Senate Floor

Baisley.

Benavidez.

Excuse.

Carson.

Cutter.

Doherty

Frizzell

Hendrickson

Kip

Excuse

Excuse.

Liston.

Mullica.

Pelton R.

Roberts.

Simpson.

Sullivan.

Weissman

Mr. President Let's do this. The morning roll call is 30 present, 0 absent, 5 excuse We have a quorum Would someone else other than Senator Pelton B. like to do the pledge this morning? Oh, Mr. Majority

Would you please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Approval of the journal. Would somebody other than Senator Bridges like to do the approval of the journal? Ah, Senator Weissman.

You've heard the motion. All those in favor say aye. Oppose no. The ayes have it. That motion is adopted. Senate Services. Correctly printed. Senate Bill 190, 191, and 192. Correctly engrossed. Senate Bill 115 and 152. Senate Drighton Resolution 25. Correctly re-engrossed. Senate Bill 3, 175, 177, and 182. Correctly revised. House Bill 1076, 1123, 1207, 1226, and 1322. House Drighton Resolution 1030. correctly re-revised House Bill 1010, 1109, 1113, 1143, 1235, 1252, 1299, 1343, 1346, correctly enrolled Senate Bill 51 and 132. Committee reports. Committee on Transportation and Energy, after consideration on the merits, the committee recommends the following. House Bill 1420 be referred to the committee the whole with favorable recommendation and with the recommendation that it be placed on the consent calendar House bill 1269 be amended as follows and as so amended be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation House Bill 1225 be amended as follows and as so amended be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation. Committee on Judiciary, after consideration of the merits, committee recommends the following. House Bill 1256 be referred favorably to the Committee on Appropriations. House Bill 1276 be amended as follows, and as so amended be referred to the Committee on Appropriations with favorable recommendation. House Bill 1256 be referred favorably to the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. Schoffer, please add Senator Bridges to the roll. Conference Committee reports. In response to a request from the House for a conference committee on House Bill 1184, the Senate conferees are Senator Cutter, Chair, Marchman, and Baisley on the first conference committee of House Bill 1184.

The motion for the body is to grant permission to the conferees in the first conference committee on House Bill 1184 to go beyond the scope of the differences between the two houses. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. What? The ayes have it, and that permission is granted. In response to a request from the House for a conference committee on House Bill 1258,

The motion of the body is to grant permission to confer his first conference committee on House Bill 1258 to go beyond the scope of the differences between the two houses. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed no. The ayes have it, and permission is granted. Mr. Schaffler, please add Senator Amabile to the roll and Kirkmeyer to the roll.

You haven't got it yet. I'm going on to resolutions. No, you're going to be after

Yeah, I did.

The motion is to proceed out of order for moments of personal privilege. You've heard the motion. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. No. The ayes definitely have it, and the Senate will proceed out of order for a rare moment of personal privilege. Whoops. Senator President Coleman.

Granted.

Please add Senator Colker to the role. And please add Senator Pelton B to the role.

Senator Baisley.

Vanton.

Thank you. you're not getting fined for that it's okay

resolutions. Thank you. You have heard the motion to proceed out of order for consideration of resolutions. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes definitely have it. The motion is adopted. We will proceed out of order. Consideration of resolutions. Will the clerk please read the title of SR008? Senate Resolution 008 by Senators Catlin and Coleman concerning the recognition of the 125th anniversary of Western Colorado University. Who would like to go first? Senator Catlin.

Will the clerk please read SR 008 at length? Whereas Western Colorado University was founded in 1901 in Gunnison, Colorado, as the Colorado State Normal School, becoming the first institution of higher education on Colorado's western slope. And whereas for 125 years, Western Colorado University has served the students, families, and communities of the Gunnison Valley and the broader Western Slope, evolving from a small teacher's college into a comprehensive public university, offering undergraduate and graduate programs across the arts, sciences, business, education, and environmental studies. And whereas the institution's evolution from Colorado State Normal School to Western State College in 1923, and ultimately to Western Colorado University, reflects its expanding academic mission and enduring commitment to the region it serves. And whereas Western Colorado University plays a vital role in advancing Colorado's workforce by preparing graduates in high-demand fields, including education, the health sciences, natural resource management, business, and outdoor industry leadership, while maintaining a strong emphasis on experiential and place-based learning. and whereas the university is home to the nation's only collegiate mountain rescue team founded in 1968, whose members serve the Gunnison Valley and exemplify Western's commitment to service, leadership, and outdoor stewardship. And whereas Western Colorado University's athletics program have produced national champions and Olympians, including a nationally recognized ski team, multiple NCAA championship wrestling and cross-country teams, and a storied football program contributing to the university's proud tradition of excellence. And whereas the university's campus and surrounding landscape, including the iconic W on Tenderfoot Mountain, the historic Leslie J. Savage Library, and the Rady Family Sports Complex, reflect generations of investment by students, alumni, faculty, and community members who have shaped Western's enduring character. and whereas Western Colorado University continues to build on its legacy through a forward-looking strategic plan and innovative programs such as engineering through its partnership with the University of Colorado Boulder and a commitment to hands-on place-based learning that addresses the challenge and opportunities facing rural and mountain communities and whereas Western's traditions and culture foster a strong sense of community and belonging connecting generations of mountaineers to one another and to the Gunnison Valley now therefore be it resolved by the Senate of the 75th General Assembly of the State of Colorado, one, that the Colorado Senate hereby recognizes and celebrates the 125th anniversary of Western Colorado University and honors its enduring contributions to higher education, workforce development, and community vitality across the Western Slope and the State of Colorado. Two, that the Colorado Senate commends the students, faculty, staff, alumni, and community supporters whose dedication over 125 years has made Western Colorado University a source of pride for Gunnison, the Western Slope, and the State of Colorado three, that the call The Colorado Senate acknowledges Western Colorado University's distinctive role in providing accessible, high-quality education in a rural mountain community and recognizes its continued commitment to serving the people, economies, and landscapes of Colorado. And four, that the Colorado Senate encourages all Coloradans to celebrate this milestone and to support the continued growth and success of Western Colorado University in the years ahead. Be it further resolved, the copies of this resolution be sent to the President of Western Colorado University, Brad Baca, the Governor of Colorado, the Honorable Jared Polis, the Western Colorado University Board of Trustees, the Colorado Commission on Higher Education, the Western Colorado University Foundation, and the Gunnison City Council. Thank you, Mr. Senate President. Mr. Coleman.

