Colorado House 2026 Legislative Day 092

The House will come to order. Today, the national anthem will be sung by Arabella Marcus, guest of Representative Woog, House District 19. Amen.

Thank you. That was beautiful. The Pledge of Allegiance will be led today by Representative Titone.

Mr. Schiebel, please call the roll.

Here.

Representative Titone.

Members, you have heard the motion that the journal be approved as corrected by the Chief Clerk. All those in favor say aye Aye All those opposed no No The ayes have it The motion is adopted Announcements and introductions Representative Zokai and Representative Wynne

Representative Nguyen.

Thank you. Representative Brooks.

Thank you. Representative Carter.

Welcome everyone. Representative Mabry.

Representative Ryden.

Representative DeGraff.

Representative Lukens.

Thank you. Representative Hartzuck.

Thank you. Thank you. Representative English.

Thank you. Y'all looking good in that pink and green. Assistant Majority Leader Bacon.

Representative Gilchrist.

Thank you. Representative Joseph, did you have an announcement? Okay. Members, we are moving to business. I will ask you to take your seats. Madam Majority Leader.

Seeing no objection, the bills listed by the Majority Leader will be made special orders today, April 15, at 9.28 a.m. Representative Raiden.

Thank you. All right, the committee will come to order. With your unanimous consent, the bills will be read by title by George, unless there is a request for reading a bill at length. Committee reports they're printed in your bill folders. Floor amendments are going to be shown on the screen, on iLegislate, and in today's folder on your box account. bills will be laid over upon motion of the majority leader and that coat rule is relax you're up yep mr yeah mr scheeble can you read the title of the first

by public money. Great. Representative Joseph. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 109 and

committee report All right Any further discussion on the committee report All right Seeing none the question before us is passage of the committee report All those in favor say aye Aye All those opposed no The ayes have it The committee report is passed to the bill Representative Sucla.

Thank you. All right, Representative Zucla, talk about your amendment.

Representative Luck.

Representative Brooks.

I'll make sure to check out the lapel pin, Chair.

Rep. Any further discussion?

Representative Sla.

Representative Joseph.

All right.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you again to my colleague from Montezuma County. He just keeps describing the rural lifestyle, and I really am grateful and longing for home right now. I, too, agree that folks want to have their individuality expressed in their properties, and that they do that in rural Colorado to a greater degree than we see in the suburban and rural or urban parts of this state. I will note that it is, again, our 150th anniversary. Colorado used to be the Wild West. So even if you want to just hearken back to that and give a nod to our history and the reality that at one time we could freely make these decisions for ourselves, that would be fantastic and supported by your aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do support the amendment. I would urge others to as well. The counties that my colleague from the West Slope were describing that haven't adopted building codes are also not building large projects. They are meeting the needs of their communities as they see them every single day. They don't need other instructions to tell them what type of homes need to be built for the people that they're serving. Maybe in larger urban areas that might be appropriate, but in small rural areas they're only building what's needed. And they know what is needed. They don't need us telling them what is needed. So vote yes on this. It's common sense.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's an interesting question. Citizens, in the form of we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. So who has the rights? The citizens have the rights. And government is instituted to secure those rights. So what kind of government? So the citizens are the ones that have the rights. The government has the collective rights that are not extended past the rights of the individual. You don't have the right, although you have the ability, you don't have the right to steal and legislate money from citizens.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I missed a couple things that I wanted to say last time. So this is in regards to the International Building Code. And even though the word international is in it, I would suggest that they are – they were. They were started as guidelines to help builders know best practices. they do not necessarily have to be internationally and everywhere and universally applied. In rural counties and in locations where they don't adopt international building code and use it as a standard or have inspectors that do this, this will increase their costs. They'll have to figure out how they work a new state requirement into how the county already does something, and that's going to come at a cost to them and that cost will trickle down to the people honestly that we're probably trying to help right now and that's going to be the people that need these places affordability is is a huge issue arguably the biggest issue in the state i think that every single one of our districts would bring that back to us as our biggest issue. And so allowing counties that choose not to use the guidelines, said in my best pirate voice, to mandate what they do, we should exempt them and allow them to choose whether they're going to do this or not. There's likely no reality where they're going to have big problems where they're not providing accessibility for people. That's probably not going to happen. It would be the extremely rare case, I think. I think that this amendment is great so that it allows the counties that do not use the guidelines, which are just best practices and not meant to be universally applied everywhere at all times to everyone, to be able to be chosen to opt out of by those counties. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I do thank the sponsors. I know we're all concerned about those that need accessible housing, but we're also all concerned about people that need affordable housing, and affordable housing seems to be the mantra from both sides of the aisle, on the first floor, and throughout this state. And we know that the people of this state are concerned about affordable housing, and every bill we pass that impacts the affordability of housing should receive some scrutiny, and this one does. So the impacts of this bill to the developer are risks of added soft costs and schedule delay, and time is money. It adds rigidity to the phasing of projects. It pushes the accessible units earlier in the process, and all that translates into added costs for the final units. For the builders, there's time lost in the sequencing requirements. You may have things fully planned and get redesign requirements out of the pre review of your accessibility plan You required again as a builder to front load the accessible units Those may not be the most marketable units That going to lead to cash flow problems for our builders which is going to be accommodated by slightly higher costs again for every unit so they can carry their business forward. For the local government, there's going to be higher planning and permitting fees. There have to be because there's more planning and permitting work to be done. It adds complexity to the processes. It's going to add staff time. It's going to add longer review times. And again, time is money, and this is going to add costs and make homes less affordable. All of these impacts might be manageable by larger builders, more sophisticated builders and developers, larger and more well-staffed counties. but it's going to be a struggle for those small builders, small developers, and small counties to accommodate. So for that reason, I move L010 to SB26109 and ask that it be displayed.

Representative Richardson. Thank you. This amendment would carve out counties that have populations of less than 50,000 residents. I don't think there is a lot of risk to the main intent of this bill by doing so. It applies to projects of 50 residences or more. These smaller counties rarely have projects of that size, and those projects of that size are extremely scrutinized. and again in smaller counties builders and developers are building to suit the needs of that specific community we're not talking the large urban areas where you're building on spec because you know the demand is there in our smaller counties things are not built unless they're needed and they're built for the people who need them and I don't think this bill is going to address any issues in these smaller under 50,000 counties so I do ask that this amendment be approved.

Representative Zucla. So I live right next to the reservation, and right on the other side of that is the Navajo reservation. And they have a lot of building housing called hogans, and they built them with economy lumber, which is lower grade lumber and mud and and uh they don't have any building codes and they've been doing it for a hundred years so this is a good amendment i only have one town that is over 50 000 montrose colorado this is a good amendment it would exempt all them and believe it or not where i live a lot of us build our own homes i will never forget when my grandfather told me he said we live so far away he says i was a plumber i was an electrician i uh all of these these um trades we had to do ourselves we had to build our own homes we built our own barns we didn't need any help and we don't need any help now by telling us that i have to the counties that don't have these building codes have now got to this is the you're talking about added cost Now we got to hire it We got to have a building inspector So now we going to start a whole new department that going to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in each of these counties We doing just fine There has been no woof that has came and blown our houses down There is no, we're doing just fine. This is a good amendment. Pass it. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, talking about affordability and costs. This is a good amendment. This will help in those locations. So when it comes to costs to do this, a designer is going to have to add this into the design. They're going to charge more. An engineer and an architect are going to have to engineer it, and they're going to charge more. Building departments, maybe contract reviewers. If the county doesn't have a building department or if the municipality doesn't have a building department, typically they contract for review. That's going to cost more. Materials are going to cost more. Labor's going to cost more. Everything's going to cost more. And at the end of the day, builders are going to charge more, and there's going to be a small percentage. So we're just going to continue to be small, little bit by little bit, increase the costs and reduce the affordability of things. And this is especially true in examples like this amendment breaks to you or points to you where we're in smaller counties where this would be a one-off. For me, as a builder in a location where I don't build a lot of things like this or there's not a lot of things that are happening that are exactly like this. This is going to be a one-off or a rare thing where I don't do it very often. So bringing in the labor and having the engineering, having all the design done is going to be relatively uncommon. And so it's just going to be an even higher percentage of cost. Now, I get it that there are templates and things like that, and there are base plans that designers might use, and there are basic engineering that engineers might use. And building departments and contract reviewers, they're going to be familiar with this, but still the point remains that they are going to charge for even those recycled basic plans that show how to build this. And at the end of the day, it is still going to be an increased cost to the individuals who need the accessibility. They're going to be the ones that are going to be paying for it. And everybody else is going to be paying for it as well, but it's the people who are trying to help are going to be paying for it. but they're not probably going to be paying for it in the places where it's going to be forced. They probably already are in a location that already has the accessibility. They've already taken care of that. It's in other locations where this isn't necessarily necessary that it's going to increase the costs. Thank you.

uh assistant minority leader winter thank you madam chair i rise in support of this amendment first and foremost this is a urban fix creating a rule problem we very seldom have i mean i doubt that most of my counties would even have a project that big which falls you know within this scope i think another issue that the good representative northern colorado brought up is is getting people that feel like they are a lot of local contractors right now aren't even picking up jobs we've been dealing with this in prowess county when it comes to the asbestos issue the asbestos abatement that's a regulation that was put on it has slowed down the building of affordable housing it has slowed down reconstruction and remodeling of buildings for businesses and for housing so that's a negative effect and what we see here is is this is an issue that you're trying to solve within your own districts, but which is going to have a negative effect on districts like mine. Also, if you look at the cost, it's going to cost for little counties to be able to have these building inspectors to come out. It's an unfunded mandate. It's going to add more staff on top of what we already have. Some of these counties only have an inspector that runs through once a month and tries to get everybody at once. So doing all these things, once again, I understand you're trying to fix a problem in your district. It's going to exasperate a problem in our district. It's going to put an unfunded mandate on our local governments. This is a perfect example and amendment that really says you do you and let us do us. So I rise in support of this amendment.

Please vote no.

Members, this bill is about something simple but incredibly important, making sure that as we build more housing in Colorado, we are building housing that works for everyone, including people with disabilities, seniors, and anyone with mobility challenges. Right now, we know there is a gap nationally. Only about one in 10 homes are considered accessible. At the same time, our population is aging. By 2030, one in five Americans will over the age of 65. That means the demand for accessible housing is only going to grow and we need to be prepared. Senate Bill 109 takes a practical and thoughtful approach to this issue. It updates and clarifies existing accessible housing laws so they align with current building standards. It removes outdated definition and replace them with clearer, more functional language that reflects how housing is actually designed and built today. The bill also reinforces the purpose of these standards to serve individuals with non-ambulatory and semi-ambulatory disabilities and ensure that accessibility is not treated as an afterthought. One of the key provisions is requiring developers to submit an implementation plan to ensure that accessible units are delivered on time and distributed throughout a project rather than being delayed or concentrated in one phase. Additionally, for larger developments, the bill requires that at least 2% of units are accessible. This is a modest, reasonable step that helps ensure we are steadily increasing the supply of accessible housing across the state. Importantly, this bill maintains flexibility. It allows for hardship exemptions where appropriate and gives local jurisdictions tools to manage enforcement and appeals. Smaller projects remain exempt under current law. At its core, this bill is about dignity, independence, and making sure people can live in their communities regardless of physical ability. Members, as we work to address Colorado's housing needs, We have a responsibility to make sure we are building housing that is inclusive and forward-looking, and I respectfully ask for a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, this measure is crucial for ensuring that housing supported by public money meets modern essential accessibility standards. Accessibility is not a luxury but a fundamental requirement, especially in housing. This bill ensures that publicly supported housing is truly available to Coloradans of all abilities. Key provisions in this bill is that the bill updates and clarifies existing definitions by referencing current International Code Council standards. The more Colorado housing is accessible, I'm sorry, this move pulls Colorado's housing so that it's more accessible. Specifically, it updates Colorado Revised Statutes 9-5 and replaces outdated language and reference documents. It clarifies that the primary intent for these standards is to specifically serve individuals with non-ambulatory and semi-ambulatory disabilities, providing clear legislative purpose for the housing built with public support. support. It's going to streamline the implementation and the bill requires covered developers to create a plan to deliver accessible units, bringing much needed structure and accountability to the construction process. It also permits enforcing agencies to develop an alternative process to resolving repeals and making the process more efficient for all parties involved. There's no fiscal impact on this bill. We want to assure that the committee and the committee of the whole that there's no fiscal impact on the state or the local government and these changes are procedural and technical updates to existing statutes. We ask for your yes vote on this bill All right Any further discussion on the bill Representative Slott The bill sponsors asked for a yes vote

I, however, will not be a yes vote. Again, affordability. Everybody in the state of Colorado knows that affordability is a huge issue that we have right now. I appreciate the intent of the bill sponsors on this. I would remind my good friend and bill sponsor here from Boulder that we sponsored a bill together that addressed our seniors. And our seniors are people who would be impacted and who would probably have more good use for this. So it cannot be said that I do not care for people who are semi-ambulatory or not ambulatory and who would benefit from this bill in some ways if accessibility was given to them in some way that they were choosing to live. However, I will still say housing affordability is a huge issue in the state of Colorado. It's a big issue everywhere, more so here in the state of Colorado, and it's because we continue to push policies that are, as one of the sponsors mentioned to me, a one-size-fits-all policy. This is not a one-size-fits-all world. I think we've heard lots of times about how important diversity is. I think you can look at our counties and see that our counties are diverse. We miss the opportunity to adopt two amendments for our diverse communities, ones where this would impact almost nobody and would do nothing except for increase the costs from builders, of which I am to the local individual. This is not a good bill. It's short-sighted. It doesn't accept other opinions. It tries to impose an international building code, which was never meant to be universally imposed upon everyone at every place. It is meant to be a best practice place. It is adopted in one of its years or one of its forms by almost every municipality or almost every county, but not all. And those who did not want it should not have been forced to have adopted it. Again, this is something that most builders and most designers in most places and for most reasons are going to be doing anyway. There's no reason for us to mandate it. There's no reason for us to increase the costs because of a bill that we've decided to shove onto builders and designers and people in the state of Colorado. So freedom to choose and to do as they want and to use the building code and guidelines as they desire is sometimes something that we need to keep. I will be a strong no vote on this, even though I appreciate where sponsors are coming from. It is not going to help us in our biggest problems. It's just going to create more problems.

Thank you, Madam Chair. and your hair looks amazing today by the way thank you members I come up here also to shadow what my my colleagues over here on this side said as a as someone who has seen building codes on the city council level and talked to my county commissioners and had conversations about building codes on the county level. I want to go ahead and say the same thing about affordability. At the city council level, we would choose to either adopt or not adopt these building codes some of the newer building codes for the reasons of affordability When you mandate a builder a developer an industry developer to build the buildings in a certain way that really doesn't affect how they operate and the area they operate, like for example in my district is Henderson up to Greeley, up 85 corridor, we really don't see very many wildfires that go out of control. Now, to mandate these buildings to build fire-retarded materials, which cost more, by the way, on the buildings that really don't need it, it's just raising the cost of that building, raising the cost of building that building, which in turn will translate to the cost of selling it, to be able to use it, to operate in it, to maintain it. To maintain these newer building materials costs money. In an age where we're at right now, where both sides of the aisle agree that the cost of living, the cost of doing business in the state is rising, we're just adding on to it by mandating this type of legislation to a one size fits all to the entire state. Like my colleague said, this is such a diverse state. And I've said this in the past before. We have mountain ranges. We have plains. We have a desert. You know, we have so many diverse areas that one size fits all is not going to work. It may bring everybody up to the same level, but you're just raising the cost for the areas that don't need to be at that level, that don't need to have those newer materials, they'll need to spend more money to maintain those newer buildings. Now, obviously, there are plenty of areas in the building code that obviously need to be used. Wheelchair accessibility, stuff like that. Yes, agreed. But everything else, it can't be in a one-size-fits-all legislation. And when we're mandating this stuff here out of this building, it's affecting the people out in the state to be able to afford to buy these homes, to rent these apartments, to rent these homes, to even build a shop or an industrial complex to operate their business in this state. It's not going to work. They're just not going to do it. We're going to lose tax revenue. We're going to lose population. We're going to have more homeless. So the unintended consequences of, I'm not saying this bill specifically is going to do all of that. It's not going to do all of that, this bill specifically, but it's going to be one more layer, one more step towards that. We want to try to avoid this. try to lower this regulation so that people can get their feet beneath them and be able to live in this state, operate in this state, do business in this state. So for obvious reasons, I'm going to be a no vote on this, not just because of what I said, but because I've lived it. I have a shop. My father has a shop in Fort Lumpkin that we actually had to go through the county building code And now if we would build that shop today it would be unaffordable I see it in the eyes of a local official that have seen this and are on the ground level of how the community is going to be affected by this So I also urge a no vote for my colleagues and hopefully you'll see that in that type of light as well. Thank you.

Sure, thank you.

Any further? Representative DeGraff.

All right, any further discussion on the bill? Seeing now the question before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 109 as amended. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. All right, the ayes have it. Senate Bill 109 as amended is passed. Mr. Schiebel, could you read the title of Senate Bill 104?

Representative Clifford.

To the bill?

Okay, thank you, Madam Chair.

Representative Bradley.

Any further discussion on the bill? Seeing none, the question before us is passage of Senate Bill 104. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. No. All right, the ayes have it. Senate Bill 104 passes. Mr. Schiebel, can you read House Bill 1245?

All right. The birthday girl, Representative Kelty. Thank you, Madam Chair.

To the bill, Representative Kelty. Thank you.

Representative English.

