All-day negotiations between House Democrats and Republicans resulted in a late-afternoon deal Tuesday that would give tired lawmakers in the Colorado House a much-needed three day weekend, along with concessions from Democrats on seven priority GOP amendments to the state’s spending plan. 

In fact, the deal is more than that. Republicans agreed – although at times that agreement appeared to be pretty fragile – not to ask for reading the 622-page state budget bill at length either during Tuesday’s debate and when it comes up for a final vote, which is likely on Wednesday.

Lawmakers spent the entire day working on the 2023-24 budget, which started at $38.5 billion a week ago, adding about two dozen amendments and at least $105 million in general fund spending.

The state budget bill, Senate Bill 23-214, arrived Tuesday on the House floor “clean,” following work on Monday by the House Appropriations Committee, which is chaired by the Joint Budget Committee’s Rep. Emily Sirota, D-Denver. The appropriations committee struck all the amendments added to the budget by the Senate last week.

House lawmakers from both sides of the aisle put 14 of those 17 amendments right back into the budget – over the objections of JBC members. 

The day began with Republicans caucusing on the amendments, 73 in all, prior to the start of the debate on the budget.

In that meeting, Assistant House Minority Leader Rose Pugliese, R-Colorado Springs, outlined nine priority amendments for her caucus. House Minority Leader Mike Lynch, R-Wellington, then asked each member if they were planning to ask for the long bill to be read at length. 

Fourteen members were strong “no’s,” including the caucus’ JBC member, Rep. Rod Bockenfeld of Watkins, who pointed out the budget was his work product and there was no way he’d have it read at length.

The other five members held different views. Four members said they were “unsure:” Reps. Stephanie Luck of Penrose; Ken deGraaf of Colorado Springs; Brandi Bradley of Littleton; and, Ty Winter of Trinidad. Rep. Scott Bottoms, also of Colorado Springs, said he was “leaning strongly toward yes.” However, Bottoms left early in the day for a medical appointment and did not return.

The business then shifted to debate on the House floor. 

Funding for mascot replacements wins House nod  

Among the Senate amendments restored by the House was $356,701 in funding for public schools that formerly had Indian mascots. A 2021 law required those schools to remove the mascots, but it also included a funding mechanism via the state’s Building Excellent Schools Today fund within the Department of Education. However, the BEST program placed the need for funding for replacing gym floors, athletic uniforms, signage and other mascot-emblemed items dead last among its priorities. To date, no school that has applied for a grant has gotten one.

In the Senate, the amendment was intended to go only to the Yuma School District, one of the school districts that sought a BEST grant. In the House, however, the amendment was tweaked to make the money available to all the schools that had to change out their mascots.

Most significantly, however, was who sponsored the amendment: Rep. Barbara McLachlan, D-Durango, the original House prime sponsor of SB 21-116. She was joined on the amendment by Rep. Richard Holtorf, R-Akron.

The only Senate amendment to be rejected in the House dealt with paying the state’s pension plan $30.6 million in interest, tied to a missed $200 million payment from 2020. The 2020 payment was made up last year, but the interest payment was rejected by Democratic leadership. 

Here are some of the highlights.

Denver Health, which got a $5 million funding boost through the mid-year adjustments to the 2022-23 budget, will be the recipient of another $5 million boost for 2023-24 – the result of a bipartisan amendment. 

The School of Medicine at the University of Colorado is in line for a $2 million general fund increase, intended to pay for a regional health connector workforce program, via an amendment from Rep. Elizabeth Velasco, D-Glenwood Springs. 

Rep. Marc Catlin, R-Montrose, succeeded in adding an amendment to put $10.95 million in general funds toward 30 total additional inpatient psychiatric beds in Montrose, Montezuma and Gunnison counties. 

An amendment from Reps. Javier Mabrey, D-Denver and Lorena Garcia, D-Adams County, would add $25 million in general funds for emergency rental assistance through the Department of Local Affairs, with a directive to the department to start accepting new applications for the program.