Senator Catlin.

Thank you, Madam President. Please be seated.

Is there any further discussion on SR008? Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of SR008. Are there any no votes? Seeing none, with a vote of 35 aye, 0 no, 0 absent, and 0 excused, SR008 is adopted. Co-sponsors, Senator Kaplan. Thank you, Madam President. I request that the current roll call be added as co-sponsors. Thank you. Thank you. The motion is to add co-sponsor. Seeing no objection, the current roll call will be added as co-sponsor. Third reading of bills Final passage Mr Schaffler please read the title of Senate Bill 152 Senate Bill 152 by Senators Ball and Pelton B. and Representatives Wilford and Barone concerning changes to usage of automated vehicle identification systems. Senator Ball.

Please tell us why, Senator Ball.

Very good. Please tell us why, Senator Ball.

The motion is Senator Ball's request to offer third meeting an amendment. All those in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. That motion is adopted. There is an amendment at the desk. Mr. Schaffler, please read L12. Yeah, L12. Amendment L12, amendment gross bill page 514. Thank you, Mr. President.

Further discussion on L12. Seeing no further discussion, the motion is the adoption of L12. Are there any no votes? With a vote of 35 ayes, 0 no, 0 absence or excuse, L12 is adopted. Further discussion on Senate Bill 152. Seeing no further discussion, the motion is the passage of Senate Bill 152. Are there any no votes? Senators, Samora Wilson, Baisley, Carson. Further no votes on 152. With a vote of 32 ayes, 3 no, 0, 0, 0, excuse. Senate Bill 152 is passed. Post sponsors. Senators. Henrickson. Cutter. Please add the president. Mr. Schaffler, please read the title of House Bill 1322. House Bill 1322 by Representatives Valdez and McCormick and Senators Cutter and Mullica

Senator Cutter.

Further discussion? There is discussion. Senator Mullica.

of house bill 1322 are there any no votes senators mr. minority leader frizzell

With A, vote of 23 ayes, 12 no, 0, 0, 0, excuse. House Bill 1322 is passed. co senators Kip Benavidez Wallace Gonzalez Danielson Amabile Doherty Weissman Henriksen Ball Colker Sullivan Lindstedt Bridges Exon Roberts Snyder Please add the President. Mr. Schaffler, please read the title of House Bill 1123. House Bill 1123 by Representative Stuart Kaye and Mabry and Senators Amabile and Weissman concerning measures to prevent sexual abuse in jails and in connection therewith making an appropriation. Senator Amabile.

Further discussion, Senator Wiseman. And we have to ask for permission to offer a third reading amendment.

In the vein of intrepid drafters catching things, this just corrects an internal subsection reference. It's purely technical.

Senator Weisman. Thank you, Mr. President. We move L25 to House Bill 1123. To the amendment. Members, this corrects an internal subsection reference from sub 6 to sub 7. It's a whopping one line. Changes nothing of substance. Ask her a yes vote.

Senator Weissman. We move for the repassage of 1123 as amended.

Senator Cutter. Thank you, Mr. President. I move House Bill 1226 on third reading and final passage.

Frizzell, Kirkmeyer, Zamora Wilson,

Senator Lindstedt. Thank you, Mr. President. I move House Bill 1076 on third reading and final passage.

Thank you, Mr. President. We move Senate Bill 115 and request permission to offer a third reading amendment.

Senator Weissman. Thank you, Mr. President. This was brought to us by LLS. This morning we're just moving some words around. The issue is that we had incorrectly spliced an adverbial phrase into a relative phrase. I wish I knew that much about grammar.

Senator Weissman. We move L-10 to SB 115.

And Senator Weissman. Thank you, Mr. President. Members, as we vote here, I just wanted to state for the record, net of the considerable amendments we did both yesterday and in the Approx Committee, how narrow what's left that we are voting on is. SB 115 was frankly pretty narrow as introduced. That was always our intent. It was narrowed further in appropriations. It was narrowed further yesterday. What remains is simply this.

Further discussion? Seeing no further discussion in the motion as the passage of Senate Bill 115 is amended. Are there any no votes? Senators, Mr. Minority Leader, Kirkmeyer, Frizzell, Zamora Wilson, Rich, Sullivan, Baisley, Lindstedt, Danielson, Mullica, Catlin, Mr. Majority Leader, Pelton B, Roberts. Oh, please mark the majority leader as a aye vote. You were about to get eliminated Senator Bright Carson Pelton R Liston With a vote of 18 I 17 no zero absolute rescues Senate Bill 115 is passed Go sponsors. Now Mr. Majority Leader. Cutter. Amabile. Wallace. Benavidez. Judah. Kip. Please add the President. Committee reports. Committee on Appropriations after consideration on the merits of the committee recommends the following. Senate Bill 67 be postponed indefinitely. Senate Bill 167 be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation. Senate Bill 181 be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation and with the recommendation that be placed in the consent calendar. friendly's article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article about what article article article article article article article article del nerve Sedilable Conteks in Revelation Bell 1131 to the committee the whole with favorable recommendation. Mr. Majority Leader. Thank

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . All right, we back in the game. Majority Leader Rodriguez.