Representative Kelty.

thank you and I ask for a yes vote Representative Garcia Thank you Madam Chair And I would love to thank the bill sponsors for bringing this forward

but structurally unsound and must be torn out and redone. Over the winter, remember in January, we had a very quick cold snap of below zero weather. The contractor failed to protect the utilities in the home, causing the water heater to burst in negative 10 degree Colorado weather. After receiving payment, the contractor stopped work. $219,000 of their life savings is gone. A police report was filed, and it's under investigation. But just so you know, how a family copes with this, their toddler, their dog, their cat, they've been living in their fifth-wheel trailer in the Colorado winter. They have not had running water due to the freezing weather. They carry one-gallon jugs from the neighbor's spigot to flush their toilet, and they shower at a local gym. It breaks their hearts to hear their three-year-old cry at night because she just wants to be in a real home and have a bath. They're hardworking people. My teacher, she works two jobs as an occupational therapist, 12 or 19 days sometimes without a day off, and her husband works 12-hour shifts in a physically demanding job. They're not looking for a dream home, but they do need a safe, dry, and heated shell so they can move back inside and finish the work one room at a time. This is a family that worked hard, did all the right things. They saved. They were hoping to turn their first home into their dream home. And the contractor left them high and very dry. So this is an important bill. This is one family. Like I said, I was just looking at UK Daily Mail, and all of a sudden this story pops up about how tragic this is that this family is dealing with this situation in the middle of Colorado winter. And now they have not just the work that they initially contracted for, but the damages that they have to go back and fix because the contractor was so negligent. So this is a really, really good bill. I really hope that everybody can get on board with this. I urge a yes vote. Thank you. Representative Brooks. Chair, thank you. What's today? April 15th? What's today? Jackie Robinson? Oh, right, right, right. Okay, all right, it's passed. Chair, thank you. I wanted to just get up for a moment and rise in support of this bill. Not only, I know, you're thinking, oh, it's a member bill, that's why. But no, it's actually because I sat in the committee from which this bill went through and had an opportunity to be able to hear, as you just did. Obviously, the bill sponsors are very well prepared. They've spent a lot of time working through this bill. This is a bill that came from constituency, came from, born from issues that the bill sponsors had identified and that they wanted to work on solving. So as a member of the committee that this came from and as somebody that had the opportunity to be able to sit through and listened to the testimony and listened to the genesis of this bill and voted on it. Yes, in committee. Rise in support of this bill. Believe that it does solve a problem and gets right to without the messiness of the unintended consequences down the road. I believe that this does solve something that the bill sponsors have identified, that we need to be able to close the loophole on in Colorado. So I urge a yes. Okay. Further discussion? Oh, okay. Representative Camacho. Thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues, I very rarely come down here, but I was compelled to by my colleague who said he sat in committee, because I also sat in that same committee, and I drew a different conclusion. I have serious concerns about this bill. I believe it is leading us down a path to criminalize common breaches of contract. If you are a contractor who has taken money, and something has befallen you, and you cannot complete that contract, that doesn't mean you go to jail. That means you have a breach of contract. I also have concerns of whether or not this bill will implicate our bankruptcy process. If you are a contractor and not very good at business and you go bankrupt, this would lead down the path to a criminal charge. That is not our system. That is not what I hope anyone is intending. But I feel this bill takes us down this path. I would also note the concern from the sponsors is that we get after those bad actors. that we find the bad actors in our community who are victimizing those among us who have the least. I will point you to a news story from this morning from the Colorado Attorney General's Office who have found one of these bad actor contractors under our current laws, lie or guilty on a criminal charge and sentence them to 10 years. Our laws do what the sponsors already are trying to intend with this bill. We do not need to criminalize a common breach of contract, and for that, I urge a no vote. Further discussion on the bill? Representative Richardson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the previous rep's comments. I would just say if breaches of contract are becoming that common, perhaps we do need to criminalize the activity. So I do support this bill. Okay. Further discussion on the bill? Representative Kelty. Representative Ricks. Okay. You know, earlier this summer, there was some news articles about a contractor that actually was going around digging septic tanks. And basically he was digging septic tanks, let's say in Adams County, and then he would not finish the work, leave a bunch of dirt in the people's yard, and move on to the next person in Fremont County and do the same thing There needs to be more accountability around contractors and that why I am rising to support this bill Please vote yes Further discussion on the bill All right seeing assistant majority leader Bacon Sorry. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the sponsors. You know, I think I did just have some questions, so I want to acknowledge that the sponsors have been talking to me on the side. You know, typically we see bills that change the criminal codes. This is changing Title 18 come to judiciary. and it's because we have typical questions about the structure of the law and how to differentiate particularly civil disputes as well compared to criminal intent. And so in regards to the language, I wanted to just raise some of the questions that we have that are being answered here. I want to again thank the sponsors. I asked if the professions or the home builders had questions. The bill refers to a specific type of contractor action, not all contractors, but contractors, particularly when it comes to building structures and construction projects. And so, one, they are separated in this law from all other types of contracts and that they have the risk of being criminalized. too, I want to mention the conversations that my colleague just shared in regards to the elements. If we're going to turn something that is also, yes, can be pursued civilly, the questions that we have are to drill more down into the elements of naming what needs to happen to demonstrate a criminal intent to defraud or steal, not just the circumstances of which and how contractors use dollars and the terms to which a project is not completed. Technically speaking, you all may hear the term contractor and work, right? I might be a contractor at my job and what that means is you've told me to get to an outcome, but anything that happens in between is up to me. And so even though folks might use dollars for other things, the question is, did they have criminal intent to defraud or steal, which by the way are existing felonies, and how do we know by when and the terms that this question would be raised for criminal action? Is it a year after? Is it two years after? What are the terms of the contract? What also were the circumstances in which dollars had to be used? because contractors are also running small businesses where they use dollars for different things, and it doesn't necessarily mean that if they didn't finish the project based off of how much amount of time, which we're not sure because it's not necessarily enumerated here, that it is a felony. Also, felony theft occurs given the theft crimes are pretty much sentenced by the value. So if it's $500 or $1,000, That's typically small claims court. Some people have $100,000 contracts, and for what it's worth, $100,000 worth of quote-unquote theft is a third or fourth degree felony. So, you know, we just had some questions. Again I want to thank the sponsors to figure out to their point what could perhaps strengthen this for clarity sake Thank you Representative Espinoza Thank you Madam Chair I rise also as a member of the Judiciary Committee Just to clarify one point that the representative sponsor has indicated that this does not create a crime In fact, it does create a crime because it adds a new definition under a section of the criminal code. So when you put a new definition within the criminal code, you are creating a crime. And so the fact that the Judiciary Committee did not review this bill and enable better discussion in terms of what these elements and requirements are for a crime really creates some deep concerns about this legislation as it's currently drafted. I stand with my colleague from Denver who has raised some of those issues. I think, actually, both of my colleagues from Denver, one raising the issue with regard to the question of contracting in the circumstances and its potential impact on bankruptcy and other issues that exist for pursuing fraudulent criminalization without, as my second Denver colleague said, without clarification of the elements of the crime that's being created here. So yes, I agree with everything that our sponsors and the supporters have indicated that there is some concern when people are fly-by-night, because that's what I heard, organizations that come in and exploit individuals in these projects. But there are ways already existing in the law to address this issue, and I don't believe that as written currently, this bill meets the terms and conditions that we should be supporting today. Thank you. All right. Representative Slott, well... Thank you, Madam Chair. I recognize a real problem with contractor theft. I know that this problem exists. Should we do something about it? Yeah, I think we should do something about it. I think there's been some great points made. A small concern that I will raise that I don't know that has been addressed is what if you're a small, very small general contractor and most of your projects are lower dollar in the grand scheme of things. I know a good number of individuals who I work with who are smaller contractors. They may not be quite the same level of businessmen. The larger contractors are. I would put myself closer to the very small contractor list than the very large contractor list. Contracts and even breakdowns of pricing and things like that, that's something I feel pretty proud that I do to the level that I do. but I know that it's not to the level that other people do sometimes. So I am concerned that we may make small contractors who do smaller projects potentially guilty of crimes. I would hate for my friend who just does pergolas as an example, and maybe it's not even $10,000 all the time that he's charging. Members, it's getting a little loud. Bring it down, please. Yeah. Continue, Representative Slott. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll speak up a little bit more. So that's my only small concern, is how it would apply to small contractors and whether they are going to become potentially, and even if they have a small hiccup in their life, where now they're not able to complete a project, maybe there's very little money that would be due back to the people who gave them the money. They may be operating on very small margins. I would hate to see somebody be criminalized for a very small thing that said again to I think what the intent of the sponsors is and I think it is good is that there are certainly individuals and companies who are out there intentionally committing theft And that all I will say today I think a colleague from Denver is going to speak to that also. Thank you. Representative Mabry. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I want to note our assistant majority leader is a lawyer. Our colleague from Northwest Denver is a former judge. I am a lawyer, and I am the chair of the Judiciary Committee. This bill creates a new crime, and it creates a crime for something that should be a contract dispute. And I want to name who will bear the brunt of this. A significant portion of Colorado's construction workforce, contractors, subcontractors, independent tradespeople, are immigrants. A criminal theft charge, even without a conviction, can trigger ICE attention and set a deportation process in motion. This bill creates a mechanism by which a billing dispute with a customer, a customer who may themselves be acting in bad faith, can become a criminal matter that ends up with somebody being removed from this country. One of my best friends is a workers' rights attorney. He talks all the time about a client who he was working with this year who was in a wage theft dispute with their employer, and the employer said, if you bring it up again, if you bring up your paycheck again, you can get a bullet in your head or a call to ICE. Imagine somebody who retiles a kitchen who then is in a contract dispute with the person who hired them to retile the kitchen. We have civil remedies for this problem. We have contractor trust fund statutes. Our colleague from House District 6 was working on some policy in this space. We have lien law. We have breach of contract. We do not need to make contract disputes into crimes, particularly when the people most exposed to prosecution are immigrant workers who have the least power to fight back. Please vote no on this bill. All right. Majority Leader Duran. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to lay over House Bill 1245 until tomorrow. All right. Are there any objections to laying that bill over? Seeing none, House Bill 1245 will be laid over as requested by the majority leader. Mr. Schiebel, can you read the title of Senate Bill 121? Senate Bill 121 by Senators Rodriguez and Simpson, also Representatives Martinez and Winter, concerning the establishment of a threshold of 56 hours in a work week for when an agricultural employer is required to pay overtime to an agricultural employee. Representative Martinez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to Senate Bill 121. To the bill. All right. Members, I want to start by saying agriculture depends on workers. Over the last five years we've seen growth in protections for agriculture workers in this state. We are one of only four states that have codified these protections into statute and these are amazing things from setting a state minimum wage, establishing meal and rest breaks, overwork protection, prohibiting short handled tools, and of course the right to organize. This has also made farm work a competitive industry. Many farm workers' starting pay is above the minimum wage and are offered vehicles for personal use, cell phones, bonuses, and housing as a part of their employment contract. This shows that our farm workers are valued and made massive strides in employment equitability. A lot has occurred, though, since the implementation of Senate Bill 87. We have seen historically low commodity pricing, rising operational costs in fuel, fertilizer, equipment, and, of course, tariffs. and I would be remiss if I didn't mention the historically low snowpack that has led us to a shortage of water in the San Luis Valley, as well as other parts of the state. All of this requires pause and a call to evaluate the effectiveness of Senate Bill 87 in regards to overtime pay, and the data shows that we are failing our farm workers. I have the unique opportunity to represent both Latino farmers and ranchers and farm workers. I have Latino farmers and ranchers that have been working on this land since before Colorado was Colorado. I also have generational farm workers that come back year after year after year. These are not competing interests. When farm workers succeed, so do the farmers and vice versa. Two independent studies show that farm workers are making less take-home pay now than what they did before 2021. Hours are being limited, workers are making less money, and putting their families at risk. Additionally, just because an employee's hours are limited at a single farmer ranch does not mean that they are working less. We have seen many that are working multiple farms or other jobs for going time off and still not earning overtime. Working multiple jobs to earn the same wages is the reality that we live in. Also, workers are not coming to Colorado because they can earn money in other states working on a single farm or ranch. Let me be clear, working at multiple farms and ranches just to earn the same income is neither fair nor equitable to the farm worker. The intent of the overtime provision in Senate Bill 87 was intended to have farm workers earning more, and that has not happened. Also, we are not the only state that is evaluating how this looks. Again, four other states have protections for agriculture workers on the books, and all of which are evaluating this process this year because of commodity pricing. California has similar protections for farm workers. They have proposed a bill this year to create payroll tax for overtime costs to address similar problems that have occurred here. New York offers a refundable farmer employer overtime credit that was enacted in 2024 that covers 118% of the cost of overtime paid to employees. The credit applies to overtime hours exceeding specific thresholds. We explored these options prior to introducing this bill. However, due to the $1.5 billion shortfall this year, these were not feasible options. Senate Bill 121 is an attempt to make the best out of the situation we find ourselves in. As it stands right now, seasonal employees overtime kicks in at 48 hours. Let me repeat that. As it stands right now, seasonal employees overtime kicks in at 48 hours in rulemaking, and it increases to 56 hours during peak harvest season Senate Bill 121 is a minor adjustment to what is already on the books in Colorado that threads the needle to continue to help and support our farm workers and our producers and with that, we urge an aye vote. Mr. Assistant Minority Leader. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem, and thank you, colleagues, for listening. I'd like to thank my co-prime on this bill for his work and representing his district. Y'all, rural Colorado is important. I say that all the time from the mic. You have to understand that the economy of this state and what agriculture does for that economy, $47 billion in annual revenue, 195,000 jobs. It's a huge driver in the state. But what makes it hard about this is we're starting to see that economic driver leave the state. The Colorado fruit and veggie growers had released some information between 2017 and 2022. There have been over 3,000 farms retired. Since 2022, there's been 1.6 million acres of agricultural land taken out of production. the most recent census of agriculture in colorado which was done in 2022 now listen to these stats the average farm income was reported to be fifty thousand six hundred and ninety two dollars while the median income in colorado according to the u.s census bureau was eighty nine thousand nine hundred and thirty there were twelve thousand five hundred and thirty two farms and ranches in Colorado that reported net financial gains while on the other hand there were twenty-three thousand five hundred and twenty-four farms and ranches in Colorado that reported net financial losses there were twelve thousand four hundred and sixty-six farms and ranches in Colorado that reported neck gains and income or on the other hand there are twenty-three thousand five hundred and ninety farms and ranches in Colorado reported that net loss in income sixty six percent of farmers and ranchers have a second job to support their operation. And more than 80% of Colorado farms and ranches are owned by individuals, not corporations. Members, I really believe that a lot of the legislation that we've seen around this space stems from some tours that we've done in rural Colorado. I was on one such tour. We were in Rocky Ford, and members not only got to speak to producers, but they got to speak to workers as well. and it was clear that both groups weren't necessarily happy with the language that had been passed in other legislation. I would be remiss if I didn't say that food security is national security, and we saw that during COVID. And to be able to have that food security within one to two hours away from the metroplex is ultra important. Farms and ranches, they're struggling. They're facing fees, taxes, fuel costs, over-regulation. But what we're fighting for the little guy here is I think we're fighting for the little guy on two fronts. We're trying to make sure the workers are made whole and they're able to earn what they want. But you have to understand, members, as the urban sprawl happens, little farms are preyed upon. We are seeing buy and dry in rural Colorado where they are pulling water off the land. and what's unfortunate about that is the reason that these farmers and ranchers are having to sell that water because they have fifth and sixth generation places that they put blood sweat and tears in and the only equity they have to be able to keep the ground that their family worked and lived on is to be able to sell the water from it And then what are we going to see Who does this affect This affects the little farmer And then what will happen is, is the little farmer will be run out, and then the corporate farms are going to buy them up. And at the end of the day, you know what the corporate farms have? They have the money. they have the money to mechanize they have the money to create equipment that is going to do the work of the workers you're trying to protect and you can't make a living when you have a machine doing it for you we've seen these pressures happen before where you have a balloon and you squeeze one in and it pops out somewhere else I'd like to bring up the analogy of New York City We saw a raise in minimum wage, and then McDonald put in kiosks. Small farms will be lost. Corporate farms will take over. They will recognize and hurt the people that some are trying to help. With that, I urge a yes vote. Representative Martinez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We've been working on this policy for about a year. and trying to figure out what's happening and what we can do and what we can improve upon. We haven't gotten a whole lot of feedback on how to adjust this and making sure that we're threading this needle. That being said, during testimony, we heard a lot from other people across the state coming in and talking about some things that have been happening. And we wanted to make sure that we address that in this and showing that we are acting in good faith. in this process and making sure that we really care about our farm workers. So with that, I move Amendment L-47 and ask it to be properly displayed. That is a proper motion. One second. We'll get the amendment displayed. Representative Martinez, please proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. What does Amendment L-47 do? We heard in committee where workers were not being paid by farms. And so we looked at the wage theft statute that is already on the books and working to increase that by 10%, which is $40,000 per violation of three or more subsequent violations, which targets the big actors in this business and the most egregious. Additionally, we heard in committee where there is misclassification of what a supervisor is. and that that was happening. We also wanted to address that, and in section I.5, 1.5, that we also have that section in there, where if a person is misclassified as a supervisor status, that is also a 10% increase in their wage theft penalty that goes up $20,000. Why did we do this? Because we already committed that these were acts that were being committed, and we wanted to make sure that, again, And if the focus of this bill is helping the small farmer and rancher, helping the farm worker that work at those small and farming ranches, there needs to be accountability on the back end and making sure that we are doing right by them and making sure that we are holding those that are egregious accountable. So with that, we urge an aye vote. Hey, I'm out winner. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. We urge an aye vote on this amendment. I think this is good legislating We talk about all the time about stakeholdering and listening to constituents and concerns The bill been stakeholder for over a year We went into a committee We did hear concerns and we trying to shore those concerns up in good faith and bring an amendment that we thought was brought from community. We urge an aye vote. Further discussion on L-47. Representative Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I request a title ruling. A title ruling has been requested. The House will stand in a brief recess. Thank you. Thank you. The committee will come back to order. The chair rules that the amendment does fit under the title. We are back to the amendment L47. Representative Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. With this amendment that is brought forward, but I do want to thank the sponsors for considering stakeholder input. I think one of the important things to realize is there's already a significant amount of under-reporting in this area. You have farm workers that are in an extremely vulnerable position and are often faced with threats and faced with intimidation to keep them from reporting wage theft. We have passed many, many, well not many, it took us a long time and barely did we get until 2013 when we actually passed Colorado's first wage theft law and even since then having that protection in law, we still have seen a low number of reporting officially when we know that the data demonstrates that wage theft does actually occur. While I appreciate this amendment to this bill, this amendment won't add any additional protections. Plain and simple. This amendment is not going to be adding any protections to the workers that are experiencing wage theft. So what is the purpose then of this amendment? I don't know.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to my good colleague from Adams for bringing that up. This is built into the current wage statute that's already on the books and making sure that there's added protection in there, again, based off of what we heard in committee and making sure that we were providing additional protections for those workers that have experienced not being paid, being underpaid, in this or being misclassified. That's the reason why this amendment is coming, to making sure, again, that there is accountability on the back end if we are making these adjustments and making sure that, again, that workers are taken care of in that manner. We urge an aye vote.