Rep. Ryan Armagost, R-Berthoud, offered an amendment to put $1 million in the general fund for the Veterans Community Project in the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs. The amendment lost on a voice vote, was passed on a later committee of the whole vote of 33 to 26, and due to a technical problem, went to a second vote, where it also passed, 40-19.

A veterans assistance grant program is in line for another $500,000, from an amendment offered by Rep. David Ortiz, D-Centennial.

Once the amendments were completed, Republicans headed back to caucus to announce to their members the deal they made with Democratic leadership.

Weekend rest for weary legislators

The conversation was short but heated.

Tired from nearly two straight weeks with only one day off, the prospect of working during Good Friday and through Easter weighed heavily on legislators.

Lynch had told the caucus earlier in the day that, as a Christian, he does not want to miss the most holy of Christian holidays, a sentiment shared by many in the caucus.

The deal Lynch offered is to have the upcoming three-day weekend off, in exchange for getting seven priority amendments passed (and they had already passed), not reading the long bill at length either on Tuesday or for its final vote, and avoiding reading other bills at length during the week for the rest of the session, in exchange for the following Sunday off. 

Lynch explained that they could not get Saturdays off because of the backlog of bills awaiting action in the House, with 34 days to go in the 2023 session. 

“We’ve done the math,” Lynch said. “In order for [Democrats] to get a whole lot done, there’s going to be weekend work.”

He complimented Speaker of the House Julie McCluskie, D-Dillon, and House Majority Leader Monica Duran, D-Wheat Ridge, for working with them on the deal. 

But that came with a warning from Lynch.

“We have pushed them as far as we can push them,” he said. “I’ve seen the look on those two ladies’ faces before, and it’s not a place I want to revisit … They’re done negotiating with us, so we need to walk out of here with what we can, as Republicans, stand behind, and that’s not reading the bill at length.”  

Holtorf, the lead negotiator, added they had worked with the Democrats in good faith and that Democrats had offered the Republicans “grace” on the negotiations. 

“We have enormous capacity to do a lot of things … the mighty 19 will be heard and we will not be silenced, because of our enormous passion and capacity for representing our constituents and districts,” he told the caucus.

The idea of holding the caucus firm on not reading bills at length, including the budget bill, didn’t sit well with some, in part because several members were missing, including Bottoms. 

Even Bockenfeld, who had pledged not to ask for a reading earlier in the day, and with his voice rising, questioned whether the deal would hold, and why they should adhere to it.

“I don’t know how you can make this deal,” he said, appearing angry.

Any member can ask for the long bill to be read, he said, questioning how they could strike a deal on behalf of a cause when any one member could make that decision. 

But Bockenfeld’s anger went beyond just the budget debate.

“We represent different constituents, and some of our constituents are very inflamed about some of the things that have been pulled down here, in this session, how they’ve stepped on our freedom of speech and our ability to fight for our constituents,” he said.

Lynch, however, responded that they are negotiating with people who have no reason to negotiate. 

Nobody’s telling legislators what to do, added Holtorf.

“All we’re doing is to talk about the way ahead,” just for today, he said.  

Back on the House floor, several more amendments, including Armogast’s veterans community project ask, passed. SB-214 then passed on a preliminary voice vote, and the House called it a day.

The Long Bill has been read at length just once in the last 25 years, in 2017, at the request of then-Rep. Dave Williams, R-Colorado Springs. The reading of the 318-page bill took place in the days before computers did the work, and before the 2019 lawsuit filed by Senate Republicans that resulted in a ruling that the reading be understandable.

About a dozen House nonpartisan staff lined up to read different sections of the bill, which took just over 30 minutes. The House Journal for April 6, 2017, however, did not record the Williams motion nor the reading. 

While the state Constitution mandates each bill be “read” three times – upon introduction, second reading and prior to the final vote – most of the time those readings are waived. Reading a bill at length is now viewed as little more than an attempt to delay or obstruct the majority party’s agenda. But those delays also given the minority party an opportunity to negotiate with the majority on any range of issues, and on issues not necessarily related to the budget.