defense, and they were found convicted. But in a plea agreement, you're accepting the terms. So if we're going to sign motions to reconsideration, we wanted to not include plea agreements for that reason. However, if you wrote this a different way and said to strike plea agreements, we would probably accept that. but that's unfortunately not what this says per the conversations we had with DOC and the state. So we're still going to ask for a no vote. Thank you. Seeing no further discussion. The motion before us is the adoption of the SOPR amendment to the committee of the whole report. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote representative Lindsay. How do you vote? No representative Lindsay votes. No representative Bradley. How do you vote?

Representative Bradley votes yes. Representative Luck, how do you vote?

Representative Luck votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no. Representative Kinnell, how do you vote? No. Representative Kinnell votes no. Representative Valdez, how do you vote? No. Representative Valdez votes no. Please close the machine. With 21 I, 44 no and zero excused, the amendment is lost. The motion before us is the adoption of the Committee of the Whole Report. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Bradley, how do you vote? No.

No. Representative Bradley votes no. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes yes. Representative Rutinnell, how do you vote?

Representative Rutinnell votes yes. Representative Leck, how do you vote?

Representative Leck votes no. Representative Weinberg how do you vote No ma Representative Weinberg votes no Representative Valdez how do you vote Yes Representative Valdez votes yes Representative Bottoms is excused. Please close the machine. With 43 I, 21 no and one excuse, the report of the Committee of the Whole is adopted. Members, we are moving on to third reading. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move to lay over Senate Bill 43 until tomorrow. Senate Bill 43 will be laid over until tomorrow. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move to lay over Senate Bill 149 and House Bill 1307 until tomorrow. Madam Majority Leader, do you have 1117? Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes, I move House Bill 1117 until after Senate Bill 6. House Bill 1117 will be laid over after Senate Bill 6. Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move to lay over Senate Bill 149 and House Bill 1307 until tomorrow. Senate Bill 149, House Bill 1307 will be laid over until tomorrow. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 134.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 134 on third reading and final passage. The motion before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 134 on third reading, final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. representative fennessey how do you vote representative lindsey votes yes representative bradleyfi how do you vote yes representative bradley votes yes representative luck how do you vote no thank you representative luko votes no representative wineberg how do you vote yes ma'am representative wineberg votes yes representative routinel how do you vote yes representative routnow votes yes representative Valdez how do you vote Yes. Representative Valdez votes yes. Please close the machine. With 44 aye, 20 no, and one excuse, Senate Bill 134 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Representative Routenel, co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1043.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1043 on third reading and final passage. The motion before us is the adoption. House Bill 1043 on 3rd reading, final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Bradley, how do you vote?

Representative Bradley votes no. Representative Luck, how do you vote?

Representative Luck votes no. Representative Routnell, how do you vote?

Representative Routnell votes yes. Representative Lindsey, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsey votes yes. Representative Valdez, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Valdez votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no. Please close the machine. With 46I18 no and one excused, House Bill 1043 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Representative Routenel, co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1100.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1100 on third reading and final passage.

Please briefly explain. This amendment was negotiated by the Judicial Department and the JBC staff.

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

Representative Bradley votes yes. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsey votes yes. Representative Luck, how do you vote?

Representative Luck votes no. Representative Rutanil, how do you vote?

Representative Rutanil votes yes. Representative Valdez, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Valdez votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? Yes, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes yes. Please close the machine With 62 I, 2 no, and 1 excused Permission is granted Representative Stewart

The amendment is properly displayed Please proceed

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of L-005 to House Bill 1100. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Lindsay how do you vote Yes Representative Lindsay votes yes Representative Bradley how do you vote Hunt Representative Lindsey votes yes Representative Bradley Representative Bradley votes yes Representative Rodenell how do you vote Res. RepresentativeUI Valdez How do you vote? Liz Bidwell Representative��요 Valdez votes yes Representative Luck how do you vote? Ana

Representative Luck Representative Weinberg Yes, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes yes. Please close the machine. With 62I2 no, one excused. Amendment L005 is adopted. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1100 as amended on third reading and final passage. The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1100 as amended on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Bradley, how do you vote?

Representative Bradley votes no. Representative Luck, how do you vote?

Representative Luck votes no. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes yes. Representative Rutnell, how do you vote?

Representative Rutnell votes yes. Representative Valdez, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Valdez votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? Yes, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes yes. Please close the machine. With 51-I, 13-no, and 1 excused, House Bill 1100, as amended, is adopted. Co-sponsors. Representative Routenel and Lindsay, co-sponsor. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1309.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1309 on third reading and final passage. The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1309 on third reading, final passage. Mr. Schiegel, please open the machine, and members proceed to vote. Representative Bradley, how do you vote?

Representative Bradley votes yes. Representative Luck, how do you vote?

Representative Luck votes no. Representative Lindsey, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsey votes yes. Representative Rutnel, how do you vote?

Representative Rutnel votes yes. Representative Valdez, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Valdez votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? Yes, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes yes. Please close the machine. With 47 ayes, 17 no, and one excused, House Bill 1309 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Representative Lindsay Co Representative Routenel co Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 163.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 163 on third reading and final passage. The motion before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 163 on third reading, final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Bradley, how do you vote?

Representative Bradley votes no. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes yes. Representative Luck, how do you vote?

Representative Luck votes no. Representative Rutnell, how do you vote?