Rep. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Given that we just adopted this wildly out-of-title amendment.

Correct.

I appreciate the chair's discretion. Appreciate that. And we really don't know the impact of this, so I actually would like to request a fiscal note, and I have ten members that have agreed to request an updated fiscal note.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. All right, members. I want to start with some history here because the distinction between what farm workers are paid and what other workers are paid is rooted in a really dark history. And I want to be clear that I do not believe that the bill sponsors are running this bill to continue that legacy, but we must talk about it. In 1938, when Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act, the law that gave us the 40-hour work week, overtime pay, and the basic protections that most of us take for granted, it explicitly excluded farm workers and domestic workers from these protections, and that was intentional. It was a deliberate political deal, and the people who made that political deal were not quiet about why. Southern congressmen negotiated that exclusion specifically to preserve what they called a plantation economy, and that plantation economy was built on the labor of black and brown workers. And they spoke to this openly. Representative Mark Wilcox of Florida complained on the House floor that the federal government knows no color line, that it would prescribe the same wage for black and white Americans. And he meant that as an objection to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Senator Cotton Smith of South Carolina said that the opponents of the bill knew that its main objection was to undo, in his words, quote, the splendid gifts of God to the South. This was not subtext. They were explicit arguments used to exclude farm workers from the protections every other American worker would receive. The Social Security Act of 1935, three years later, did the same thing, excluding agriculture and domestic workers from social insurance in industries where black workers were concentrated. This was by design. These exclusions were not coincidental patterns. They were the architecture of a system that was built to keep a specific workforce powerless. That was racism baked into statute. And now, again, I do not believe the bill sponsors are continuing in that legacy, but that is the root of why farm workers are paid difference. It took until 1966, 28 years later, for Congress to amend the Fair Labor Standard Act to include agricultural workers at all. And even when it did, it was a sub-minimum wage standard. It took until 1977 to eliminate the sub-minimum wage and extend broader coverage. And farm workers remain to this day fully excluded from federal overtime protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Every other worker in America qualifies for overtime pay after 40 hours. Farm workers do not. The United Farm Workers who we honored unanimously in this chamber spent decades fighting against this legacy They organized in the face of violent opposition They marched, they fasted, they were pepper sprayed and beaten, and they built one of the most important labor movements in American history precisely because farm workers had been deliberately excluded from the protections that every other worker has. their fight was not just about wages. It was about dignity. It was about the basic proposition that a person who harvests our food deserves the same protections as the people who build our cars. California became the first state in the country to provide farm workers with overtime pay after eight hours in a day. It took the United Farm Workers until 2016 to win it. After Governor vetoed a similar bill in 2010. Another bill was killed in a final vote in 2012. This is how hard it was to win. This is how much organized money and power was aligned against it. It happened, though, because workers organized March and refused to accept that their labor was worth less because of who they were. And today, we are being asked to move in the opposite direction. And let's talk about who these workers are, what their lives look like, because I think that matters in this debate. There are around 2.4 million farm workers in the United States. 78% of them are Latino. 70% are foreign-born. 63% were born in Mexico. Here in Colorado, we have approximately 30,000 farm workers, roughly 4,400 migrant workers recruited through the H-2A visa program. Their median annual income, this is critical, The median annual income of the people we're trying to reduce their wages here is between $20,000 and $25,000 a year. That is for full-time work in an industry that is often seasonal, meaning they earn far less across a full calendar year. Farm wages nationally equal only about 60% of non-farm wages. This industry already benefits immensely from paying people less. Colorado farm workers earn roughly half the average wage of all workers in the state. 21% of farm workers live in poverty, nearly twice the national average, despite performing some of the most physically demanding, dangerous, and essential work in our economy. And I think it's important that we consider the words of these workers directly in comments to CDLE when they were doing rulemaking on the new overtime law, we had people reach out with their names and anonymously. A worker named Alfredo submitted comments when Colorado was crafting this overtime rule we're being asked to roll back. He said, I've worked 16 years exactly in agriculture. I've experienced many beautiful things in agriculture. But there is another sad reality behind the glorious cultivation of vegetables, where the immigrant farm worker is forced to work too many hours. I worked an average of 60 to 90 hours a week, where I did not receive even one single dollar of overtime pay. In addition, we were verbally abused by our boss if we tried to defend our labor rights. An anonymous farm worker from the San Luis Valley wrote, Working more than 40 hours a week can harm your body in the long run. Working overtime has affected my mental and physical health. I feel guilty. not being there for my family. I'm always tired. I'm sad to have to work extra hours. Stop treating us like indentured servants. We are people with families and children. Another anonymous farm worker, this is translated from Spanish, said, I've worked with sacrifices, long work hours between 12, 14, up to 16 hours daily. I don't have time to see my children because of work without a right to vacations or without a right to overtime pay. These are the people we are debating today, and we're debating whether they deserve overtime after 40 hours or whether we should make them work 56 hours before that protection kicks in. Let's think about what 56 hours means. That is more than a full additional day of labor each week before a single dollar of overtime. A worker putting in 56 hours earns the same hour rate as someone working 41, and the argument being made is that this is good for workers. This is good for workers. Every May Day and Labor Day, we celebrate the progresses that the labor movement gave us, things we take for granted, the 40-hour work week, the minimum wage, and overtime pay. But this is good. This is good for workers. I also want to name what this bill means for worker health and safety because I don't think that that dimension is getting enough attention. Agriculture is one of the most dangerous industries in the United States. According to the Center for Disease Control, every single day, 100 farm workers across this country suffer a lost work time injury. The industry fatality rate is 21.4 deaths per 100,000 workers compared to all other industries, which just averages 3.5 per 100,000. This means farm workers are six times more likely to die on the job than every other American worker. Research shows that weekly work hours increase mortality rates by nearly 20%, and being required to work overtime hours is associated with significantly higher injury hazard rates. Searcy, a health prematura who works with farm workers in Colorado, described these conditions to CDLC. I have observed that it is reoccurring to see people in the fields with consistent pain and with postural and mobility impairments due to muscle fatigue. These conditions are caused by overworking in the field and overstressed to the worker, to whom I have seen resort to the daily and excessive ingestion of painkillers and even alcohol. It affects their ability to access public services, care for their family, and even the provision of the pantry, because due to fatigue, they neglect the purchase of food. Tri-County Health Department wrote, when agricultural workers are not subject to overtime rules, farm workers feel retaliation or loss of employment if they request to work fewer hours in order to satisfy their own basic needs. and the adverse health impacts of overwork is true across agriculture employees, regardless of the size of the operation or the seasonality of their work. They called for full parity with other workers, time and a half after 40 hours. The dignity that we recognize in every other industry. Again, this isn't a wage question. This is also a health and safety question. The Washington Supreme Court recognized this explicitly holding that Washington exclusion of farm workers from overtime protection denied them the fundamental right to workplace health and safety protection guaranteed by their state constitution When we raise the overtime threshold to 56 hours, we are telling these workers that they must absorb more hours of dangerous, physically brutal labor before receiving any premium for that risk. Also, again, this is just like half pay on some of the lowest hourly wages in the state. I want to address the economic argument for this bill directly because it requires serious scrutiny. We're being told two things simultaneously that cannot be true at the same time. We're told first that farms are in financial distress, that overtime costs are crushing them, and that the 2021 law has been devastating and that without relief some operations will not survive. We're also told second that workers will actually earn more if this bill passes. that employers have been cutting hours to avoid the overtime threshold and that raising it to 56 hours will let workers log more time and take home more pay. These two arguments directly contradict each other. If farms cannot afford overtime, why all of a sudden would they be able to afford more hours when the threshold goes up? The rational response for a financially strapped employer is to keep workers under the new threshold too. Workers work more hours at straight time. the farm stays on overtime, the worker earns the same or less per hour than they did before. We already have data. A survey found that 55% of dairy workers, 70% of livestock workers in Colorado already exceeded 48 hours a week. But only 38% of them are actually receiving overtime pay. That's wage theft. We treat theft very differently in this building depending on who's doing the theft. When workers are getting their labor stolen, we do not treat that nearly as seriously as we treat petty theft, where last year we argued extensively about if somebody should have to spend 300 days in jail for petty theft. Stealing somebody's labor, I believe, is far more serious, but it's treated as a contract dispute. The current law is already not being fully complied with, and the proposed response is to raise the bar rather than to enforce what already exists. The Economic Policy Institute has noted that labor costs as a share of farm income have not increased in two decades. The number of Colorado farms has actually increased significantly over the past 15 years, suggesting a growing, not collapsing industry. And California's experience since 2016 showed that farm worker overtime protections can be achieved without negatively impacting the farm industry. There is no economic justification for treating workers differently. Now, I want to talk about the financial pressures being faced by farmers because I do think they are real. And I think they deserve to be addressed honestly, which means not pretending that worker pay is the cause of them. Farm bankruptcies climbed 46 percent in the last year. In 2025, 15,000 farms went out of business. A Purdue University study found that nearly half of those farmers reported being financially worse off than a year ago. These problems are real, and they are serious. But let's be precise about where the toughest pressures are coming from. Trump's tariffs targeted a trade war with China, the largest buyer of American soybeans. That collapsed prices and cut off a major export market. Iran, the war with Iran has disrupted fertilizer supplies through the Strait of Hormuz, sending input costs dramatically higher. Operating costs have stayed elevated since 2020 and are projected to increase further in 2026 None of that is caused by the overtime pay of workers And the federal relief dollars meant to help farmers survive are flowing overwhelmingly to the largest operations. Under the $11 billion Farmer Bridge Assistance Program, the largest soybean farms, just 7.6% of operations will collect 42.5% of all soybean payments. In previous rounds of Trump tariff bailouts, the largest 5% of farms received 41% of all payouts. And I think we should listen to a farmer that has been impacted by this. A farmer named Manuel Barone, a landowner, who submitted comments during the 2021 rulemaking, said that 40 hours is dignified and a solid week's worth of work. People who are not underpaid and over-exhausted perform better. It's not science. It's humanity. Those who seek to establish a limit at 60 probably don't spend that much time on the field themselves, not to mention it's getting drier and hotter in Colorado, and we can't pass protections for workers that are working in extreme temperatures, but we can cut their pay. if you have been toiling outside for years you realize that i worry that we are attempting to preserve a structure that was created in a time that no longer exists it will be challenging every season is however this year i will have to consider the humans that work for me and that brings me good energy it is on me to figure that out it is on me to figure that out a farmer said that. Not every employer in this industry wants us to solve their cost challenges on the backs of their workers. Some of them understand that treating workers fairly is not the problem. It is part of the solution. So when supporters of this bill tell us small farms are suffering and need relief, I believe them. And my response to them is, let's address the actual causes. Let's challenge terror policies that have collapsed commodity markets. Let's reform the farm subsidy program that funnels federal dollars to mega operations instead of family farms. Let's fight the consolidation that is pushing small farms out of business, not because they pay their workers overtime, but because they cannot compete with operations that have 10,000 acres and federal payments to match. Do not cut worker pay. The financial problems facing small farms in Colorado are real. Asking farm workers who earn a median income of less than $25,000 a year and experience poverty at twice the national rate. To solve those problems by forfeiting overtime pay is not a solution. It is a transfer. It takes from the people with the least and gives to the operations that employ them. It leaves the actual causes of farm financial distress almost entirely untouched. I want to be honest about the political dynamics here because the context matters. The effort behind 121 has been driven by farm owners and agriculture industry groups. The people whose wages are directly affected, the workers, are not the ones asking for this change. And the reasons they are not here, loudly opposing it every single day, go far deeper than indifference. The workforce is disproportionately made up of immigrant workers. Many of them are undocumented. Many of them here on temporary visas, nearly all of them in a situation of profound economic and legal vulnerability. 70 of farm workers are foreign born 63 were born in Mexico Under this federal administration immigration enforcement has intensified in ways that have created a real and documented fear in agricultural communities across this state Patricia, an ESL teacher who works with farm workers in Colorado, described what she has observed. All their mail goes to the ranch owner. The ranch owners either throw it away or read it before they give it to them. Some of them have already been threatened against talking to the prematuras. They fear they will not be hired back if they accept help. Workers do not have time to learn English because they work so many hours. That is why they deserve overtime pay. Think about that. These workers cannot even take night classes to learn English, cannot develop language skills that will give them more options and more power because they are working too many hours at straight time pay, and this bill asks us to pay them less. These workers are not able to publicly organize against their employers right now. They're not able to file complaints with the Labor Department at rates that we would like to see out of fear of retaliation. They're not going to show up in mass in committee hearings and testify against the people who decide whether they work tomorrow. The power dynamic in this industry is structural. It is historically documented, and it is being exploited at this precise political moment. I want to place this bill also in the context of where we are towards the end of the legislative session, because I believe particularly members of my party deserve to think about what we're doing. What is our legacy this session holistically? We could not pass medical debt relief. If the governor appears poised to veto the Worker Protection Act.

Bill after bill after bill that would have made real material differences in the lives of working people have died. And in that context, with that record in view, the question I keep returning to, what is our legacy this session? Will it be to cut pay of farm workers? If we pass this bill, part of that answer will be that. and in a session where we could not do more. Is this the legacy we want? I don't think that reflects the values that we ran on, and I don't think that working families sent us here. That sent us here. We'll see that as progress. A farm worker who submitted comments in 2021 asked the question I've not been able to get out of my head. There are going to be times of year when farmers are working 60-plus hours a week. And they deserve to make the same overtime pay as the worker who is hustling during peak season. Think about the retail employee or the restaurant worker here in Denver. Why do we accept that a warehouse worker in December during the Christmas season deserves overtime pay for long seasonal hours, but a farm worker in harvest season does not? What is the principle that justifies that distinction because the only historical answer is dark and we should not be voting to preserve that dark history. The farm workers who spent generations fighting for dignity in the workplace, who organized when it was dangerous, who marched when they had nothing, who built a movement out of poverty and exclusion, we're not afraid. The least we can do is hold on to what they won. We should not pass legislation that cuts pay for the most vulnerable workers in our state. That is not who we are and it will not be who I am. I am loudly going to vote no on this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. I am enjoying this moment. We're actually debating back and forth because there is an almost even line from my insider info. I think we're right around even on this. So I love this. This is what we're supposed to be doing in here. That's not what we normally do in here, but I do like this. All of the statements that I was just listening to showed me a couple of basic things. That you've got people that are working in Denver, lawyers, whoever, and they're reaching out into these farms and making decrees in these farms when it is extremely obvious they've never stepped foot on a farm. That is very obvious. Thirty years ago, I began to pastor a church down in the Arkansas River Valley, down in Rocky Fort. That's all migrant worker error. Everything is migrant worker. It's also interesting that the two representatives, one Republican and one Democrat, that are running this bill are from farm districts. And we've got lawyers telling us they don't know what they're talking about. We know better, and of course that's the normal routine in this building. But our church was mostly Hispanic, about 75% Hispanic. And we had ministry to migrant workers, and we would go into the farms and work with the migrant workers. And I spent a lot of time, I spent literally hours and hours and hours and months and years helping people become citizens, helping them get work visas, green cards, all kinds of different things. Depends on what they wanted to do, what their plan was. But some of them didn't want to. They just wanted to come, you know, get a work visa, come from Mexico and work for two or three months and take money back to Mexico. One of the migrant contracts, one of the people that helped the migrant workers get into the farmers and get that information, and this was right around the time cell phones were becoming, that was a little bit before that, becoming a thing. So it's not like you could just call. They have networks now that are so much more advanced. But there was a handful of these guys in the area, and one of the guys actually went to our church, and he was a migrant contractor and I worked with him very closely. I worked with the migrant workers very closely. I would go out into the fields and pick with the migrant workers often. I enjoyed that. That was our ministry to them. I didn't get paid for it, although I was just as poor as the migrant workers at that time. I didn't get paid for it except they would give me some some chilies, poblanos, Anaheim, serranos, jalapenos, whatever we were picking. And then corn and onions. I would get some of that. And then some of the farmers found out I was a good guy. And so they would let me have melons too. And, uh, and it was really cool, but we would go out there and work. And here's something that I don't think, I don't think these people that are arguing against this understand how it works. In fact, I know they don't. It's not like a migrant contractor hires 20 people and they work 40 hours a week on these farms. That is not even close to what going on These migrant contractors will have worked with these people potentially for years and it generational And they will bring them to the farms and then they work at this farm for a couple of days and then they'll go over to this farm and work. And it depends on the idea that this is a 40-hour-a-week job. It is not the context here. That is obvious from the people that are arguing this bill. They don't know this. This is not how it works. The farmers and all of the workers, and I've been in this years before that. I was in West Texas in cotton farming country. And once the cotton is ready to pick, everybody is hands on deck until it's done. And it's the same way when these vegetables, when corn or onions are ready to pick, It's hands-on until it's done. And it's feast or famine. And so these migrant workers come to America to go to the different seasons, and they'll go at different places. And usually the ones in Colorado stay in Colorado for the most part. They may go down into Mexico a little bit or New Mexico a little bit or maybe into Oklahoma. But they stay with the Colorado seasons. It's the only way you can really get it done right. and they'll work hands-on, nonstop for two or three days, dark to dark. And I know because I have been out there in the fields with them, I have picked with them for months and months at a time. And then they move over to this farm. It's not 40 hours or it may be 20 hours over here and 35 hours over here and then they go to this farm. It has to do with the contractors and the farmers and the work that they need, when they need it, where they need it. The context of a factory worker working 40 hours a week, except during Christmas, that's just proof you don't know what you're talking about. That's not how farming works. It may be how lawyering works, but it's not how farming works. And what's going to happen if you do this? Because most of the farms in Colorado are smaller farms. Those are the ones who hire people. The big mega farms, they don't hire people. So to say somehow they're wanting this bill to go through because they're wanting to keep all their workers down to, you know, working 56 hours with no overtime or whatever, that's because the big farms have equipment. They don't have workers. The smaller farms have the workers. If you stepped onto a farm, you would know that. The small farm has workers. When these farms get to 40 hours, if you say, okay, we're going to do overtime, when these farms get to 40 hours, they can't afford that extra 16 hours at the same wage. They can't afford to go to time and a half for that. And so they're going to stop that person and get somebody else to work on this farm. That's how simple it is. And if you think running this bill changes that, or trying to defeat this