You vote the motion. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Oppose, no. No. Man, aye's have it. That motion is adopted. Special orders, Mr. Majority Leader.

The motion to Senate take up those bills on special orders at the hour of 1019 a.m. This requires two-thirds vote. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. The Senate will take up those bills and special orders at the hour. Special orders consent at the hour of 10, 19 a.m. Special orders, second reading of the bills, consent calendar.

You for the motion. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The motion is adopted. The Senate resolves itself in the committee of the whole. Consider it ready for special orders, second reading of the bill's consent calendar. And Senator Wallace will take the chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move for the passage of all the bills on special order second reading of bills consent calendar, which is Senate Bill 181, House Bill 1338, 1344, 1336, and the Health and Human Services Report, 1227, 1314, 1028, 1282, and 1317, and the Education Report.

Majority Leader Rodriguez. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the committee rise and report.

Assembly 181 passed. Second reading order goes place a count of third reading and final passage. House Bill 1338, 1344, 1336 as amended. 1227, 1314, 1028, 1282, 1370 as amended. Passed second reading order goes place a count of third reading and final passage. Special orders.

The motion to the Senate take up those bills and special orders at the hour of 1024 a.m., which requires two-thirds vote. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. The Senate will take up those bills and special orders at the hour of 1024 AM Special orders take me into the bills Senator Wallace Thank you Mr President I move the Senate resolve itself into the committee of the whole for consideration of special orders second reading of bills You've heard the motion. All those in favor say aye. Polls no. The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. Senator resolves itself. Senator Wallace will take the chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1078 and the Appropriations Committee Report. To the Appropriations Committee Report, Senator Kirkmeyer.

Is there any further discussion of the Appropriations Committee Report? Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of the Appropriations Committee Report. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the report is adopted. To the bill, Senator Kirkmeyer.

FURTHER DISCUSSION, SENATOR MARCHMAN.

Further discussion, Senator Baisley.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Further discussion? Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of House Bill 1078. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill is adopted.

The motion is to proceed out of order to take up Senate Bill 68. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the Senate will proceed out of order.

The motion is to lay over Senate Bill 68 until Thursday, May the 14th. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill will be laid over. Will the clerk please read the title to Senate Bill 167? Senate Bill 167 by Senators Benavidez and Mullica and Representative Basnicker and Lindsay concerning a covered person's contribution under a health benefit plan based on out-of-pocket expenses attributable to the purchase of prescription drugs.

which I believe is the only committee report that we have. Great. So the Health and Human Services Committee report, please.

Further discussion of the Health and Human Services Committee report? Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of the Health and Human Services Committee report. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the report is adopted.

further discussion seeing none the motion is the adoption of Senate bill 167 all those in favor please say aye aye opposed no the ayes have it and the bill is adopted will the clerk please read the title of House Bill 1069 House Bill 1069 by Representatives Varey and Stuart Kay and Senator Mullica concerning increasing the availability of emergency medical services and in connection therewith making and reducing an appropriation. Senator Mullica.

Perfect. To the Health and Human Services Committee reports.

Further discussion? Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of the Health and Human Services Committee report. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the report is adopted.

Thank you. Wonderful to hear. Any further discussion of the Appropriations Committee report? Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of the Appropriations Committee report. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the report is adopted. To the bill, Senator Mullica.

Further discussion? Senator Frizzell.

Mr. Minority Leader.

Wonderful. We love the spirit of bipartisan collaboration. Senator Kirkmeyer.

Thanks. Further discussion? Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of House Bill 1069. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill is adopted. Will the clerk please read the title to House Bill 1132? House Bill 1132 by Representative Froehlich and Senators Kipp, Representative Froehlich and Lindsay and Senator Kipp, concerning increasing pollinator habitats through the conservation of native plant material on lands in the state. Senator Kipp.

Second reading. And the, oh yeah, there was a, sorry, which committee? Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee report.

Wonderful. Any further discussion? Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of the Agricultural and Natural Resources Committee report. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the committee report is adopted. To the bill, Senator Kipp.

