Senate Education Committee pauses bill to create Colorado Domestic Exchange after questions on oversight and funding

Senate Education Committee members heard two hours of testimony on Senate Bill 69, a proposal to create the Colorado Domestic Exchange program, and ultimately postponed the bill indefinitely after questions about oversight and who would pay for program expansion.

Sponsor Senator Doherty told the committee the bill would create a voluntary, no‑cost, two‑week summer exchange for recent high‑school graduates, housed within the Department of Education, requiring annual reporting and recruitment designed to reach every geographic and socioeconomic corner of the state. "This bill creates the Colorado Domestic exchange program," Doherty said, adding the program would be reciprocal and that "every single cost, flights, meals, lodging, and activities are covered. No family has to write a check." He framed the initiative as a civic rite of passage modeled on the American Exchange Project.

The bill drew extensive testimonial support from students, host families and the American Exchange Project. David McCullough, CEO and cofounder of the American Exchange Project, said the nonprofit has run the program for seven years and that philanthropic donors (he named several supporters in testimony) fund participants. "Our program is free," McCullough said, and he told senators the group has sent just under 50 Colorado students on exchanges over the last four summers and roughly 100–150 students to and from Colorado over the last five summers.

Students and host families described personal benefits. Barbara Taylor, a teacher and exchange manager, said exchanges build connection across political and cultural differences. "I know these kids and we need these kids," Taylor said. Alum Fatima Vega told the committee the program "changed my perspective on the way I view other people" and helped her engage in civil conversations across political divides.

Committee members repeatedly probed two central issues: how the Department of Education would be involved and whether private funding commitments covered the full cost of scaling the program. Senator Benavides asked directly whether the private commitments would meet the program's estimated per‑student cost (he referenced figures near $5,000 per student and a $45,000 donor commitment). Sponsors and McCullough said philanthropy currently funds the pilot and that the bill does not obligate state dollars; McCullough said the pilot period the bill proposes would be funded by the organization and its donors. He also described the partnership as public‑private: the nonprofit would operate the exchanges and contract with the department on reporting, metrics, safety and equitable recruitment rather than the state running day‑to‑day operations.

Some senators expressed concern about adding state oversight that might create new bureaucracy or exposure. Senator Kim said she supported the program's goals but did not see how placing it within the Department of Education would help access schools in Colorado's local‑control system, and she said she would vote no for that reason.

The committee considered amendment L002, which sponsors said clarified grant language (not a contract), addressed liability concerns for the State Board of Education, and adjusted dates related to authorization and funding. The committee adopted L002 without objection.

A motion to refer SB69, as amended, to the Appropriations Committee failed on a roll‑call poll, 3 to 4. Committee members then moved to postpone SB69 indefinitely via reverse roll call; there were no objections and the motion to postpone indefinitely carried. The committee adjourned.

The record shows extensive favorable testimony from program alumni and hosts and persistent legislative concerns about the appropriate role of state oversight and long‑term funding. The bill's sponsors framed the measure as a way to widen access to an existing privately funded exchange model; critics on the committee worried the change could expand state responsibilities without clear operational benefit. The committee took no further action to establish state funding before postponing the measure indefinitely.