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I did want to put on the record that without this bill, the threshold for overtime for farmers is 48 hours, so it's not 40 hours. And I wanted to start by talking about the pressures of farming. And we know that climate change is real. We're seeing extreme temperatures and extreme weather. We are breaking all the records when it comes to extreme heat. We are seeing decades-long drought. Our water levels are really low. We don't have enough precipitation. In the mountain resort communities, we lost 30 days of winter. Our ski resorts are closed. We know that the Colorado River is at a very low level. I can't even see drafters going through some of the parts in the Colorado River in my district. I remember also a couple years ago we retired agriculture land from the Republican River because there's not enough water. And these issues of water are not going to be fixed by this bill. We are also seeing workers die on the job because of extreme heat. We are seeing an administration that is defunding OSHA, the infrastructure at the federal level that we had depended on to protect workers. Protections are being rolled back. Agencies are being defunded. And this bill is not going to fix that. I went to visit with a group of farmers in Delta County and they were sharing how they worked in Palisade picking peaches and how they had never been to the festival they had never been invited and there was an organization that did a project called the faces of agriculture and they were invited for the first time to attend the Peach Festival for free and to enjoy the celebrations for the first time. And also we are seeing vulnerable workers, immigrants, even people who have visas, who are scared because of the enforcement of this administration. We also saw workers die at a milk factory, and that investigation is still ongoing. And I also want to talk about wage theft, since we added an amendment around that. Wage theft is not new or exceptional, but foundational and routine. It is deeply embedded in the U.S. history of violent colonialism and racial capitalism built on and maintained through theft of land, labor, and bodies. Wage theft investigations could reveal graver types of criminal employer behavior, such as labor trafficking. Yet, wage theft from things like denying employees over time is indicative indicative of subtler forms of theft that are widely accepted as exploitative labor practices that have become routine across low-wage industries. These labor practices often blur the line between routine exploitation and criminal behavior, but decimate working conditions, subject low-wage workers to disproportionate rate of workplace illnesses, mistreatment and injuries, and erode wages amid rising cost of living. Treating wage theft as an individualized incident or dispute can distract attention from the power discrepancies and structural factors that render it systemic. Wage theft is a symptom of how decimated labor standards enforcement, unaccountable contracting arrangements that decline of organized labor and that devaluation of immigrants have degraded employment and normalized increasingly unjust wages and widening economic inequality. When we create policies and decide different forms of inclusion into state law and labor protections for workers, we as a state are protecting business interests and essentially creating a subsidy for wealthier agriculture industries by denying ag workers protections and their due time and pay. Wage theft punished employers who play by the rules by giving bad actors who undercut their workers a cost savings advantage. and with that i would like to move l 036 to senate bill 121 and ask that it be properly

sets the overtime threshold at 40 hours a week and 12 hours a day. When Congress enacted the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, agricultural and domestic workers were excluded from basic workplace protections, such as minimum wage and overtime. These exclusions were not accidental. The Southern Democrats required this exemption in order to gain their support for the legislation because they did not want to provide protections for black and brown workers who overwhelmingly made up those workforces. After the end of slavery, Jim Crow exclusions kept African Americans out of higher-paying jobs with occupational mobility, pushing them into lower-paying industries like domestic and agricultural work that enjoyed fewer protections under labor law. When the FSLA emerged out of the New Deal in 1938 it excluded farm domestic and home care workers which were sectors dominated by African Americans occupational classifications cloaked racially derived exclusions of minority workers who were concentrated in these sectors, thereby guaranteeing a source of cheap and protected labor. The exclusions of farm workers from the National Labor Relations Act, which also protected the right to organize and engage in concerted activity to improve working conditions, and the FSLA also benefited the consolidation of agribusiness in the South and the Southwest and helped condition reliance on importing Mexican laborers, ensuring growers would have free reign over their workforce. A 40-hour threshold reflects the standard overtime rule that applies for most workers. Farm workers should not be singled out for weaker protections simply because their labor has historically been undervalued. A 40-hour workweek was established to signal to employers that working any more than that comes at the detriment to the workers' health and safety. and if a worker is to work over 40 hours a week, then they must be compensated fairly for the risk associated with that. This is a wage theft issue. Treating wage theft as an individualized incident or dispute can distract attention from the power discrepancies. Yeah, so with that, I ask for a yes vote on this amendment.

The House will stand in a brief recess. Thank you. Committee will come back to order. The chair rules that the amendment does not fit under the title. We are back to the underlying bill, and we are, friends, just for the sake of organizing, we're going to be going back and forth, and so I do have a list of folks from either side. I'll make sure that I include folks who are in the well. I have Representative Taggart next. I have Representative Hamrick after Representative Taggart, and we'll just kind of alternate back and forth. Representative Taggart.

I've got Representative Story next who is subbing for Representative Hamrick at my understanding representative representative leader welcome to the well

alright

That's a proper motion. One moment.

Further discussion?

Any further discussion on Amendment L32? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L32 to Senate Bill 121. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The amendment is lost. We are back to the underlying bill. I have Representative, sure, AML Winter.

Representative, I've got Representative Hamrick next. You know what, I'm just going to throw away the list. You all do you We going to go back and forth Representative Garcia Thank you Mr Chair I got to say it is bombtastic to serve with you

Okay. Members, I do want to just start off by just appreciating all of you here

That's a proper motion. One second. Rep. Garcia, please proceed.

What this amendment is doing is it is expanding the wage set provision and allowing the Department of Labor to accept anonymous reports regarding the violations of this section by agricultural employers. When you can accept anonymous reports, it will trigger an investigation. Why do they not already report? Because it is not anonymous, their name is attached, and they can face retaliation. If we are really in this chamber saying yes yes we believe in farm workers and yes we want them to work as much as they can so they can send money back home or whatever then let also make sure that they can actually protect themselves in reporting when there is a violation of wage theft Let's make sure that we are adding another shield against retaliation. this amendment should be easy to accept this amendment is saying that farm workers should have a safe avenue to report wage theft which is a new provision in this bill I know that we have had even just in this chamber for many years individuals, whether they're our staff, our fellow colleagues that even today with the statuses that we have, with the jobs that we have are even facing intimidation and retaliation for reporting harms in this building. Many of us know what that feels like. Because retaliation is a real thing. Let's make sure that we are not putting that on our farm workers. Let's make sure that we are not putting on our farm workers an additional burden to get what they are owed because they are afraid of retaliation. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to my colleague from Adams bringing this amendment. I want to clarify a few things, though, first before we talk about this. in regards to what the pay is and is not for our workers and how that fits into this amendment on expanding wage theft protections. First of all, by the Senate Bill 86 that we had, that they set up the Colorado minimum wage standard in the state of Colorado. That is already on the books. That doesn't change with the fluctuations of the federal market because the law that's in place now already establishes that to keep it on pace with what we already have. So it does not dip below that despite what is happening at the federal level, which we can't affect. In regards to this, though, with Amendment L64, this is already built into the current wage theft statute. They can already report anonymously. And then that triggers the department to already be able to investigate those claims. That being said, I think that we can have further talks and expansion on what that looks like and improving the system that's already in place. I believe that we can, and I'm committed to actually having that, those discussions on making sure that it's an easier process and making sure that there's expedited response times on that. But that can't be fixed in this bill or in this amendment. So with that, I request a no vote on Amendment 64.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, one really interesting piece here is that The good rep from the South just said that we have, you know, it's because he represents like everything, like we have already wage theft. So then why did we need to adopt the original wage theft amendment since we already have it? But since we did, we need to make sure that we are making sure that what is in wage theft, in our wage theft provisions, as it was rewritten in parts into this bill by the First Amendment that was adopted, that we are also ensuring that anonymous reporting is respected in this new amendment, in this new bill, in this expanded bill that now we have. I ask for an aye vote.

Well, on tax day, it's always a good idea Good opportunity to recognize that One third of all of our wages are wage thefted Because your taxes aren't You're not working for yourself until No matter how much overtime you do Until after mid-April It used to be the beginning of April Now it's mid-April We've lost another two weeks

Oh, she was talking about wage theft So anyways, I appreciate the sponsors bringing up a problem with our – I mean, it's not the bill, but bringing up the immigration status of bringing open borders and introducing people to being permanently exploitable and expendable. And that is a big problem that we have. Now, the anonymous reporting, I mean, that seems to create a problem, you know, with your right to – I mean, it's already in there, but it does seem to create a conflict with your ability to confront your accuser. Now, I get why it has to be anonymous because you have the exploitable part. You have the expendable part. Now that is done by relying on labor that is carteled across an open border. So you're creating a problem by which these workers are in this status. One thing that we're not talking about is all of the regardless of immigration status bonuses in terms of pay. so not in favor of anybody being exploited but you're creating the situation you're creating the environment by which they are exploited they have no protections without documentation so if you want them to have actual protections it would behoove you to move in a way that would require documentation and we used to have a system like that that worked very well for migrant farmers and I think we still have it I don't know why we don't use it probably because it's more profitable to cartel people across the border so the idea that you can just that everybody is, I mean, your policies are creating the environment by which these individuals are exploited. Your policies are the ones that are creating it by which they are made expendable. And they can be disappeared as our colleague who alluded to earlier not alluded to stated outright So maybe that something that we need to fix first So I recommend a no vote on the amendment.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, I just want to clarify that even if we currently have anonymous reporting by CDE, there is absolutely no requirement that they investigate from it. While this amendment doesn't also require, what it does is just adds another level of acceptance of anonymous reporting. anonymous reporting is a protection for employees it's a protection for farm workers if we are going to rewrite part of wage theft law into this bill then let's make sure that we are doing it entirely there's no reason that we should not be including this especially if it's calling out one of our most absolute, most vulnerable workforce in this state. Remember who our farm workers are. There is this need for protection. They're giving everything they have to be in the fields, in the warehouses so that we can eat. they're sacrificing their bodies they're sacrificing their health they're sacrificing their families in time with their families and when they're getting when they're getting exploited and not getting paid what they should be getting paid they should be able to file an anonymous complaint and it should be no question that they should be able to file an anonymous complaint. I ask for an

Thank you Mr. Chair again this is already covered in the wage theft statute. We are not rewriting the wage theft statute. We are simply increasing the penalties because of what we heard from witness testimony on things that were happening in here in Colorado and needed to adjust accordingly and making sure that again, if we are proposing this increase in the threshold, that we need to have balance on there and making sure that there was accountability. There is an obligation from CDLE to be able to investigate once a complaint has been filed and being able to proceed forward. Also, secondly, to my good colleague from Adams County, warehouse workers are not included in this. They are not considered agriculture workers by state statute. I request a no vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This has been a day. All right. Tax day. It's been taxing. All right, trading time for money. That's called a job. When these individuals, we're not talking about slavery we're talking about people that are coming here voluntarily and working for a wage and that is a competitive process now what they competing with is they are now competing with robots and drones Now it was a few years ago I remember seeing the protests outside about demanding per hour And I thought, I'll bet that's being funded by the manufacturers of kiosks. Now, I don't know for sure, but sure enough, a lot of people became unemployed and a lot of kiosks went in their place. You know what the minimum wage for a kiosk is? Zero. Zero. So if you want to, if you really want to accelerate the mechanization of farm work, you're on the right track. By rejecting this bill. Farming is easy when you're a thousand miles away and your pen is a plow. Can't remember who said that, but it makes a lot of sense. Farming from Denver, telling the ranchers and farmers how that works, the same group of people that sick wolves on the farmers cause them to have to work longer, those farmers and ranchers who sacrifice their bodies, their time, their families, their freedom for the exact same stuff. What is your reward to the farmers, ranchers? Your reward is to punish them harder. So voting no is just going to, voting against this bill is just going to accelerate, accelerate the obsolescence. of the people that you've brought in to be exploitable and expendable. So here's some things that you could do. You could tax them less. You could incentivize higher wages with tax incentives. You don't do that. We have farmers and ranchers that are having to indenture parts of their land with easements in order to keep the land hopefully until some sanity returns in the fee state Colorado. And ranchers, they're having to sell their water where they can't even grow anything. I don't know, how many workers do you need to pick a crop that doesn't grow? One? Two? None? Sweep up the dots? What? I mean, voting no is working against the people that you're saying you want to help. Just looking at some basic math of this. Let's just say four months, 16 weeks is harvest season. Right? It's nothing exact. 56 hours. If you had to hire somebody, you could say 56 hours. and that's what it's going to take times 16 that's 896. 896 hours that they could work in that four months. Now if you limit it to 40 hours times 16 that's 640. So now if the rancher if the farmer needs 896 hours because one thing that has been missed I think is it because it well it's been touched on just in a different way is that past 40 hours is a time of fatigue. You get tired. You work you don work as well You are more prone to injury There is more risk So if a farmer is going to allow somebody to work for over 40 hours they are incurring a level of risk and a level of decreased productivity. So if they have a worker who wants to work past 40 hours, That farmer has to say, I am willing to accept a decreased level of productivity in order to keep you on. So is that worker's labor then worth time and a half? Well, the actuality is you would have to multiply it by that value of that labor. you would have to multiply it by some degraded factor because none of the opposition to this bill has given any indication that if you go past 40 hours in a week, that suddenly your productivity increases. So the farmer has to accept an increased risk and decrease in productivity to hire over. But let's say he needs that 896 hours. Got to have it. Because this is, I don't know, I think maybe we should call it the make hay well the sun shines bill, right? That you don't have. It's seasonal, right? And if you're limited, and if you're limited in that 16 weeks to 40 hours, now you have to hire two workers to get that. But all you need is 896 hours. I'm just saying you only need 896 hours. So now you need two workers, and that is only 448 hours per worker, which only comes down to 28 hours per week. so you have people that have come that have relocated and this is not uncommon in the United States we have soldiers, they'll deploy for six months they don't make time and a half they sacrifice their time, their family I don't hear anybody asking for time and a half for the soldiers or saying, why don't we just cut taxes for no income? No, they don't get time and a half. Now, for these farmers, you could, again, you could incentivize hiring longer or more wages, and you could make a tax incentive out of that where they pay less taxes. I'm sure every single farmer would make the trade to pay less taxes and more wages. Why is that never an option? The only option is more taxes. So what you're saying, what you're doing to the individuals is you're saying, all right, you're going to have to come up here for 448 hours. You're going to get 28 hours per week because that's all you can be hired. If you go past 40 hours, you're in increased liability and your productivity decreases. It's not personal. It's just a fact. So you're incentivizing more bodies being brought in, less wages earned, less money going back to their families. And what are they going to be doing for those extra hours, those extra times? 200 hours. They're going to go down the street and pick up a job at the other farm. And then that farmer will have, that rancher, they'll just have trucks going back and forth so they can work eight hours here and eight hours there. Because they're here to work and make money. They're trading time and money on a voluntary basis. That's what makes the free market work. They're engaging in the free market. What you're objecting to is compelled labor, which is ironic on tax day, which doesn't even meet tax liberation day. And you're worried about compelled labor, well-compelling labor, and trying to figure out ways to compel more labor. yet the individuals that are working in a free market system to trade their time and money their time for money because the only other thing that they're going to have to do for that 200 hours and we saw this 28 hours that's what Obama made full time wages in order to have health care what did everybody do? Everybody cut their hours down to 28 hours. It's just kind of funny how that works. So they cut their wages down to 28 hours where they didn't have health care. So what did the people have to do? Well, they didn't have health care. They had to go get another job where they also didn't have health care. And the price for health care skyrocketed. And that's lauded as some big success. It's the same economic principles. Fees for feels does not work. It does not work. You are working against the individuals that you're trying to help. You're actually working against the individuals that you're trying to help. They have the opportunity. They can work someplace else. If they're mistreated, nobody should be mistreated. I mean, the golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Our colleague mentioned that how did his family treat it? They did unto others. They got out there and worked in that field all day long. You're basically looking at cutting their hours, their wages, and their incentive in half. I'm not sure how that's good for them. If you want to give them more leverage, if you want to help the farmers, cut their taxes. That doesn't seem to be a consideration ever. If you want to help these individuals, make sure that they have a protected status. Traffickers take away documents. You look at any other country, friends from Africa, worked in other countries, what's the first thing they do? Take away their documents so that they have no recourse and no escape So you want to help the individuals Make sure they documented And we already have programs for that. But human trafficking is a multi-billion dollar organization. So stop hurting these people by trying to, like, look at the actual thing that you're doing. And what you're actually doing is you're cutting their wages in half. You're going to send them home empty-handed. Let them make hay while the sun shines. You know, you could do something. I suppose, you know, the easy thing to do would be to say, well, you know, 40 hours times 50, if you wanted to try to treat it like a more 9-to-5 job, 40 hours a week times 50 weeks would be 2,000 hours. six months would be 1,000 hours 200 and so and you just say well it's 1,000 hours over six months and then it would be overtime so again let's not lose track let's actually help these people let's make their work worthwhile send them home with more wages in their pockets I ask for a yes vote on the bill