the State Forest Service, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Personnel, and Department of Transportation to prioritize Colorado sourced eco regionally appropriate native plant materials and vegetative projects. It will also says that if we can get the donations for it, this is a separate part, that CSU will conduct a native plant study. We did a few years ago the native pollinating insect study in the state of Colorado And so what we trying to do here is start leading by example to implement a number of their recommendations Pollinators are dying off in Colorado and elsewhere, and we believe this bill will help them to thrive. I just want to let you know another reason for doing this bill is water savings. I know when I personally, you know, ripped out like 95% of the grass in our yard at my house and we replaced that with native plants, we significantly saved massive amounts of water. We went from like 25,000 gallons a month to 10,000 gallons a month because native plants just use less water. They use less water than grass and other types of plants. And they're good for pollinators, so it's a win-win situation. So I really hope you will all consider voting yes on this bill. It is good for pollinators, and it is good for Colorado, and it is good for our water. Further discussion?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the good Senator from Fort Collins for bringing this bill. I have a no on it in committee, and here's why. They want to go in and tell state agencies like CPW, who owns quite a bit of land, who also leases the land to some of our ag producers and do something with grazing. Like say that we're not going to graze as much, just like CDOT where they don't want to mow as much because I-76 is a pollinator highway. However, we have a lot of issues with really tall weeds and also deer that get in the roadway that we run over. And when you let the weeds grow that tall and it snows like it's going to today, you end up with drifting and having lots of issues. So, because we end up with a lot of wind, but the grazing part was the part that bothers me the most. It's a $47 billion industry in the state. And the fact that they want to do something around grazing, we do not overgraze the lands that we lease from CPW because they keep a very close eye on that. That is the correct way to do it. But with the people that we are putting on boards and commissions with CPW, and especially in DNR, who's going to be making these decisions? They've lost a lot of trust now with what other programs are doing. They're going to lose trust here. So my problem with this is the grazing aspect of it. We need to take that completely out of the bill. If we took it out of the bill, I think that you'd have a lot more people being in favor of it. But as of right now, that's where we're at with it. As long as grazing's in the bill, I'm going to no vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I sit on the Ag Committee and heard this bill, and there are some concerns that I've got. I think if we were to take a meaningful approach to this, we would start approaching private landowners and offering to help them in creating some of these areas for the pollinators. They're aware of pollinators. They're concerned about them. I do worry about the state deciding where we're going to put them, how we're going to manage them, and are we going to graze them. Grazing right now is going to be a great big deal because there going to be a lot of ground that people are not going to be able to graze because of the drought They don have the capacity to be grazed this year This is just one example. The idea of going after and helping the pollinators makes sense to me to a certain degree, but I think a lot more cooperation could come, particularly on the western slope, from private landowners if they had access to the type of seed, the type of crop that they were going to need. The other thing is I asked a question in regards to where we were acquiring these Colorado native plants, and the answer was Utah. So, you know, I think one of the things we ought to be thinking about is are we building an industry here in the state of Colorado for somebody or some outfit? If so, I think we ought to rethink that. I think the market forces will help with this if we decide that this is where the state of Colorado wants to go. I think we're hurrying it right now with this bill, so I'd ask for a no.

Yeah, and thank you to my good colleagues for making some comments on this bill. I want to let you know a couple of things. First of all, the native pollinating insects study did talk about grazing and how that was important, but we have also excluded the state land board from this bill. So they're the people who like, you know, graze out the land. So I think that you should be fine. And also, I want to let you know that right now, those are the places that we have to obtain the seeds, is somewhere like Utah. However, in the future, as we build out this program, we need to build up that supply chain, and that's what this bill is helping to do. So we are trying to increase the availability of native plants in Colorado, and I really would ask for an aye vote because I think this is a positive step in the right direction.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I think in my six years here, hardly a session has gone by that we don't have a bill and a conversation about pollinators. I actually, I think in the very first year, sponsored a bill for a license plate about pollinators and protecting habitat. And we've gone round and round in this space. and as a farmer on my farm continue to adopt practices to increase habitat. And so there are two commercial beehive operators that bring bees to my property every year, and they trade me with a case of fresh honey every year. So I have a deep appreciation for how we improve habitat and create a better outcome for pollinators. A little concern in this bill, there's nearly a million dollars worth of mandates on DNR and CSU. Now they're paid for out of cash funds and or gifts grants and donations, so it's not like it has a big fiscal impact, but the mandate on DNR and CSU comes at a little bit of a challenge for me in thinking about how do you advance this conversation, how do we work collaboratively again. We need pollinators, and I have become so sensitive to this when I would be sitting on my back porch at times and see pollinators in my wife's flower garden, I would take pictures and send them to the good senator from Boulder, who was a co with me on the pollinator license plate So I passionate about this space I not sure this is the way to go about doing it but I appreciate the effort and the intention And the good senator from Fort Collins

Senator Kipp. Thank you. And I do want to point out that this is the state leading by example in helping to build out that supply chain so that we can do better overall. So again, I think it's really important when the state leads by example as opposed to when we tell private people to go ahead and do something and don't expect the state to do it. We are having the state lead in this area and good bill. Vote yes.

No.

Senator Doherty. I move House Bill 1347.

Senator Doherty. Thank you. This bill is a step forward for children and youth in foster care and requires children and youth to be screened for disabilities if needed. Counties must determine potential eligibility and apply for benefits within 45 days of gathering the necessary documentation. And we are denied vote.

Thanks, Madam Chair. We move House Bill 1210. There's no committee report.