Representative Rutnell votes yes. Representative Valdez, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Valdez votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no. English. Please close the machine. With 45I-19-01 excuse, Senate Bill 163 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 146

Madam Majority Leader Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 146 on third reading and final passage The motion before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 146 on third reading and final passage Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine, and members proceed to vote. Representative Bradley, how do you vote?

Representative Bradley votes no. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes yes. Representative Luck, how do you vote?

Representative Luck votes no. Representative Routenel, how do you vote?

Representative Routenel votes yes. Representative Valdez, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Valdez votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no. Please close the machine. With 39 I, 25 no, and one excused, Senate Bill 146 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Representative Lindsay co-sponsors. Please close the machine Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 113.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 113 on third reading and final passage. The motion before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 113 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Bradley, how do you vote? No. Representative Bradley votes no. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Lindsay votes yes. Representative Luck, how do you vote? No, thank you. Representative Leck votes no. Representative Routnell, how do you vote?

Representative Routnell votes yes. Representative Valdez, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Valdez votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? Yes, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes yes. Smith. Please close the machine. With 48 I, 16 no, and 1 excuse, Senate Bill 113 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Representative Lindsay, co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 48.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 48 on third reading and final passage. The motion before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 48 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Sheebal, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Bradley, how do you vote?

Representative Bradley votes no. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes yes. Representative Rutnell, how do you vote?

Representative Rutnell votes yes. Representative Valdez, how do you vote?

Representative Valdez votes yes. Representative Luck, how do you vote?

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

Representative Weinberg votes no. Please close the machine. With 41, I, 23, no, and one excuse, Senate Bill 48 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine.

Senate Bill 147 by Senators Cutter and Pelton are also representatives of Johnson and Froehlich concerning the regulation of lobbyists Connection therewith, making appropriation.

Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 147 on third reading and final passage.

Yes, thank you.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Oh, yes. Oh, heck yes.

Senate Bill 6 by Senators Mabla and Kirkmeyer Also representatives Brown and Taggart Concerning parity for the use of non-opioid pain management drugs And a connection therewith making appropriation

Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 6 on third reading and final passage.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move for permission to run a third reading amendment on Senate Bill 6.

Thank you. I think, as you know, this time of session especially, our stakeholding is ongoing. we have identified a couple of issues that the Division of Insurance in particular has raised about the implementation dates as well as potential risk to the state's budget, and we would like to run an amendment to clean that up.

Yes.

Yes, thank you.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move L011 to Senate Bill 6 and ask that it be properly displayed One moment It is properly displayed Please proceed Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate this is a somewhat lengthy amendment. This, again, this bill, this amendment, make sure that the bill will go into effect in 2020 for the plan for individual and small group health insurance plans. It will go into effect January 1st of 2027. And for large employer health benefit plans, it will go into effect January 1st of 2028. In addition, lines 11 through 20, as well as lines 26 through 32, make sure that if for some reason the federal government should determine that this is an additional benefit that requires us to defray the costs of the advanced premium tax credits on the exchange, that this particular bill would not go into effect for plans that that would affect. So we would ask for an aye vote on this amendment, and I apologize for my complicated explanation.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Not reading it. No, thanks.

Yes.

Yes, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker I move Senate Bill 6 as amended on third reading and final passage

thank you Madam Speaker it's an honor to serve with you it is an honor to serve with you Colleagues, this bill went through very quick. Nobody spoke for it or against it except the sponsors, and I was reading through the fiscal note, trying to digest it real quick on seconds, and it got shut down before I could get down there. The amendment that was brought was one of the main reasons I was coming down here, but it's not solving all the problems. So this amendment, and again, we're on final reading. Senate bill coming over, final reading to send it to the governor, And on a third reading amendment, we finally get to an issue that was a bloody sucking chest wound in the fiscal note, if you could see it, and this doesn't totally take care of it. If the federal government finds that these non-opioids are not part of an essential health plan, the state is required to pick up that entire cost. That why this amendment was run to say oh I am not 100 sure this covers it though because it doesn say the coverage is contingent So I don know if there a preauthorization where we can ask the federal government if this will violate it or not Because if we go forward and for two years we're paying for it, and then the federal government in its efficiency finally comes down and says, no, this isn't part of it, we're on the hook for all of that. And it's not just a little bit of money, because the second issue I wanted to bring forth was the actuarial basis in the fiscal note says this analysis found that the parity requirements would increase premiums by about 0.1% across the various insurance segments. And that may not seem like much, but when we're talking about tens of billions of dollars, that's a lot of money. And if we could cut health care premiums across the board throughout the state 0.1%, we would be jumping for joy in sending out press releases all over the place. And when we're sending out press releases all the time about how we're making Colorado more affordable and we're voting for mandates that increase premiums across the board, 0.1%, in the fiscal environment we're in, coupled with the possibility of a sucking chest wound coming in the future, on top of the fact this bill doesn't cover state plans and you know why? Because it would be very expensive. There would be a fiscal note that couldn't get through if we were going to have the state cover it. But we're going to have all the private individuals out there cover it by the increase in premiums. It's not what we should be doing. Thank you.

No.

No, thank you.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No, ma'am.

House Bill 1117 by Representatives Ricks and Gonzalez, also Senator Linstead, concerning temporary hospitality event permits that allow excuse me that authorize the consumption of marijuana Madam Majority Leader Madam Speaker I move House Bill 1117 on third reading and final passage The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1117

Please close the machine.

Madam Speaker, I move to lay over the balance of the calendar until Thursday, May 7, 2026.

Thank you. Thank you, members.

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

Thank you.