Representative Mabry thank you Mr. Speaker Pro Tem okay so I've said this time and time again at this well on numerous different bills we treat theft very very differently depending on who is doing the stealing wage theft is not treated nearly seriously enough in the state of Colorado nor in this country And a survey of farm workers found that the existing threshold isn't being honored. A survey found that 55% of dairy workers, 70% of livestock workers in Colorado already exceed the 48-hour work week. But only 38% of them are actually receiving overtime pay. That means there's wage theft happening at a massive level in this industry. And I do appreciate the bill sponsors bringing an amendment to strengthen wage theft protections. But those protections do not go far enough. The current law is not being fully complied with. And our response should not be to cut pay. But within this structure, we can at least strengthen our wage theft law. And with that, I move L65 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. So this is actually about putting teeth behind our wage theft protections in this space. There has to be a real enforcement mechanism and an incentive for employers to comply with our overtime pay laws and with our wage theft laws. So this gives the division another tool for enforcement a stop work order against an agriculture employer that is found to have willfully not paid wages in violation of Article 4 under our wage theft and overtime laws That is so critical because wage theft has a devastating impact on working people If you work all week, all month, and then you do not get paid, your landlord doesn't care. I see that. your car payment isn't going to get paid, you are going to face financial ruin if your employer is stealing your wages. And I talked about this earlier because there was some discussion about some of us not having experience in this space. Well, I will tell you, I've worked very closely with attorneys and organizers who are very embedded in this space, who work with the farm workers, who try to bring these wage theft claims. I told the story earlier of a friend of mine who had a client whose employer said, if you complain about your missed paycheck again, you'll get a bullet in the head or a call to ICE. employers are that flagrant because they do not fear enforcement. They do not think there's enough teeth behind our wage theft laws. So let's strengthen those. I ask for a yes vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to my good colleague from Denver. In regards to this amendment, I would have loved to receive this prior to this, and we could have added that into our amendments and being able to work on what we currently have. But this is building, continuing to enhance the amendment that we had brought in that had been worked out, been reviewed, and been able to actually work on to make sure that it's improved its effectiveness. Because we don't have this, like, again, I am 100% committed to working on this and improving how we look at wage theft, how it's investigated. when they come back up and how we look at this. I am more than happy to look into that, and I'm happy to work with any of the bill sponsors to my left on that next year. But this is not going to be able to be fixed with this in this moment. So because of that, I request a no vote on Amendment L-65.

Thank you, Speaker Pro Tem. So let me get this right. A lawyer works with some lawyers that work with some people that work with some migrant workers. You should have started with that. That would have convinced us all. Hold on.

Thank you, Speaker Pro Tem. That was very kind. I've been accused of worse.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. So I have spent my entire life in agricultural communities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. Members, I come up here because I'm concerned. It's always about bringing up race. Like my colleague from El Paso, he's not brown. He's not a minority, but he worked the farms. I believe him because we talk about it. He knows exactly what was going on because I helped work a farm at the age of 10 with my grandparents. 1938, that's a long time ago. Long, long time ago. You don't think things have changed since then? I mean, come on, really. There's plenty of minorities in this room. Do you think there was minorities in rooms like these in 1938? Immigrants. Sons of immigrants. People married to immigrants. In my district, there's a farm owned by Petroco. Hispanic man. Hires many people, not just minorities. The Sereto family in Fort Lupton hire many farm workers. Not just minorities. They're out there with them. I don't understand why we have to bring this into it. Why can't we all just be Americans and farm workers? It doesn't always have to be about minorities. Minority this, minority that. I've said this before. We're not victims. We're not. We work our way. My parents worked their way up from the farms. Like I said, they came over here with the work visa working in farms and tree farms and became legal. brought me over, made me legal. I mean, being a farm worker is, It builds strength. It builds character. It builds a future for yourself. It builds a future for my family. It builds a future for many families in my district that I know, that I grew up with. The Holton family. Italian immigrants. They own a farm. They don't really seed corn or any of that, but they have a farm with cows. and they have their small little area where they grow vegetables for themselves. But they're immigrants too. They built a future for themselves. Working in the field over the summer with my grandparents at 10, it helped me build character, helped me build calluses on my hands to be able to work in the oil and gas industry with my father in the future, to build that future for my family, to help my family build that future. I just don't understand why it has to be race. We're all Americans here. We all build a future for ourselves. We're living in a time where, honestly, a lot of people that I know don't even see race anymore. Let's leave that out of it. let's get back to what this bill actually does and let's leave race out of it. It's not fair. It's not fair to any of you. Not fair to any of you here in this room, especially not me. I urge a no vote.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to echo some of the comments that my two colleagues came up here to address specifically this amendment. I don't think this amendment is needed and I encourage a no vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the comments and yes, wouldn't it be nice if race wasn't a part of this, but it appears that it really is and it is why agricultural workers are being so penalized in their work and these are immigrants and people that are undocumented in many cases and they're underpaid and overworked, and we are working really hard to ensure that that does not continue. This legislative declaration covers a number of factors that we have talked about that are really important that we should include in the ledge deck, including that agricultural workers perform essential labor that sustains Colorado's food systems and broader economy, yet are excluded from many basic labor protections afforded to other workers, including overtime protections. The federal overtime protections for workers were established in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, but as I mentioned, Congress excluded farm workers and domestic workers from such protections. Colorado, along with several other states, imported the federal act's exclusion into its state law, and that legacy continues to impact Colorado agricultural workers. Additionally, most workers in Colorado earn overtime compensation after 40 hours in a work week or 12 hours in a work day. This reflects the state's longstanding policy that extended work hours should be compensated at a premium rate. Agricultural workers, however, receive overtime pay only after working more than 48 hours in one week and highly seasonal agricultural workers receive overtime pay only after working more than 56 hours in one week Agricultural workers do not receive daily overtime pay, and they only get overtime on rare occasions. Many of them talk about how they recognize they're supposed to get overtime pay, but they work 60 hours a week, and they never get a paycheck with overtime pay in it. Overtime protections are a fundamental component of fair labor standards and are intended to prevent overwork, promote health and safety, and ensure that employees are fairly compensated for extended hours of labor and support the family and community relationships that are foundation for a thriving economy. These are all important things that some of the comments that we've heard and read are not coming close to providing these types of standards. Also, support the family and community. Extending equitable overtime pay to agricultural employees recognizes the value of their labor, promotes economic fairness, and aligns agricultural employment standards with those of other industries. And this one's really important, that it's in this amendment. Part 7. In Senate Bill 2187, enacted in 2021, the General Assembly directed the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment to adopt overtime rules for agricultural workers that would address the inequity and racist origins of the exclusion of agricultural employees from overtime and maximum hours protections available to other employees. Despite this direction, agricultural workers are still required to work more hours to earn overtime than most other workers in the state. And finally, the General Assembly, therefore, in this amendment, declares that the agricultural employees are entitled to overtime protections consistent with those provided to other workers and that eliminating outdated exclusions is necessary to remedy longstanding inequities in Colorado labor law. I urge an aye vote on this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, I go back. I appreciate my colleague from Jefferson County bringing up the first section of this legislative declaration. And I don't think anyone is arguing that section. However, who were the first farmers and ranchers in the state of Colorado? Latino farmers and ranchers that were here before Colorado. What's Colorado in my area, in my neck of the wood? They were here when this was Spain, when this was Mexico, when this was the territory of Colorado, and after. So when we're talking about who the farmer is and who they are and who they represent, we also need to make sure that that is paramount in the front of our eyes. Farming is not a monolith. Not every farmer ranch looks the same across the state. they have different problems, they grow different crops, but they're resilient. So when we're talking about that, we also need to remember that. Again I have the privilege of representing Latino farmers and ranchers that have been farming and ranching this land since before Colorado Colorado and Latino farm workers and finding a balance for them is what we are trying to do with this bill. So I want to make sure that we keep that at the forefront of our minds. Additionally, I want to reiterate this because this piece is in here. this is a market and a business and an industry that does not set their own prices they are at the whims of commodity pricing that is affecting the entire nation coupled with my situation in the valley with very low water no water and that's going to be felt across the state so i go back to this statistic that was shared by my my good co-prime I'm not negating this. There is not a single farmer or rancher in my area that has said, we do not want to pay our workers overtime. We do not want to pay our workers better. That is not there. But when they're either losing money or not making money in the last two years and taking loans out just to stay afloat, or when they are making money, when they're making $50,000 dollars in revenue. Fifty thousand dollars in revenue. That is not a choice. That is a fact of what has happened. And that is in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's data. You can look it up and see there. So because of that, and all that I've said, I request a no vote on this.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. As my colleague, I believe from Whale County, talked about that let's try to leave ethnicity out of this. There's something that I'm hearing that seems to be ingrained with this. Let me give you the next piece of my story after I left the Arkansas River Valley. I moved up east into District 56 in Strasburg and pastored a church there. And I pastored from there. I mean, we had people coming from Lyman to come to our church. I spent a lot of time then also going down to ICE and trying to help people get naturalized, try to help them get worker permits, try to help them become citizens. and I spent a lot of time with migrant workers out on the eastern plains. But interestingly, that demographic were predominantly South African Danes. They were very white-skinned. But they're still migrant workers, still some of them here illegally, still hard workers. still work. But if you saw them in the grocery store, you would, according to the way we've been verbalizing this right here, well, they're not a migrant worker. I think we do have to take skin color off of this. I don't understand such an incessant desire to make everything about the color of somebody's skin. The migrant workers down south may be from Latin countries. My workers up east of Denver are from South Africa. We've got other groups around the state also. This is not about ethnicity This is about people wanting to work people wanting to get the job done and do the work And by the way the people that are also working on these farms are not all migrant workers There's a lot that are not. I was one, but I wasn't getting paid. But they're not migrant workers. So I think we're just using terms and throwing people into categories and doing all kinds of things that are unhealthy to the conversation, but they seem to be the go-to rhetoric in this room. And to me, we've got to move past that so we can actually get some legislation passed.

Mr. Chair. It's incredibly disappointing that we can't include a ledge deck that covers the facts and the historical context of the situation that we're talking about today relative to farm workers and the immense risks that they take at while being underpaid and overworked I would like to share a little bit of additional context at the end of March Cesar Chavez day was renamed Farm Workers Day in this resolution House Resolution 26 1004 the the House recognized farm workers as the backbone of American agriculture and the core of the Colorado economy. In this House, under the dome, there was a unanimous vote to support and pass Farm Workers Day. Unanimous vote. Everyone in this chamber that day, except for three people that were excused, voted yes on the resolution. It stated we cannot call farm workers our backbone of American culture, agriculture, and the core, in quotes, of the Colorado economy. We can't call farm workers one day that and then vote to exploit them 19 days later. This is blatant hypocrisy. A 56-hour threshold sends the message that farm workers can be worked longer and harder than everyone else before they earn the same protections as any other worker. That is selective inequality, plain and simple. Even the Colorado Democratic Party platform, codified just 19 days ago, speaks out against this injustice. It says, and I quote, Colorado Democrats call for correcting the racist Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 that excluded our neighbors working in agriculture from basic protections due to age, race, and gender. We must treat all workers equitably and fairly by demanding a 40-hour overtime threshold and standardized wage rates. We just codified this platform. We just codified this platform that says we must treat all workers equitably and fairly by demanding a 40-hour overtime threshold and standardized wage rates. And now a colleague is running legislation that moves in the exact opposite opposite direction. The choice today for me is simple. Either we stand with farm workers or we stand against them. And I know where I stand. I am a strong no on this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. And as we talk about farm workers, what farm workers are we talking about? Because I got a handful of letters from farm workers who support this bill. my colleagues before they've talked about this we're trying to have a reasonable debate and we're trying to hang monikers around people's necks for political gain and trying to get our points for I don't know if it's for campaign ads or what it is we're trying to have a serious debate on a dying way of life this affects families not only does it affect the farm worker families it affects the ranching and farming families as well this isn't about politics and this isn't about winning outside the building. This is about doing what's right for the people of Colorado in more ways than one. I will not have my character impugned or allow my co-prime to have his character impugned. The amount of work that he has done and the amount of work that we've put into this to make this a race issue, it's disgusting. I will not take it. We are trying to make legislation to try to help everybody here. Let's have healthy debate and quit trying to hang people with this. I mean, we're really trying to thread a needle here to help everybody. We can all sit up here and we can spit facts back and forth and what study, but we should be debating this in this room amongst this group of people. You can bring in 50 letters that say somebody don't want it. I can bring in 51 that says we're at that impasse right now. So let's have a civil discussion. Instead of trying to make people look like the bad guy, that isn't what this is about. He's not a bad guy. I'm not a bad guy. We're trying to help everybody here.

Thank you, President Pro Tem. A 40-hour threshold reflects a standard overtime rule that applies to most workers. Farm workers should not be singled out for weaker protection simply because their labor has historically been undervalued. A 40-hour work week was established to signal to employers that working anymore that comes out as a detriment to the worker's health and safety, and if a worker is to work over 40 hours a week, then they must be compensated fairly for the risks associated with that. Furthermore, there are over 2 million farm workers in the United States, the backbone of our $200 billion agricultural industry, yet there are some of the poorest workers in the United States. It is a great paradox of our country's food system, that the very people who work to feed the U.S. struggle to feed their own families. With that, I move Amendment L-41 to Senate Bill 26-121 and ask that it be properly displayed.

behalf of all of us we can agree that we do things right over here So I appreciate you Rep Hamrick Thank you Mr Chair Thank you Speaker Pro Tem So what Amendment 41 does, it includes in the ledge deck a requirement that the Agricultural Workers Advisory Committee review the potential impacts of the bill and provide an opinion to the General Assembly. The advisory opinion must then be posted publicly on CDLE's website. The bill only goes into effect after the advisory committee has submitted its opinion. In Senate Bill 2187, which is the Agricultural Workers' Rights Bill, it created many standard labor protections for farm workers, including minimum wage, overtime pay, rest breaks, and heat standards. Additionally, the bill created the Agricultural Workers' Advisory Committee and tasked them with analyzing data regarding wages and working conditions of agricultural workers and reporting its findings and legislative recommendations to the General Assembly. This bill does not come out of the Agricultural Workers Advisory Committee. This amendment is in line with the heart of Senate Bill 2187 and maintains its intent, which was to create a process for policymaking impact, impacting the agricultural industry, and I ask for an aye vote on Amendment L-41.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. I appreciate this amendment, though in a $1.5 billion shortfall with this working group, we have to make sure that we are being fiscally responsible with this. And because of that and with this working group, that would cost money that the state, quite frankly, doesn't have right now. So with that, we request a no vote.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, the fiscal responsibility aspect too, I also encourage a no vote on this amendment.