Senator Judah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, everybody understands that our phones have become an extension of our brains. We put our most intimate thoughts into our phones, our texts, our searches, and our geolocation data. And the biggest companies in the world are collecting that data and selling it to other companies who are using it to decide how much to charge us as individuals for things like plane tickets, groceries, medicine, when your kid is sick. And this isn't science fiction. This isn't a minority report. This is real. It's called surveillance pricing, and it's happening right now to every single one of us. I'm sure that we'll hear that this is about innovation and discounts, But the largest companies in the world are not investing millions into this technology to make less money. These tools exist to take advantage of our personal data to set individual prices, not based on the laws of supply and demand, but based on our personal pain points. The distinction that's critical here is that in a fair market, prices move up based on supply and demand. That's normal. That's what it should be. When demand rises, prices for everyone equally. When supply increases, prices come down for everyone equally. That's how the markets work, and that's how they're supposed to work. Surveillance pricing, on the other hand, rigs the market. It doesn't adjust prices based on the market conditions, it adjusts prices based on you, who you are, what you're going through, how desperate you might be at that moment. It's not the free market. It's exploitation dressed up by technology. If we don't act now, this practice will only accelerate. Every year, the data gets more granular and algorithms get more sophisticated. and the gap between what the corporations know about us and what we know about what they're doing with our data grows wider. The window to establish meaningful guardrails is now. So I want to talk a little bit about how this bill works. This bill is not a ban on algorithmic pricing. It's not a ban on dynamic price or wage setting. Instead, it constructs a pipeline of interlocking definitions with each definition feeding into the next, narrowing the scope of what is ultimately prohibited. Surveillance data, that means your data, my data, is defined based on your online behaviors. This is when companies look at your Google searches, your email, your geolocation data. Then they put this data into an algorithm. And that data is the algorithm that is deciding the factor in setting an individual price, not a uniform discount on a loyalty program. I can't tell you how many times I have needed an emergency diaper run and have ordered it to my door. Or my daughter needed fever medication. They knew that I was desperate for that and set the price as such. That is what is predatory, and that's what we're trying to fight here. I also want to talk about what it was like growing up in a small business. we never had to deal with this and I don't think a lot of us in this room had to deal with this we never had to worry about what a price looked like because we knew what we saw in the grocery store is what everyone was paying that is a fair market that's how it should be that's how my parents were able to put all four of us through college because they didn't have to worry about being surveilled because we needed something at that moment. I want to be clear that when these practices happen, they happen to the most vulnerable people at their most vulnerable time. One of the best examples that I saw on social media was an airline company getting a social media post by a customer saying, I cannot believe that my price is different between Monday and Tuesday. And the airline responded saying, open an incognito tab, clear your cachet, and you should get a cheaper price. That is what we are trying to avoid here. And companies like that airline flat out admitted that they were doing price surveillance. We heard from a person that needed an emergency airline ticket because they needed to go to a funeral It was obvious through those searches and the amount of searches that that person was doing that they needed an airline ticket immediately, and the prices were set as such. That's what we're fighting here, is this predatory practice that allows us, sorry, that constricts our ability to pay for the things that we need, again, at our most vulnerable time. The last thing I'll say is on the wage-setting part. If that algorithm understands that you are looking for a job desperately and you keep looking for that job, they are going to offer that wage based on that desperation. And that is not fair. For me and my family, that's what would have impeded our ability to realize our American dream, to put us through college. Because we would have been saying, I am so desperate to put my kids through college, but I will take any wage necessary to do that. I think a lot of people are feeling that pain in this economy. And I want to make sure that through this bill, we are allowing workers, as we have discussed over the past week, to make sure that they can earn a livable wage based on what they're capable and qualified to do. rather than accept something based on their desperation. And with that, I ask for an aye vote.

Thanks, Madam Chair. Members, as we get into the debate, I wanted to situate 1210, which feels very new and cutting edge, what is this algorithmic stuff we're talking about, into the history of the kind of laws that we're talking about here, which are to protect consumers, and even before that, to frankly protect markets and promote honest and fair competition among businesses. And this has been the inquiry of law in this country, frankly, since the Industrial Revolution really started to get going, and economists have been writing about this kind of thing in the 1800s. U.S. Congress passed in 1914 the Federal Trade Commission Act to get the federal government interested in and empowered to promote the right kind of competition. We want that. We want people with the best idea for a product or service to be able to communicate about it honestly and earn the reward that they should earn from just having a superior offering. Deceptions about what you have or don't have and dishonest communication into the stream of commerce was the type of concern of that early 20th century lawmaking. We didn't even talk about consumer protection in the modern parlance back then, but we were concerned about promoting the right kind of businesses and, frankly, having some regulatory oversight over the wrong kind of businesses, which I believe are a small minority but can wreck it for the large majority that are the honest ones. So in the middle of the 20th century, our state and most states started to adopt laws. We call ours the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. They were called mini trade commission acts in some parlance, whereas we often have it, for example, environmental law. states too decided they need to be in the business of protecting honest competition and promoting good business practice and protecting consumers with laws on their own books and not just leaving it all to Congress. So the first version of our Colorado Consumer Protection Act was passed in 1969 Here I have this fuzzy print from the old statutes This was signed into law by then Republican Governor John Love. And among practices that in 1969 we categorized as deceptive trade practices and proscribed and made actionable, direct quote, makes false or misleading statements of fact concerning the price of goods or services or the reasons for or existence of or amounts of price reductions. 1969. Now, that's not perfectly what we're talking about in the bill, but the point is we have been concerned about the honesty of communication of pricing and price setting in this state for over 50 years. So that was 1969. Now, let's jump forward. This is a short report from a nonprofit organization called Consumer Watchdog, dated December 2024, just going through some examples of the kind of modern pricing practice. Frankly, not even all of these would necessarily be prohibited under the bill because we've narrowed it so much. But just to give some folks who may not be familiar some examples. Target charged people $100 more for a TV when they were in a Target parking lot versus another location. Orbitz, the travel company, learned that Mac users spend more money to stay at hotels and charge them more than non-Mac users. Yes, folks, if you didn't know this, your device, your Linux device or Windows or Mac, sends a kind of code when you're browsing the Internet, and it can be captured on the server end, and people can do things with that. Amazon prices change 2.5 million times a day, meaning the average cost of a product changes about every 10 minutes. A Yale study found that personalized pricing increased profits for airlines by 4% to 5%. Anybody happy with airline pricing these days? Uber reportedly charged different prices based on whether the customer used a corporate credit card or not. Farmer's insurance overcharged its California customers 4% to 13% just because the company judged them unlikely to shop around. A test prep company charged customers shopping online from zip codes that contained a higher number of Asians more money, according to ProPublica. I'm reading that verbatim, gross as it is. Staples charged people more for the same stapler if they knew a person had fewer options, such as being near a competitor. McKinsey, the big management consultancy, quote, Our experience shows that such transformations, when done well, can enhance pricing to generate two to seven percentage points of sustained margin improvement with initial benefits in as little as three to six months. As my colleague, the Senator from Aurora, noted, it is a self-defeating proposition that businesses spend millions and billions developing these methodologies or licensing them from others who do to benefit consumers. Whether you are a two-member LLC or a large publicly traded corporation, your obligation under your articles of incorporation is to increase shareholder return. And that's why we see these practices as examples like this attest to. All right, that was December 2024. Let's fast forward even more. We had a little bit of a dispute of public opinion survey research in committee a few weeks ago. This is a poll that was in the field in Colorado early April April 2 to April 5 Question Lawmakers in Colorado are proposing a policy that bans companies from using artificial intelligence or automated systems to charge different prices to different people or pay different wages based on surveillance data. This would mean that surveillance data, personal details from someone's browsing history, location, borrowing, or other info, from data profiles, companies built about people cannot be used to set individualized prices or wages. do you support or oppose this policy? 78% of people support. Not very much is true across party lines anymore in this country, but now let's read the breakouts. Democratic, 77% support. Independent, 77% support. Republican, 78% support. It doesn't matter your party. You don't want to get ripped off. You don't want the comet trail that all of us throw off as we browse the internet throughout the day and reveal things about ourselves. We don't want that to be used against us. So all of which brings us to 1210, which was heavily amended in the House and which we'll have further amendments here for in just a minute. I want members to really focus on how some key definitions fit together. As I said, this is a consumer protection bill. We are in the consumer protection part of our statutes. We have a definition of individualized price setting. And then we go on to say, and we'll further clarify this by amendment, what that is not. There are many exclusions. Then we go on to say, what is individualized wage setting? And likewise, we go on to say, what that is not. That's the first part of the Bill 619.01. Then, in the second part of the Bill 619.02, we have a simple requirement. a person shall not engage in individualized price setting, defined term, and then we say all the things that that is not. And then likewise, no engaging in individualized wage setting and, again, exclusions. So you may not be in the bill at all, depending on the definitions. You may not be in the bill at all, depending on two sets of exclusions each for what is or isn't individualized price or wage setting. We've heard stuff about coupons and loyalty programs, and we're not impacting that. There is so much modern practice that will continue to be allowed under this bill. We may all participate in those. Frankly, you may think they're creepy, and you may want to curtail that, but that's not this bill. This bill has been narrowly crafted, and we have had extensive conversations in recent weeks subsequent to our hearing in the business committee to make further clarifications, particularly as to the concerns of industries that have their own robust statutory frameworks. So with that, we'll start to introduce a couple of those amendments.

We move L18 to House Bill 1210. To the amendment, Senator Weissman.

Members, this is an amendment we worked out in conversation with folks in the ride share and delivery network space. We're adding just a little bit of language about maintaining a customer relationship. We also have some clarifying language about the employment part of the bill. clarifying how we mean by seniority and what is or isn't permissible for hiring. This was a clarification.

Further discussion? Mr. Minority Leader. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the sponsor sharing the amendments with me yesterday to go through this. I think about rideshare component of this conversation and how it actually functions and works. It's like, I don't use it a lot. There isn't a lot of it available in the San Luis Valley, but if I travel somewhere, my wife uses it up here, and noticing, again, you get different quotes for prices. But I don't know that it's surveilling me. I think it's more along the line of, you touched on it, sponsored supply and demand. Like when there are enough drivers at the right time of the day, the prices go down. When there's a lack of drivers and distance changes or traffic conditions worsen or something, they increase. So it's such an odd conversation to talk about how the construct of the policy and how the world is currently functioning. And it's certainly different than anything I've ever experienced in my life. So I do appreciate the amendment and rise in support of Amendment 18.

Senator Joda. Thank you, Madam Chair. One other amendment is I'd like to move L36.

Senator Joda.

Thank you, Madam Chair. L36 removes the definition of insurer from the definition section since insurer is defined where it is used in the bill. So states that individual's price setting does not include actions by an insurer or a fraternal benefit society that is subject to the requirements of Section 10.3.1109.9 relating to insurers' use of consumer external data and algorithms and related to commissioner of insurance rules. by following the specific insurance code and regulations. These insurers do not have to demonstrate under this bill that they are not engaged in individualized pricing, and I ask for an aye vote.

Further discussion? Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of L36. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it and the amendment is adopted.

There is an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please read amendment number 19? Amendment L-19. Amend re-engross bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

To the amendment. Senator Rich.

further discussion senator Weissman thanks madam chair will ask for a no vote on L-19 for a couple of reasons at line for the amendment would limit the whole framework to a knowingly mental state which is quite a high one we don't generally use that in the Consumer Protection Act framework some parts of of the CPA don't specify a mental state at all. Some refer to knowingly or recklessly. What you don't want and the reason that we've departed from the knowingly limitation in some other respects is, you don't want to let people get away for sort of a willful ignorance in terms of their practice, which is why recklessly can capture conduct that we want to be able to capture. concerning the limitation of materiality you know I should have probably called out some language at 1901 10 where where we say you only you only really in the bill You only improperly engaging in surveillance price or wage setting using the defined term a price or wage setting algorithm where that is a substantial factor. So we've definitionally we've already screened out non materiality. I will also disagree with the statement that we're banning use of all data. We're not doing that. But at any rate, 19 would functionally gut the bill. We ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, the more we get into this world we live in now with AI and algorithms and you name it and all the different areas of our life that it's being applied to, We have to make sure that we protect the businesses that are involved, too, other than just handing down regulations from this building that could compromise some of their trade, not necessarily secrets, but trade habits. So with that, Madam Chair.

I got the wrong one. I removed that. I withdraw that amendment.