Hello, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, indeed. Mr. Speaker Pro Tem, I rise today in opposition to Senate Bill 121. My daughter turns five in about a month and four days. And right now at our house, the question that she asked more than anything else is why? And then she asked, where does this come from? So yesterday at dinner, she asked where food comes from. And I said the kitchen. And she looked at me like I hadn't answered because I really hadn't. So I told her the truth, that the food on our table was grown on a farm, planted and harvested by workers who wake before the sun, who labor in heat and that don't let up and whose bodies absorb the cost of feeding the rest of us. And then she remembered, she remembered going to Kentucky last year after session to see my grandfather's farm, the same farm I grew up on. and I know what that land asks of you. I know the mornings that start in the dark and end in the dark. I know the exhaustion that doesn't stay in your muscles because it's actually in your bones. I know what it means to push past your limit because animals don't wait, the crops don't wait, and the weather doesn't wait. We heard that farmers want to build a future for their families, and I would argue back, farm workers are asking for the same opportunity. Farm workers on average earn a year or less often without benefits without job security without the basic protections that every other worker in this building takes for granted The bill tells farm workers, work longer, push harder, wait longer to be fairly compensated. We wouldn't say this to construction workers. We wouldn't say this to warehouse workers. but we are being asked to say it to the people who literally feed us. The CDC will tell you farm workers face elevated rates of heat illness, pesticide exposure, muscle skeletal injuries that don't disappear when the season ends. They carry the season home in their bodies. We've heard directly from the people that this bill affects. One worker said that during peak season, 60-hour weeks are simply the reality, and they deserve the same overtime pay as any other worker hustling at peak season. A worker in the San Luis Valley told us that overtime pay would mean going out with his kids. It would mean feeling valued. It would mean more time for his family. And a farm owner, a farmer, a land steward, and an employer said this, 40 hours is dignified and a solid week's worth of work. People who are not underpaid and over-exhausted perform better. It's not science, he said, it's humanity. And he worries that we're attempting to preserve a structure that was created in a time that no longer exists. And members, we shouldn't seek to fix the structure on the backs of farm workers. Colorado has been on a deliberate path, intentional and years in the making to bring agricultural workers into the same basic standards as every other worker in this state. We're not talking about special treatment. We're talking about basic dignity that is long overdue. This bill stops progress and says not yet, not for them, not the same. Overtime isn't an abstraction. It's rent. it's the wire transfer home. It's the difference between a body that can rest and recover and one that accumulates damage until it can't work at all. If the work is hard enough to break your body, it should be hard enough to deserve fair compensation. Mr. Speaker Pro Tem, I'll remind you that my daughter asked me where food comes from, and I told her the truth, that it comes from people, real people with children of their own who ask the same questions she does, who wants more time with their families, who want to feel valued and dignified, who want to know that the state they feed sees them and hears them. You don't have to have lived on a farm like I did or stepped foot on a farm to know that cutting access to overtime pay is wrong. My daughter asked me where food camp's from, and one day she's going to ask me what we did about it. I know what my answer will be, and I urge you to know yours as well. Vote no.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. It is an honor to serve with you. An honor to serve with you. I'm not here yet. Let me begin with expressing our shared appreciation for the farmers ranchers and farm workers who put food on our tables. It not insignificant that so many cultures celebrate significant events around a shared meal and that many begin each meal with a prayer a blessing or a statement of gratitude And let me add that the bill's sponsors are responding to a real crisis in rural Colorado, in rural America. My remarks on the bill and my reason for opposition are based on the fact that the causes of farmer and rancher hardships are not only external, but many are global. The most obvious example is the horrific historic drought that we will face this year. This will affect every corner of our state, every industry, and every person. Is the answer to our drought to increase the required number of hours a farm worker must work from 48, and it's not 40, it's 48, from 48 to 56 by eight hours before they qualify for overtime. Let's talk about why farmers and ranchers are in economic peril, and I fully acknowledge this is not news to my colleagues. Spoiler alert, it's the Epstein class. J.D. Vance and his friends have an economic interest in distressed farmland through entities like AcreTrader. Platforms like AcreTrader facilitate the purchasing of fractional shares of distressed farmland by allowing individuals to invest in agriculture land without having to buy and manage a farm themselves. Assets are turned into an LLC-owned assets where investors can buy shares and create a mutual fund. The ownership model makes it hard to tell who is investing in farmland and more challenging to evaluate ethical conflicts. A hedge fund against inflation, where you're incentivized to buy distressed farmland. How is money made? There's an annual rent paid by farmers to these anonymous owners of your land. Appreciation of the land increases in value. The commodity goes up and down. Farmland is more concentrated in the hands of U.S. investors than ever before.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to my good colleague from Arapahoe County. I want to talk a little bit about the struggles, because we haven't really hit on that, and where we're at and what the repercussions of those have been. In my area, we live on a very fragile aquifer system. In that system that is regulated by the state, and it is only replenished by snowpack that comes in in the mountain range. And as you have seen this year, since it's been 80 degrees most of this session, there's not been a lot of snowpack and there hasn't been a lot of snowpack for quite some time. Why do I bring that up? I bring that up because we have been facing problems in the agriculture space for 25 years when the state came in and said you are pumping at an unsustainable rate and we going to shut off your wells When we made that decision to try to fix this in our own way, meeting state standard to do so, we were able to get it done. That being said, it has gotten drier, it has gotten warmer, and we have had problems. in my area we have invested a hundred million dollars of our own money to trying to figure out better water sustainability we've switched our crops we've changed how we irrigate we've changed what kind of soil we use in here we have done all of these things and more to make sure that agriculture is sustainable in the san luis valley and and last year we had our second worst water year on record and it would have been the worst if it would have been for the floods in October. So this is 25 years of a problem and why am I bringing up all this? We talk about corporations buying up farmland and agriculture land. Since the 1980s there have been water developers in some way shape or form that are waiting for this exact moment. They want to come in. They're praying right now on these farmlands. They hope that this bill doesn't pass. They want this bill to die because then they're going to say when this farmer ranch goes out of business, we're going to come in and take your water. We're going to take your land. We're going to offer that farm owner, that water right owner three or four times what it's worth. And you know where they're going to pump that water two because it's already been here. The metro area, the front range. This isn't scare tactics. This isn't fear. This has been something that my area has dealt with since the 1980s. And it is only getting worse because farmers aren't growing. Workers are not working on that property. And those water developers are finding more and more money to being able to buy out these poor people. in my area we have what's called land rich and cash poor you go out there i beg any of my colleagues to come out into my neck of the woods and find a farmer ranch that they say man they're really making it out there based off of what they're doing why because corporations do not own farms and ranches they're individual owned 80 percent of our farms and ranches are individual or family-owned farms. But if we do nothing and we do not move the needle on some of this policy that we can, you will get corporations that were going to come up and buy this land and the water. And then you're going to have real problems because they're not going to care about how their workers are treated. They're not going to care about the plants that they grow or the pesticides that they put on their crops. We care now because it's individual-owned and individual-based. And I made an oath when I ran for this office specifically that I would defend the valley's water come hell or high water. And that's why I'm here. This is also part of the conversation with here. 30 years. 30 years of water developers that are saying that we are too stupid to know what we are doing with our water and we know better because it's going to fund population growth up here in Denver, in Douglas County. We know what we doing with our water We been trying our best Again we have made massive improvements We are doing farming and agriculture the best that we can with respect to the land and the farm worker So when I'm sitting up here and I'm saying that this is my district, these are my people, this is why I'm down here, this is why I'm running the bill, and these are the real-world consequences if we don't do anything. I urge your aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, pro temp. So if you notice, I don't have any piece of paper because I don't need a piece of paper for what I'm fixing to say. I was raised on a ranch and I was raised on a farm all my life. And when I leave this place, when I get to go home every once in a while on a weekend, I go back to my farm that I own. I am a farm worker. When I was six years old, my father got me and my brother, put us in a pickup, and took us to a farm. And he said, I just bought this farm, kids, got a mortgage. It was 500 and some change acres. And that's where I grew up. that same year that he bought that farm, there was a man walking down the road that swam across the border, and he was working for a sheep herder that was treating him bad, and he asked my father for a job. His name was Floyd Castro, but we didn't know that for 10 years because we didn't know how to speak Spanish, and he didn't know how to speak English. And that man helped raise me. He worked for my father for 35 years. Then he started teaching me words in Spanish, and I started teaching him words in English, and my other family, and the rest of my family. And pretty soon he could speak English, and I could speak a little bit of Spanish. My dad had a thing called accumulator, and it went behind the baler, and it put the bales in groups of eight. And then he could pick it up with a machine called a farm hand. And every once in a while, it would screw up and the bales would get cockeyed. And I would go to, my father would get, say, son, I want you to go out there and I want you to straighten them bales out. And I would say to my dad, well, you got that man right there that's a farm worker. I want, why don't you, why don't he do it? And he says, I don't want him to do it. I want you to do it, son. It's hard work and you need to learn how to work hard. So I'd go out there in that heat all day and I'd straighten them bales out. Then when the hay shed, not the hay shed, but when the corral got full, he would tell me that I needed to go in there and shovel out the undercover part. And I'd say to my dad, well, why don't you, why don't you let him. Floyd, he's the one that is the farm worker. And he said, no, I don't want him to clean it out. I want you to clean it out. That man is a part of our family. That man one day to my dad about 15 years later said, I want a green card. Can you help me get a green card? My family helped him get a green card. If that man said that he wanted a thousand dollars to send to his kids in Mexico? Which, by the way, he said he was an Indian. I said, I thought you were Mexican. And he said, no. I'm not Spanish, I'm an Indian. There's Indians in Mexico too. If he said he needed a thousand dollars, my dad gave him a thousand dollars and he'd wire that money to Mexico. If that man, when he said that he was ready for a bigger RV to live in, my dad went and bought a bigger RV for him. This deal about race, that man helped raise me. That man lived until he was 75 years old. What's really interesting about this, he was illegal. He worked for us during the summer, and then he worked for the chief of police at Globe, Arizona in the winter. This bill is the right thing to do. That man worked hour after hour. That man planted gardens that helped us. When he wanted a row hoed, he'd get me and he'd say, Larry Don, go row that hoe. And he made the best tortillas I've ever ate in my life, by the way. This has nothing to do with race. My father loved that man. My mother loved that man. I loved that man. And when he died at 75, it broke my heart. he didn't complain about 56 hours or 48 hours he got so good that he told my father i want you to put the water on that field i want you to put the water on that field and then i'm going to tell you when you're going to cut the hay he ended up running the whole place so that we could go to the mountains and move our cattle to the next pasture this is a good bill it has nothing to do with race and quit bringing it in here. Thank you.

Speaker Pro Tem, it is a deep, profound honor to serve with you. That's lovely. It's a profound honor to serve with you. My family has generations of being farmers, of being fishermen, of being agriculture workers. My grandfather himself was a farmer in Hue, Vietnam, raising crops of rice fields and chickens. I respect people who work in the agricultural industry. It is hard work. Your back aches, your hands and feet are raw from blisters, and you're so exhausted from working the moment the sun rises and the moment the sun goes down, day after day. Agriculture workers work some of the most intense and physically demanding jobs. Now, I don't know any careers positions that have an overtime pay threshold past 56 hours of overtime. Colorado overtime thresholds has no daily limit, only a weekly one. This bill basically establishes that there will be two full extra days of work before workers qualify for overtime pay. An argument that I've heard is that agricultural workers want these hourly requirements because they want to work. Seasonal workers and migrant workers do want to work, but workers do not want to work and they do want to give up their right for fair wages. And it's the same argument time and time again. Work longer, work harder, accept less wages and be grateful for the work you are given. There are roughly 30,000 farm workers in Colorado, including 4,400 migrant workers recruited by the H-2A visa program. About one in five U farm workers live below the federal poverty line According to the most national or the recent data from the National Agriculture Workers Survey by contrast, in 2024, more than 97% of farm households had a wealth levels above the estimated U.S. medium household level. So this is really an equity issue. It is a dividing issue between employees and their employers. And so farm workers are some of the most lowest paid employees in the entire U.S. labor market, which means that the U.S. CD found that about 40% of U.S. households had a higher wealth income bracket but lower annual income than the medium U.S. household. The current overtime standards allow for seasonal employees to designate 22 weeks a year to use a 56-hour threshold. This bill does not address the many issues for seasonal workers. Farming employers, including an unnamed seasonal worker, described that they would have their crops rot rather than pay their workers overtime. This further degrades standards for some of the lowest paid and most vulnerable workers in the Colorado labor market and will not improve productivity in Colorado's agriculture sector. In my opinion, this bill will do the opposite. This continues to take wages from workers who live paycheck to paycheck. Immigrant workers and migrant workers make up the majority of agricultural workers in Colorado. I believe that this bill will harm workers' health and deepen economic inequality, and that we should be looking into other ways of addressing standards for workers, such as raising the standard for wages for workers in farm fields, and a standard that would be no different for other workers in Colorado,

Thank you Speaker. Thank you Speaker Pro Tem. And I want to come and I want to you know make sure that we are understanding the full side of things. I am proud to represent House District 63 which when we go by statistics is the top ag producing district in the state. I have seven counties six of which are in top 10 of the ag producing counties of the state and those counties for all seven of mine are Logan, Morgan, Phillips, Cedric, Washington, Yuma and most of Weld County. I travel my district, I do an oil change when we're not in this building every two weeks and why? Because I represent all of the people out in Northeast Colorado, the folks who are boots on the ground. I grew up in ag. I grew up working for, with, and as a voice for agriculture. And when I'm talking to those who also worked with me in ag, mind you, I don't know a huge percentage in this room that can say that they have AI cattle, meaning artificially inseminated, that they've put posts in, that they've driven equipment, that they've went and helped build a barn when a giant windstorm came through, that they've helped pull out goats when they were kidding, or that they had to go chase coyotes off. All the things that are not glamorous. Again, the shoveling of manure and making sure we have to put, you know, wires in. And if you've never had to winterize a pivot sprinkler, don't recommend it. It gets pretty messy and you ruin the clothes you're wearing. But I bet you not many of us can say that we've done that in this building. Work side by side with ag workers as an ag worker. And I can tell you when I talk with them, I grew up in high school and they'd say, I want to go work for my neighbor's farm. I want to go work for so-and-so's farm because they treat you like family My farmers my ranchers they know their workers names They know their workers families They know the stories that happened about the you know soccer games the football games Maybe a mother or father is sick. They care. They know. And when I talk with a lot of my friends who are ag workers, and I talk when I go to all seven of my counties with ag workers, they say that they are scared they can't work for the farms that they call their own. Because if you ask where they work, they'll say, I'm a farmer and that's my farm. or I'm a rancher and that's my ranch because they take so much pride for where they work. They actually go and will compete on if they can get more hours, or they used to. Now I have many of my ag workers in House District 63 who say they're looking at Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, because they can get all the hours they want. Because when you do the simple math, not the statistics we've heard here, colleagues, but the simple math, If you are only allowed to get 48 hours before overtime, okay, maybe you get 51 hours and you're cut off. That little bit of overtime for those three extra hours are a lot less than when you were able to get 60 hours or 65 hours on a hard week because you're trying to save up for your child's surgery or you want that new pickup because you just went mudding with it and might have destroyed it. But when you're looking at getting more jobs because you can get more hours, because collectively more hours mean more pay as opposed to maybe getting one, two, three, five extra hours at overpaid time. The math adds that you want more hours. And so when I talk to these ag workers, some of that pride is going away because they say, well, I work on A, B, and C farm now. I can't just get all those hours in one farm and just call that home. I can't leave all my overalls and my tools at this one place because now I'm having to move it to make sure I can collect those hours for my family. So when we're talking about ag workers, let's talk about them across the state with those who actually grew up with them those who work with them those who live as neighbors with them and when I talk to House District 63 they say they want more hours because that means more pay and they take pride in the work they are doing so this bill Senate Bill 26 121 supports Colorado agriculture it helps with the small farm and small ranches but it helps with the ag workers as well and this has been a balancing with a thread through a needle like our colleagues have said because we want to make sure we're looking at everything but colleagues, especially those in urban areas please reach out if you want a tour come and talk with some of the ag workers that we are talking about on behalf of this bill listen to the stories collectively not just the data on a piece of paper and I bet you'll be surprised to hear at least in northeast Colorado where I call home and I travel and I know many they want more hours because that means more pay. I urge a yes vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L-045 to Senate Bill 121 and ask that it be properly displayed.

industry should be consulting with the Agricultural Workers Rights Advisory Committee And what this does this amendment does is that it names the Agricultural Workers Advisory Committee experts on agricultural policies. Any legislation impacting this industry should utilize consultation with this committee. This amendment reiterates the key role of the Agricultural Workers' Advisory Committee they should have in developing policies in this space. The following committee members are appointed by the Director of the Labor Standards and Statistics Division in CDLE. Two members have workers as agricultural workers, two members who are workers' rights advocates. The Commissioner of Agriculture also appoints the following, three agricultural employers, two representatives from the Migrant Farm Worker Division of Colorado Legal Services. This committee was designed to have balanced perspectives working on issues related to agricultural workers. The bill undermines the purpose and the role of the committee. From the report, they have asked time and time again to have their expertise included. Based on its 2025 findings, the committee makes the following legislative recommendations. Consult the Agricultural Work Advisory Committee on relevant legislation. Members of the General Assembly should consult with the committee when introducing legislation that specifically impacts agricultural workers. In their access and safety finding from the 2025 report, they state that they were not consulted in the creation of Senate Bill 25-128, access and safety findings. Agriculture is currently excluded from the OSHA-confined space standard, an exemption that poses growing safety risks. Recent deaths of dairy workers in Colorado underscore the urgent need for review, particularly as the industry becomes increasingly mechanized and workers are more frequently required to enter confined spaces. Senate Bill 25-128, an act concerning agricultural worker service providers, access private property, was passed without involvement or consultation of the committee. Legislative recommendations are that the General Assembly should explore ways to strengthen protections and increase safety for agricultural workers who may face these hazards. Members of the General Assembly should consult with the committee when introducing legislation that specifically impacts agricultural workers. It's incredibly important that when there is legislation coming forward that has to do with agricultural industry, that there should be consultation with the Agricultural Workers Advisory Committee experts, and that is what this amendment does. I urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to my good colleague. I this this amendment is already in statute that our bill does not change the committee does not change the committee makeup it does not disempower the committee so because we already have that we request a no vote for the discussion on L 45 seeing none the question before us is the adoption of amendment L 45 to Senate bill 121 all those in favor say aye all those opposed no the amendment

We are back to Rep Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, one of the concerning arguments that I've been hearing whether it's at the wall or offline, is the idea that this bill will actually give workers more hours. They'll make more money. And I guess I just, I'm frustrated with that argument because that argument is reliant on the idea of we will pay them more as long as we can pay them less for longer hours. So I'm hoping that we can come to some sort of an agreement of if that's really a motivation and an intention for this, then let's actually make it a reality here. And so I move L37 and ask that it be displayed. That's a proper motion. One second. We'll get it displayed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So going back to the original intention of this brand new bill is that what we are seeing here is an increase in hours worked before they can start to get overtime. So they will have to be out in the fields more, be more exposed to toxic chemicals, to extreme weather, to backbreaking work. so then if these workers ever do actually get to the threshold of 56 hours where they then can start to earn overtime, let's pay them more in overtime. Right now, the rate is one and a half their hourly rate. And if they end up making it to 60 hours, then let's reward them truly and say that their rate should be two times their regular hourly rate. If we're making agricultural workers work 16 hours more than other workers in the state before they can receive overtime pay, then they should get even more than the standard overtime pay. Currently, ag workers in this bill, ag workers will have to work harder and longer in order to even get overtime at all. So let's pay them more once they do reach that threshold. We will say this over and over and over again because we want to make sure people understand that farm work is really hard on the body. No, I'm not a farm worker. So I don't have that direct experience. But I come from a farm working family. I know what it's done to my dad, to my uncle, my aunt. I've heard the stories from them on what it's done to their parents and their grandparents. If we're not going to lower the threshold to give these workers the same standard 40-hour or maintain the 48-hour workweek like everyone else in the state has, then if we are really about compensating fairly, let's compensate them fairly and pass this amendment so when they do finally reach the 56 hour overtime threshold that they make two times their base pay. I ask for an aye vote.

Further discussion?

Mr. Assistant Minority Leader.

is the only industry where this is happening if we're going to have the conversation i guess we should be consistent. Reptograph. Mr. Chair, I think increasing the value of overtime is a great idea, and it just occurred to me that one way we could do that really easily is by not taxing overtime pay. But it seems like that has been already considered and then rejected. So I don't know. Maybe we could go back and not tax overtime. Further discussion on L37. Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L-37 to Senate Bill 121. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. No. With that, the amendment is lost. Further discussion on the bill? Madam Assistant Majority Leader.

Further discussion? Representative Soper.

representatives okay thank you

That a proper motion We get it displayed

Further discussion on Amendment 43.

Further discussion on L43? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L43 to Senate Bill 121. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. No. The amendment is lost. We are back to the bill. Rep Taggart. And then, Rep Sochi, we can come back to you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem.

Well, that's good. It'll be nice. I'll look forward to seeing it.

but we had the right to adjust. to the dynamics of the marketplace. The farmer and rancher doesn't have that luxury. They pay or they are compensated by what takes place in Chicago, Illinois, in the mercantile market. So they're hit at both ends. at the beginning of the process for feed and materials, and they're hit again with a limit that's set by, again, the mercantile on what the market's willing to pay per pound for whatever it might be, whether it be beef. In my case, it was milk for the most part. I don't understand this constant conversation that it's the industry that's pressuring us. What should be pressuring us is that farms are going out of business. Because they don't have control of their costs. Because it's manipulated someplace else. So when Madam Assistant Majority Leader raised the question, how can he help? I don't know that we can help because we're not going to change the dynamics of what takes place in Chicago, Illinois. Yet no other industry that I know are their controls at the beginning of it and severe controls at the end of it. and we as farmers and I'm going to continue to put me as we because that's where I grew up, don't have control of that. I don't know of another industry. So please at least respect the fact that there are dynamics associated with being a farmer and being a rancher that is totally outside of their control so all we trying to do in this bill is help our family farms and our family ranchers at least be fair to them.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is an honor to serve with you. It's an honor to serve with you. Mr. Speaker Pro Tem, I stand corrected. As long as it's not Mr. President or some other derogatory term that the Senate uses. My father milked cows every day of his life growing up. He reminded me all the time. Today, if my mother looks out the door of her house as she looks across the street, She's looking in chicken houses as she looks to the left or right. There are cows all around her. I'm no stranger to a dairy. I'm no stranger to a farm. I certainly know how to bale hay. I also don't control what happens in Chicago. I don't control the price of feed. Neither do we. but I do fundamentally have an issue that where we go to solve this problem as the cost-saving measure is on the worker. And I can't determine whether a farmer works somebody beyond 40 hours or not or 56 hours or not, et cetera. Those are cost decisions that, just like feed, they have to make. But I do know that workers come to work and they come to earn a wage and they come to get paid, and it's just like if I were to tell you, well, you know, we have not been able to hire a number of new state troopers this year and as a result of that, there's going to be significantly more overtime than normal so what we should do is not pay them overtime until we get to 56 hours and I would lay down in the middle of I-25 and protest before I engaged in that conversation. It would just not be okay with me that we would start to move pricing structures around based on the cost of labor. I watched here in Hurricane Katrina right after that. Fast food restaurants had to start paying, back then, a fast food restaurant was paying $8 or $9 an hour, and those were good fast food wages in 2005 in New Orleans, Louisiana. And I came back shortly after, you know, beginning of January of 2006. You could earn $20 an hour in the line at McDonald's. The cost of labor went up. I don't know that the cost of hamburgers went up all that much. It was a supply and demand issue. We are dealing with pressures that are happening on the workers, and the workers come to work. and it is just as fair for those workers to get overtime the same as most other workers as any other business decision. And where we should not be legislating cost controls is on the backs of the people that are making the farms work. And I can't help what happens in Chicago. I really can't. Maybe some farmers need to call them up and say, we've got to go up, you're going to have to pay us more. And it's not on the workers to save a person's business. And I know that sounds horrible when you're talking about a business going out of business. But it's not at all on the labor, the people that have no other way to earn, the people that don't have access... the same capital and the opportunities as everybody else for us to put the thumb on the scale there. This is a really unique conversation, I think, in the General Assembly for us to be having, and I appreciate that what we're trying to do is help. But we're not helping. This doesn't help. It doesn't change the price of grain. It doesn't fix the price of anything. It just diminishes the pay of the people that come and make this all work for us. And it's not that hard to figure out. We can talk about it until the cows come home, literally, but somebody's still got to milk the cows.

That's a proper motion. One moment.

Further discussion?

industries than agriculture. Further discussion on L44? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L44 to Senate Bill 121. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The amendment is lost. We are back to the bill. Rep. Garcia.

A lot of people get that confused. I saw Rep. Garcia raise her hand for clarity. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. I move L42 and ask that it be displayed. That's a proper motion. One second.

Representative Martinez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for my colleague from Larimer for bringing this up. when we're talking about range workers in 2021 before senate bill 87 became law range workers in colorado were paid a monthly salary and they're known as their base wage of one thousand seven hundred and twenty seven dollars per month prior to the passage of senate bill 87 the base wage for range workers was set by the federal h2a visa program senate bill 2187 established range workers base pay in wage in statute and increase their base wage by 20 percent. That means in one year we the legislature in legislature increased the labor costs on the state's sheep producers and goat herder producers by 20 percent in one year. For 2022 the base wage was two thousand dollars and sixty or two thousand sixty dollars per month. Beginning in 2023 and going forward the base wage is adjusted for inflation that is already in statute. We must also keep in mind that base wages essentially all take-home pay for the worker. Employers of the range workers up here on an H-2A visa must pay, or let me restate that, employers of range workers here on an H-2A visa must pay all of the following costs, including travel to and from the employee's home country, provide housing on the range, usually in a mobile sheep herder wagon, food, and any equipment the range worker needs to do his or her job. Federal law also requires range workers to be provided with the reliable communication, and in practice, that usually ends up being a phone in very remote areas without cell phone services. The satellite phones are provided instead. When we talk about cost to sheep producers, they actually pay inflation twice as part of mandatory wage increases set in statute as part of the cost of providing on all expenses paid for range workers. Additionally, range workers are often on duty nearly 24 hours a day, seven days a week, while on the range. Employees must follow H-2A visa contract terms. They must not impose any illegal deductions from the pay, and they must respect basic labor protections. range workers aren't required to be paid overtime because their work isn't measured in hours while they live with the flock they are responsible for the animals 24 7 work where they work irregular bursts they it not clean eight shifts like you would see in a factory It almost impossible to track every exact hour of work because the time includes active herding, waiting and monitoring, and sleeping nearby but still may be on call. So

Seeing no further discussion on Amendment L-42, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L-42 to Senate Bill 121. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. No. The amendment is lost. Back to the bill.

It's even more all right to serve with you.

All right, I'll take that one.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So what this amendment does is it phases out the 56-hour overtime threshold and brings it down to 40 hours over the course of four years.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you to my good colleague. We're going to ask for a no vote on this. When we implemented the initial bill, we went immediately into this threshold that we're in now, and we're seeing the ramifications of that and having to make adjustments. So with that, we request

Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm curious if the sponsor could actually go into detail of what those discussions were, what the ramifications were, if we were to do something like this.

Rep Garcia. Thank you. And actually, I would say, I would argue that that experience is exactly why an amendment like this would be beneficial, because it does outline what the time frame and what the hours would look like, and then it would give the time four years for adjustment. So respectfully, I think that the arguments that we just heard from the sponsors exactly why an amendment like this would be beneficial.

Rep. Martinez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And changing the rules every single year for four years would also not be beneficial. We request a no vote.

Rep Story. Thank you, Mr. Chair Pro Tem. It's all temporary. It's all temporary for all of us. So the farm workers deserve to be informed of their right to overtime premium pay and how many of their hours in a given pay period qualify for that premium overtime pay. Transparency is good business practices, good business policy. And to reference and record overtime rights and overtime pay hours that are worked on a pay stub is good business practice. On our own pay stubs, it identifies payments to Social Security, possibly to health care insurance, payouts to state and federal for taxes. And so just including this type of information on the farm workers pay stub would be great. So I move Amendment 49 to Senate Bill 121 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Rep. Story, please proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this amendment, L-49, requires disclosure of the overtime rights and overtime hours worked on a worker's pay stub. The workforce is primarily and predominantly Latino and immigrants, a demographic that is particularly vulnerable to exploitation due to workers' fears around retaliation and limited knowledge of labor laws. This disclosure also helps to prevent wage theft by clearly stating that wages the worker is entitled to each period. There's no pay obligations, just accurate, transparent reporting. It empowers workers, especially those who are unable to track hours. It protects workers and employers by reducing misunderstandings. It's good documentation and this ensures agriculture is not left behind basic wage transparency norms for across those who pay workers and I urge an aye vote. Mr. Assistant

So I urge a no vote for the discussion.

Mr. Assistant Minority Leader. Urge a no vote.

Rep. Velasco. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I move L56 to Senate Bill 121.

Rep. Velasco, tell us about L56. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. So this amendment allows for a worker's estimate of hours worked to be used in calculating overtime wages when an employer fails to maintain or produce documentation of hours worked. And employers already have the legal duty to maintain accurate time records. This amendment simply addresses what happens when they do not. Without this protection, an employer could avoid paying overtime by failing to keep records, which creates the wrong incentive. Allowing a worker's reasonable estimate ensures that the absence of records does not become a shield against accountability. This approach is consistent with longstanding wage and hour principles. When records are inadequate, courts and agencies rely on reasonable approximations. This is a practical solution to a real problem of missing or incomplete time records. It encourages better compliance going forward by reinforcing that record keeping is necessary. And I also wanted to share some of the findings from the 2025 Agricultural Work Advisory Committee report to the legislature. The Department of Labor, Division of Labor Standards and Statistics, reported to the committee that in 2024, they visited nine agricultural employment sites across the state, one dairy, two vegetable producers, and the remaining were fruit growers. Generally, they were looking for compliance with Senate Bill 2187 and other laws enforced by CDLE. they mainly checked for compliance with posting and training requirements as well as heat protections for workers and payment of wages in some instances they followed up with employers to produce pay records as well as policies on heat protections as required on their Senate bill 2187 and other laws enforceable by CDLE And those employers who did not have the required policies were required to create the policies and provide them to CDLE One of the agricultural producers visited turned into a formal investigation. A monitoring plan was implemented. Another is nigh in voluntary compliance, but had to pay between $400,000 and $500,000 in back wages to workers, and seven of the producers had violations of the posting requirements. Over $100,000 in fines were assessed. However, if the employer came into compliance, the fines were waived. Some of the employers were also sent letters regarding issues in pay records of workers, which were resolved and thus did not turn into an audit. So we urge a yes vote on this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. I urge a no vote on this amendment.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. So I would like to move L-29 to Senate Bill 121 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Okay, Rep. Velasco, tell us about L-29. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. So this amendment narrows the exclusion of decision-making managers from overtime exemption to supervisors at livestock employers. So currently, under Colorado wage law, executives or supervisors paid a salary and who supervise at least two full-time employees and have the authority to hire and fire are exempted from overtime. Similarly, there is an overtime exemption for decision-making managers of livestock employers who are paid a salary. So this amendment makes these overtime standards more in line with other Colorado laws that govern overtime in other industries as applied to supervisors. The common practice of misclassification of workers as managers to avoid payment of overtime is common and an unlawful practice. Thus, an amendment that provides guardrails to ensure that those excluded from overtime are in fact supervisors with the power to hire and fire is indeed necessary. The misclassification of dairy workers as decision-making managers has been discovered at Colorado Dairies in recent years as attempts to avoid paying overtime. Although paid a salary, they are generally tasked with the ability to make nothing more than small, insignificant decisions with no real authority, which is not consistent with the meaning behind such an exemption. So we ask for an aye vote.

The salary exemption is set the comps order in 2024, which was set at the base salary of $55,000. The salary requirement is adjusted annually for inflation. For 2026, the salary exemption was $57,784 annually. The Colorado Overtime Minimum Pay Standards Order became part of the rules in 2020, so it is not a new concept. This is year six of this act. Also, there are workers in other industries who are exempt from overtime, and the salary threshold is the basis or the number of these new exemptions. With that, we request a no vote. Further discussion on L29. Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of L-29 to Senate Bill 121. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. No. L-29 is lost. Representative Froelich.

Me too.

Further discussion? Seeing none. Seeing Rep Storey.

That is a proper motion One second Rep. Story, tell us about L-40. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Representative Martinez.

Further discussion on L-40. Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of L-40 to Senate Bill 121. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. No. L-40 is lost. Back to the bill. Reps okay.

We'll get it displayed.

Ripsakai, tell us about L51.

Mr. Assistant Minority Leader.

The committee will stand in a brief recess while the chair deliberates on whether this is a settled question. Thank you. The committee will come back to order. The chair rules. This is a settled question, and the amendment is out of order. We are back to the bill. Rep Woodrow.

Further discussion? Representative Story.

Rep Story, anything else to add?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem.

Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the adoption of L-57 to Senate Bill 121. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. No. L-57 is lost. Rep. Velasco.

That's a proper motion. We will get it displayed.

Mr. Speaker Pro Tem, I believe this is a settled question. The committee will stand in a brief recess while the chair deliberates on whether or not this is a settled question. Thank you. The chair rules. This is a settled question. The amendment is out of order. We are back to the bill.

That's a proper motion. One moment. Rep Story, please proceed.

Mr. Assistant Minority Leader.

Further discussion on L-58? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of L-58 to Senate Bill 121. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. No. L-58 is lost. Representative Wilford, welcome back.

One second. We will get that displayed.

Yeah, I thought so too.

And six, include information about how to file a complaint or seek assistance from the division. C, the department may seek, accept, and expend gifts, grants, or donations to support the educational outreach program. The General Assembly may appropriate money to the department for purposes of this section. So what this amendment does, now that you've all heard it, I see what's happening out here. It requires CDLE to conduct an outreach program to ag employees and employers to educate them on the changes and allows CDLE to accept gifts, grants, and donations to support the program. As you heard me say earlier, rights only matter if people know they exist. And an educational outreach program ensures that farm workers actually understand their wage hour and safety protections Farm workers face unique barriers to information including language differences geographic isolation limited internet access, and a fear of retaliation. Outreach is how the law reaches workers where they are. We cannot assume that posting a notice or passing a law is enough. Without active education, many workers will never learn that they're entitled to overtime or other protections. Outreach is one of the most effective and least adversarial ways to improve compliance when workers understand their rights. Issues are raised earlier and resolved before they escalate into formal complaints or litigation. Education reduces confusion and builds trust in the system. Workers are more likely to raise concerns appropriately when they understand how the system works. This is a proactive solution. It prevents problems before they start rather than relying solely on enforcement after harm has occurred. Without outreach, enforcement depends on workers coming forward despite the barriers and risks, and with outreach, compliance improves across the board. As I mentioned earlier, I'm sorry, this also allows CDLE to look into funding outreach without dipping into the state's funds. Thank you for your consideration and I ask for an aye vote. Further discussion on 59. Rep Martinez. Thank you Mr.

Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L-59 to Senate Bill 121. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. No. L-59 is lost. We are back to the bill. Rep. Leader.

That's a proper motion. One moment, and we will get it displayed. Thank you. Yes, sir. Great. and rep leader it a little unorthodox but I just going to say this we have already amended page 3 line 14 And so if I was asked I would say that it is a settled question You can certainly proceed and someone can make that motion. However, this is the same section that keeps on coming back in this same motion, so I just wanted to flag that for you.

So you could withdraw the amendment or we can proceed.

great the chair will put us in a brief recess while we rule on whether or not it is a settled question The chair rules that this is a settled question. The amendment is out of order. We're back to the bill. See, Representative Alaska. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Rep. Velasco, tell us about L53. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are to change his vote. Further discussion? A is the winner.

while we debate whether this fits under the title. Thank you. Thank you. The committee will come back to order. The chair rules that L-53 does fit under the title. Further discussion on L-53? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L-53 to Senate Bill 121. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. No. The amendment is lost. We are back to the bill. Rep. Velasco.

That is a proper motion, one moment. Rep. Velasco, please proceed.

And we are Chad, yes, well. Further discussion on L48? seeing none the question before us is the adoption of amendment L48 to Senate bill 121 all those in favor Say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. No. L-48 is lost. We are back to the bill. Rep. Leader.

That's a proper motion. One second. We will get it displayed. Rep. Leader, please tell us about L38.

further discussion on L 38 seeing none the question before us is the adoption of amendment L 38 to Senate bill 121 all those in favor say aye aye all those opposed no L 38 is lost we are back to the bill Rep Wilford thank you Mr. Speaker Pro Tem I move amendment L 5 oh yeah

One second. We will get that displayed. Thank you.

Further discussion on L-52? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of amendment L-52 to Senate Bill 121. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. L52 is lost. Back to the bill. Representative Garcia.