Well, okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll make a few comments on the bill first, and then I will also have an amendment. So first, you know, I think this bill represents, you know, another example of the type of government regulation of business activities in our state that we talk about pretty regularly. more and more regulations, more and more paperwork, oversight by the Attorney General, you know, potential fines and actions, a lot of data to be published and made available. That's going to be costly. That's, I don't think, going to be particularly helpful to consumers. You know, the folks I'm hearing from, they seem reasonably satisfied in their day-to-day transactions. You know, they can use coupons. They can get various discounts. They can shop where they want. They have a lot of consumer choice. And I think we should leave it up to consumers. You know, I think they're intelligent enough to figure out where they want to shop, who they want to do business with and how they want to, you know, conduct their family lives and allocate their budget. And I don think we need another example of government oversight and protection in this area And I don think this is you know when you talk about this bill I just don't think it's an area of burning concern for folks out there. I've never, quite frankly, I've never heard anyone really complain about what happens when you, you know, you might use a coupon, you might get a discount, you might get into, I think everybody assumes they're, you know, if they're members of a different group like Costco or they do business with Amazon, obviously those entities are going to have a lot of information. If it's improperly used, there may be some situations, and so I want to offer an amendment here.

thank you madam chair I move amendment L23

so I think this amendment gets at potentially some of the concerns people might have and it really looks at an area where pricing disparities might be misused based on a person's race or their sex or their religion or similar classifications, not just generally whether they're a consumer out there in the marketplace. The business might have certain information. I think we should target the bill at areas where we've, you know, in our society, where we've seen abuses before, and so I'll just read the amendment, what it says. Instead of just generically covering all consumers, this would narrow the bill to a consumer when such price determination is based in whole or in part on the individual's actual or perceived race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, disability, religion, creed, genetic information, or other protected characteristic under federal or state law. That covers a pretty wide range of, you know, areas where we don't want to see discrimination in our society based on issues such as employment or housing or other areas. And if this bill is really trying to prevent abuses, misuse of information, I think this is a good way to narrow it, focus it, make it more acceptable, and weed out some of the abuses that might be occurring. Just a couple more comments on the amendment. would clarify that individualized pricing is only prohibited when it's based on protected characteristics such as race, sex, religion, or similar classifications. I listed those. The amendment protects consumers by ensuring that the bill targets explicit discrimination, not lawful pricing strategies that benefit the general public. and I've received a number of emails from folks just concerned about what's the impact really going to be on them when they purchase products they're concerned and I know this Sponsors mentioned this doesn't target coupons and discounts and things like that, but obviously there's some concern about what the impact this bill is going to have in those areas, and I'll let them elaborate some more on why they don't think those areas are covered, but a lot of times these bills have an impact that you might not anticipate right away because the businesses are going to react in certain ways. some of them may just choose not to offer discounts and coupons and other things to consumers if they're going to be regulated and scrutinized and subject to these kind of penalties so much. So at the end of the day, you could be harming consumers more than you're helping them. The bill broadly restricts individualized pricing regardless of whether or not it's discriminatory. So I think this amendment would correct that, target it at discriminatory practices. By tying the prohibition to protected characteristics, the amendment ensures enforcement is focused on unlawful conduct rather than neutral business decisions. So that's an overview of the amendment. I think it would be a good way to, you know, make this bill more palatable, give it more of an actual purpose that folks can agree with, avoid the kind of discrimination we don't want to see out there in the community.

Further discussion on Amendment L23? Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of Amendment L23. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. The no's have it, and the amendment is lost. Senator Pelton.

There is an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please read Amendment No. 20? Amendment L20. Senator Pelton.

Perfect. To the amendment, sir.

Further discussion on Amendment L20, Senator Weissman.

Further discussion on amendment L20? Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of L20. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. The no's have it, and the amendment is lost. Further discussion on the bill, Senator Zamora Wilson.

Senator Hendrickson.

Mr. Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues, I rise in support of this bill. I've heard a few of the comments, and we relate it to AI. And at the core of this bill, and many of you here, and I ran the third in the country's comprehensive privacy law that we gave citizens rights to know what data was being collected on us. This is just an evolution of where we've gotten to. it's always been about privacy and your right to know I mean they carved out the loyalty programs it's always been I know that my phone is tracking where I am therefore they know and I knowingly go in and allow them to do that. But the slippery slope we have here, and it's the same argument I made in 2021, it's whether you allow technology to follow everything you do. And that's what this bill is trying to prevent. It's always been like, okay, if you go into my store, you get to see what I'm shopping and all that. But do you get to follow me to the next store and the next store and the next store? And that's what this bill does, is they take this information and they use it to benefit you. The JetBlue article, the customer service rep says, hey, I looked it up the second time and my price mysteriously went up. Well, delete your cookies in history and then do it again. That's the kind of stuff that you're seeing. And 2021 privacy was very bipartisan and we're having these fights as colleagues now, oddly enough, when government wants to surveil us versus we want the public to be able to do it willy-nilly. But at the end of the day, for us as consumers, we are the product when it comes to this information. The mass amounts of information that's collected about us that's used against us that you have no idea, and I've always relayed privacy to the younger generation believes they have no privacy, and the older generation has such little idea of how much privacy they don't have. And at the core of this bill, AI has implemented the tools of the privacy, but unless we start figuring out a way to regulate it, and I'll have this conversation on my AI bill, you guys know I'm working on a tamale bill. My tamale bill to sell tamales to people has more regulations than we put on privacy and artificial intelligence. And that's something for you to think about as we start having these fights. Whether it's flock cameras, I've joked with my colleagues, I'm going to invest in facial recognition scanning through things so I can start surveilling the gun stores to see what you buy when you come out. Slippery slope of the things that you have to recognize that this technology is able to do. And this is a small step forward that we need to do to prevent this from happening to all of us as consumers, as Americans, First Amendment rights or not. I argue with my colleague across the aisle all the time about, well, it's on public land, so we can do it. I was like, yeah, that was back in the day when somebody sat there and looked, not when you're being recorded. So I stand in strong support of this bill. It's not everything I like. It could be better but as you guys know how do you eat an elephant one bite at a time ask for an i vote

Senator Rich. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Senator Rich. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L-027 to House Bill 1210.