We will get it displayed. Rep. Garcia, please proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem.

Any further discussion on L39?

I'm just asking if you could follow up on why it's a no. Okay. Any further discussion, Rep. Garcia?

And Rep. Martinez?

Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L-39 to Senate Bill 121. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. No. L-39 is lost. Back to the bill, Rep. Velasco. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

We will get it displayed. Rep. Velasco, please proceed.

Further discussion on L34?

Seeing no further discussion on L-34, the question before us is the adoption of L-34 to Senate Bill 121. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. No. L-34 is lost. We are back to the bill. Rep. Garcia.

but upholding this practice upholds a practice that is rooted in racism overtime protections not only protect the worker it also protects the employer from job-related injuries and increased workers comp claims however again we have a vulnerable population who work through injuries because of fear of reporting a job-related injury and facing retaliation. The amount of injuries compared to the amount of reported injuries on the job are inconsistent. They are disproportionate because of the fear of retaliation. I ask again, why are we even contemplating reducing protections for our most vulnerable workforce who sacrifice their health and safety for food? For our food. We all know the agriculture industry is struggling. We know that the cause for struggling industry is due to the many things that the rep from Arapahoe County already mentioned. It's due to rising production costs including fertilizer, seed and fuel extreme weather disruptions, labor shortages due to the inhumane anti-immigrant agenda from the federal administration It's due to high interest and debt rates supply chain and trade issues and it's also due to the monopolization of the industry through the concentration of materials and supplies needed by the ag industry. Supporting the viability and the profitability of the ag industry, especially of our small farmers, because I understand that is the motivation here and I believe it, that the motivation here is to help and support and protect our small farmers, requires evaluating these factors. We We should not be lifting up the burden of profitability by exploitation of the worker. Members, I offered the sponsors an alternative. I offered the creation of a small farmer's hardship tax credit. This tax credit While the immediate reaction was, that's not enough, would open up a less restrictive tax credit to our small farms experiencing hardship of $8.5 million, of $13.4 million in the year after, and of $13.8 million in the year after, and who knows how much more it could go beyond that. if this is really about protecting the small farmers and making sure that they can continue is a bill that saves them nothing because it only allows them to keep the same level of employees, employee hours at no additional cost because they're not paying overtime, which they're not paying overtime now, or would a solution be a credit that could put thousands of dollars in the hands of these small farmers? It became clear to me that ensuring the viability of these small farmers with helping them with thousands of dollars in a tax credit is not the true motivation. It's not making sure that they are staying viable. And Rep. Garcia, let's just be careful to avoid personalities, please.

That offer for a tax credit that gives immediate relief instead of this bill that does nothing but exploit workers and gives them zero savings, still stands. Do you put money in the hands of farmers or do you simply say you can keep your farm workers on the clock longer? this bill is not an ag industry saving bill ask the question i've asked it what are they actually saving with this what is the cost savings with this bill with this policy what are farmer what are farmers walking away from, or walking away with, excuse me, when they extend the hours of overtime from 48 to 56? The answer is nothing. But farmers could benefit even more with a small farm hardship tax credit. We all know how important the ag industry is in Colorado. We know how important our small farmers are in Colorado, why would we not want to help them with money instead of pretending that the solution is just keep your employees on the clock longer, risking injury, risking loss in productivity because of how hard it is. I hope that the sponsors, I hope that the lobby outside that's listening, considers this alternative and adopts this alternative that will have real impact on our small farmers And with that, I urge a no vote on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank the chamber for a very thoughtful conversation and also disappointed that none of the amendments were adopted. And I wanted to share that it's really difficult and sad to me that we are discussing this issue. as the first Mexican-born legislator in the state of Colorado, as someone whose grandpa was a bracero, an agriculture worker that came here and that was sprayed with pesticides to make sure that he didn't have lice. The people that built this country with sweat, tears, and blood and I am a strong no on this bill. I invite all of you to join us. And I wanted to share again that we see the hardship that farmers and farming is experiencing and these are the issues that many of us are experiencing. I believe that climate change is one of the most important issues of our generation because people are dying on the job, dying in extreme weather, dying when there's an emergency, if there's a fire, a flood, when the energy goes out. Who are the people that are dying? And climate change and extreme weather and drought and water issues and losing 30 days of winter, issues with the Colorado River, with or water compacts, none of those issues are going to be solved with this bill. We are also seeing the infrastructures that we had relied on at the federal level be defunded, workers' protections be rolled back, and at that time is when we are trying to lower farm workers' wages. I believe that we continue to create these unfair conditions for workers. I heard that in committee people were referring to overtime as a penalty. Overtime is not a penalty. Overtime is the work that people are doing at their job. And they need to be paid for that. in no other industry we are saying that overtime is a penalty. So I'm a strong no on this bill. I hope that y'all can join us on voting no. And I thank the chamber for the thoughtful conversation.

Thank you Mr Chair I rise in support of this bill and I would like to thank the sponsors of the bill for bringing it and for working so hard on it I do know the time that is put in and the conversations that have been had to get to this place today. I'm someone who grew up on a farm. I raised my boys on a farm, and I still own a farm. And I come from the part of Colorado where I believe we have the best farmers in Colorado, obviously. and I can tell you something about the farm life and I've worked hand in hand side by side with these agricultural workers have nothing but respect for their hard work and their dedication and their skill they're very very skilled in what they do and I appreciate that but I'll tell you something about the farmers today they can do absolutely everything right absolutely everything they can get the seed in the ground on the right day they can fertilize at exactly the right time They can irrigate the exact right amount of water at the exact right days to get the exact best yield they've ever had and get to the end of the year and still make nothing. Absolutely nothing that year because everything else ate it up. So if you think you know farming, you don't, you have to live it. You have to be in it to know. And I just want to say again, thanks to the sponsors of this bill, and I am a yes.

Representative Story. Thank you, Mr. Chair. What we've been doing here all day today, it's not about agricultural industry challenges. It's not that the challenges aren't real. They are. I'm sure it's frustrating, mortifying, heartbreaking, stressful. Generations of farming within your families on small farms. I hear you. I hear that. But this bill is not going to fix those challenges. The tariffs, the lack of water, drought that's increasing, intense heat, rising operational costs, escalating fertilizer costs, fuel costs that are blowing up, none of that is going to be fixed with this bill. Senate Bill 121 can't fix the portion of structural costs that account for 97%-ish of the ag employer costs. Demanding more hours before overtime pay of farm workers who are overworked and underpaid, earning somewhere in the neighborhood of $20,000 annually won't fix the foundational rising costs for ranch and farm owners. Most of the farm workers employed work on large family and corporate farms, not on the small farms and ranches. The seasonal worker pay status is not touched in this bill. They already are working 56 hours before they get overtime pay. The bill is not the answer. This bill, Senate Bill 121, to fix the structural costs of farm and ranch owners, especially small farms. But family large family farms and corporate farms they will be the beneficiaries of this bill And again, I think it's important to remind you that we renamed Cesar Chavez Day to Farm Workers Day just 16 days ago. The House recognized farm workers again, and I quote, as the backbone of American agriculture and the core of the Colorado economy. In this House, under the dome, there was a unanimous vote to support and pass Farm Workers' Day. Unanimous. Everyone in the room except three people that were excused. Everyone in this chamber that day voted yes on that resolution. We cannot call farm workers our backbone of American culture and the core of the Colorado economy one day and then 16 days later vote to exploit them. This would be blatant hypocrisy. A 56-hour threshold sends the message that farm workers can be worked longer and harder than everyone else before they earn the same protections as any other worker. That is selective inequality, plain and simple. And once again, I'll remind you that the Colorado Democratic Party platform, codified just 19 days ago, speaks out against this injustice. It says, and I quote, Colorado Democrats call for correcting the racist Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 that excluded our neighbors working in agriculture from basic protections due to age, race, and gender. We must treat all workers equitably and fairly by demanding a 40-hour overtime threshold and standardized wage rates. End quote. We just codified this platform, and now we're running legislation that moves in the exact opposite direction, And in fact, this is the only time in Colorado that we have rolled back weak worker protections instead of increasing them. Again, the choice today for me is simple. We either stand with farm workers or we stand against them, and I know where I stand. I am a strong no on this bill, and I hope you will be too.

Representative Martinez. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. It's an honor to serve with you. I haven't said that today. It's an honor to serve with you. Members, I have a lot, but I will keep it to this. As a reminder, we are one of four states that have protections for agriculture workers on the books in our state statute. And that is a good thing. We ensure that we have a minimum wage standard. We have established meal and rest breaks, overwork protection, prohibiting short handle tools and the right to organize here in Colorado. And in addition to that, Senate Bill 87 has implemented the, it will stick with the minimum wage standard. Most of the workers, at least in my area, are making between, starting at $20 and $22 an hour. So they're making around $20,000 for a four-month period. And then they can move on to a different farm, they can move on to a different ranch, they can move on to a different job if they would like. I have a lot more that I want to go into, but I guess I will keep it short and simple with this. Being one of the four states that have ag protections for our workers and showing that we've already put pen to paper, that we value them with all these protections in place, and by making sure that we are doing right by them and having these areas in there, those are great things. and that comes with a level of responsibility that we have to undertake. Do you think they're having this conversation in Texas, in Florida, Montana? No, they're not having these conversations there. Why? Because they're paying their workers $5 an hour. There's none of these protections in here. It's all bound by whatever's in the federal standards, which isn't good. But we are different here. We have set the standard and set the tone for this nation, along with four of the three other states, that we care and value our workers. The provision in Senate Bill 87 to earn overtime, I truly believe, was designed to get workers more pay. I honestly believe that. That was the intent, and I agree with that. and the data that we have and the data that we in multiple studies, including from the federal government from right here in Colorado, is showing that that is not working. Workers are making less now than what they made before the 21 bill was enacted. So with or without this bill, that problem is still there. Let's be clear. They are still making less than what they were making before. And when I'm talking to farm workers that are in my district, and they're saying, I don't want to work at three different farms to earn the same wages that I was making before 21. That's added fuel cost. That's less time that I have at home with my family. I want to be able to stay at a single farmer ranch, earn the wages that I have, or earn the hours that I have, and be able to go home. those farm workers stories matter also both can still be true in the same in the same situation we had the one quote that i that i love from a farm worker that came to testify in favor of this in the house committee well he said i'm good at what i do i know what i'm getting into for this short growing season that we have in colorado i want to stay here i am good at my job let me do my job. That worker who was not coerced, not enticed, not pushed to do this, those stories matter too. And in closing this, this has been a long day and a long discussion. I understand and I respect my colleagues from across that we don't see eye to eye on this. But what I would say is, I will reiterate what I said earlier. This is my district I have the privilege of representing both the oldest Latino farmers and ranchers in this state that started this state and continue to do this and want to continue farming and ranching. And I represent Latino farm workers. I represent migrant farm workers that come in. All of those I have the privilege of helping. And what I would say is, if we don't do anything, that is not an option. I misspoke earlier when I said 30 years that there's been water grabs. 40 years, since the 80s. That's my fault. It's been a long day. 40 years of people that think that they know better than us and how we're using our land and using our water to be able to fund front-range development. We want to talk about being left out. For the colleagues that have come to the San Luis Valley, come. You'll see. It is a different way of life there. And where Colorado started, it is always the forgotten corner of Colorado. We struggle with health care. This is the number one industry in my area, collectively. And I know that today's been a hard day. But I want you to keep that in mind. I'm here protecting my district, my workers, my farmers, our water, most specifically. More specifically. And I'll do it again. And I would hope that for members here, if you were faced with a challenge facing your district that was as dire as this, that you would be willing to have this kind of discussion as well, too. I urge an aye vote.

Madam Majority Leader. Thank you. Mr. Speaker Pro Tem, I move the committee rise and report.

Schiebel, please read the report of the Committee of the Whole.

Speaker Pro Tem Beisnecker. Members, you have heard the motion. We do have amendments at the desk. Mr. Schiebel, please read the first Garcia amendment to the Committee of the Whole report.

Representative Garcia. Madam Speaker, I have a couple of them. Could you show, could we see what the report is? If you move the first one, we will then display it and, yes.

then we will let you know which one that is. Thanks. I'm new to this process. Someone come and help me out. I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. I move the first Garcia Amendment and ask that it be displayed. I don't need your help anymore.

Members, this is the amendment that I brought that actually allows for anonymous reporting of complaints. We heard during the debate that there actually is something already in law that allows for this, but there actually is not. So that is why having a protection to allow for anonymous complaint is necessary. And if we are going to add to this bill wage theft provision, let's make sure that the wage theft provision is actually accessible to all of the farm workers. And I ask for a yes vote on allowing and incorporating anonymous complaints. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you to my colleague from Adams County for bringing this again. Members, this is already in the current wage theft statute. Anonymous complaints can be filed and they are investigated by CDLE. So because we already have this process, this is unnecessary to being able to go forward with it. So we request a no vote.

Representative Garcia moved to amend the part of the Committee of the Whole. So first the action taken by the Committee and not adopting the following Garcia Amendment, L35 to Senate Bill 121, to show that said amendment passed, that Senate Bill 121 is amended past.

One moment. It is properly displayed.

Thank you, Speaker, colleagues, I definitely understand the intent of this. However, changing policy and what an agriculture worker is entitled to make overtime in every single year for the next five years is not good. That's going to add additional burden on to CDLE. It's going to add additional burden on to the agriculture, the producers, and it's going to make uncertainty for every one of the employees not knowing where they are at in that process. And so that is a five-year ordeal. Because of that, an additional cost that is going to be incurred by this, we request a no vote. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of the second Garcia Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report.

Representative Garcia moves to amend the report of the Committee of the Whole to reverse action taken by the committee and adopting the following Garcia amendment, L-39 to Senate Bill 121 to show that said amendment passed and that Senate Bill 121 is amended passed.

One moment. One moment. It is properly displayed. Please proceed.

We need to help these farms now, so I urge a no vote.

Representative Bottoms, how do you vote?

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

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

Representative Routenel votes yes.

Representative Leader, move to amend the part of the Committee of the Whole to reverse the action taken by the Committee and not adopting the following Velasco Amendment, L32 to Senate Bill 121, to show that Senate Bill 121 is amended past.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Madam Speaker. I move the first leader amendment to the Committee of the Whole.

Thank you. Colleagues, as I spoke earlier, I don't know how many was here, but I came to this chamber to fight for workers, our seniors, our vets, and to take care of our children. As I said, workers, and that means all workers. This is back-breaking work for these workers. So the current overtime structure for agricultural workers is inequitable, not only because the threshold for hours worked in one week is set higher. See, I've been talking all day. I couldn't imagine doing backbreaking work in the field. For all the hours worked in one week is set higher than any other worker in the state. Let me repeat that. in one week that is set higher than any other worker in the state, that threshold is set. But also because agricultural workers currently do not receive any daily overtime. The standard for daily overtime for workers in Colorado is 12 hours. If a worker is spending most of their waking day working in the heat and doing, again, back-breaking work, They should be eligible for overtime after 12 hours in one single day. So, colleagues, this is really a simple amendment. Pay the workers what they're worth for the job that they do. And I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. First and foremost, farm work is unpredictable. There may be days where you can't even get to the field. I think that that plays a part in this. And then there's also other industries where there is no threshold set. Like I said before, to point this out as the only industry I think is incorrect. So with those two things, I urge a no vote.

Lindsay, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Lindsay votes yes. Representative Rutanel, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Rutanel votes yes.

Representative Story moved to amend the report of the Committee of the Whole to reverse the action taken by the Committee and not adopting the following story amendment, L-62 to Senate Bill 121 to show that said amendment passed, and that Senate Bill 121 is amended passed.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move the story amendment to the committee, the report of the Committee of the Whole, and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you. Colleagues, we've talked about this earlier today a number of times, but Congress enacted the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The exclusion of agricultural and domestic workers was not an accidental oversight. Southern Democrats instituted this exemption to gain their support for the legislation because they refused to provide protections for the black and brown workers who overwhelmingly made up those workforces. So for nearly 90 years now, these workers have remained excluded from the broader worker protections that nearly every other employee in the U.S. enjoys. It's incredibly important that we recognize that there is this history and that we have never, ever gotten past it. And we are so overdue for recognizing the immense work, the hard work, the work that puts their health and safety at risk in order to put food on the tables across the country and beyond. This amendment states that the director shall consider the inequity and racist origins of the exclusion of agricultural employees from overtime and maximum hour protections protections available to other employees and may create overtime protections that would mirror the protections available to other employees. And I urge an aye vote on this very important amendment.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I urge an aye vote.

Mr Schiebel please open the machine and members proceed to vote Representative Bottoms how do you vote No Representative Bottoms votes no Representative Lindsay how do you vote Yes Representative Lindsay votes yes. Representative Rootnell, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Rootnell votes yes.

machine and members proceed to vote representative bottoms how do you vote no representative bottoms votes no representative Lindsay how do you vote

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

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The House Education Committee will be meeting in five minutes in room 107.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'll be a little bit nicer than Rep. Lukens. We'll meet in 10 minutes in room 107.

The Judiciary Committee.

I'm sorry. We will meet when the Education Committee adjourns. 10 minutes upon the adjournment of the Education Committee.

Mr. Schiebel, reports of committees of reference. Committee on Judiciary, after consideration of the emergency committee, recommends the following. House Bill 1281 is amended and Senate Bill 95 is amended. Be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation. Signing of Bill's Resolutions Memorials. The Speaker has signed Senate Joint Resolution 16. Signing of Bill's Resolutions Memorials will be printed in the journal. Message from the Senate. Madam Speaker, the Senate has adopted. Message from the Senate will be printed in the journal.

Now, Madam Majority Leader.

Madam Majority Leader.