Thank you, Madam Chair. There was some discussion a little bit earlier about discounts and how those are not going to be affected here, well, let's make sure that that's not the case. Amendment L-27 would allow loyalty programs to offer targeted discounts based on purchase history or customer behavior so long as the criteria is disclosed and applied uniformly. The amendment protects consumers by ensuring loyalty programs remain functional. While the bill permits loyalty programs, it creates ambiguity around whether targeted offers within those programs are allowed. Without clarification, businesses may be unable to tailor rewards or incentives. This amendment provides clear guardrails. It allows targeted offers while requiring transparency and equal treatment for all consumers who meet the criteria. Now, if we don't want to lose our discounts, and if it's, as you say in this bill, that we're not, there's nothing wrong with this amendment and putting that on there to ensure that that happens. I urge an aye vote on L027.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the amendment. We do, however, already have a definition of loyalty program on page four of the bill. I want to stress that you cannot call a discount without a baseline price. And if price surveillance is taking place, that baseline price does not exist. So let's just recenter a little bit and talk about and remember that, you know, those discounts and all of those things are, they have to be in place first with that baseline. So I ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Interesting conversation today about 1210. and I wish it was as simple as it might sound. The bill was introduced in mid-February and here we are the last week of the session trying to wrap it up and it's because it's complex. It's trying to protect consumers. Look, I appreciate the sponsors even touched on it. Like the first, almost half of the bill is definitions and how they interact and tie into one another. Interesting policy conversation. No doubt eventually part of me is like stay off the Internet I know that not a reality but stay off the internet Don do that Pay with cash. Avoid the swipe fees by paying cash. I know that's not probably a dose of reality, but part of me also says, like, I think ultimately consumers can drive this. Like, we should be demanding as consumers, not through policy, but strictly through our actions, and recognize those businesses that hold their hand up and say we refuse to use algorithms and price-setting technologies to set our prices. I mean, I know that can't happen in probably the course of two or three years, but ultimately I think consumers can drive this to a better spot and not do it through policy conversations.

Senator Kipp.

Mr. Minority Leader.

Senator Weissman.

Will the clerk please read amendment number 40? Amendment L40. Senator Weissman.

To the amendment, Senator Weissman.

Further discussion on amendment L-40? Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of L-40. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. To the bill, further discussion, seeing none, the motion is the adoption of House Bill 1210. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill is adopted. Will the clerk please read the title to House Bill 1196? House Bill 1196 by Representatives English and Joseph and Senator Benavidez concerning tenant data information.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

No committee reports, so to the bill, please. All right, we'll go to the bill.

Further discussion? Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of House Bill 1196. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. The ayes have it, and the bill is adopted. Will the clerk please read the title to House Bill 1224? House Bill 1224 by Representative Velasco and Basinicker and Senators Cutter and Roberts concerning financial protections for mobile home park residents.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1224.

pleased to be up here with my good colleague from Summit County. And this bill is just about a simple principle that if residents are going to be told they have a chance to compete to buy their community, it should really be a chance, not just theoretical. So they're often trying to organize and inspect property and understand the finances and line up financings while competing with more sophisticated buyers who do this all the time. So this builds on a framework we already have to strengthen disclosures so residents can actually evaluate what they're being asked to match. Protects the due diligence process so residents aren't punished for simply doing what any responsible buyer would do, you know, inspections. We've all, I mean, many of us have bought property before. These things are important. Inspections, contingencies, financing review. And it addresses a really major practical problem in the market. When parks are sold through bundled or portfolio or transactions, residents should not be structurally disadvantaged from the outset. And it also makes it clear that anti-competitive conduct that artificially distorts the sale process has no place here. Residents should be competing in a fair market, not a manipulated one. So I've been really happy to work on some of these issues around mobile home park ownership. We've already seen the resident ownership model work here in Colorado in multiple communities, help stabilize housing and preserve affordability. So it's about just giving residents a fair shot to get there. So hope you can support this with us.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to my colleagues for bringing forward this bill. I do just want to rise in support of this policy because last summer when our Latino caucus took a tour across the state, we sat down and met with the residents of a mobile home park in Glenwood Springs who wanted to seek the time to be able to put together the bid to purchase their own park because this was not the first time, the second time, or the third time that their park had been put up for sale. And in the aftermath of every time that this park had gone up for sale, new ownership had gone and jacked up the rent for the lots that these residents were paying for. And so I so proud that we were able to respond directly encourage those residents to thereafter meet with DOLA and this bill is now the result of that work I am proud to see when community comes together that we can actually respond in kind I ask for an aye vote on this bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, members, we heard this bill here a week or so ago in local government, And I, too, have a lot of mobile home parks in my district. And probably like a lot of you, I know constituents in that district. I've campaigned in the mobile home parks. And, you know, I would agree with sponsors. You know, it's a unique situation, as we all know. You know, you own the mobile home, but you don't own the land underneath it. and it kind of puts a lot of people in a unique situation. And, you know, personally, I don't have a problem at all with the mobile home park tenants wanting to try and buy the mobile home park. And I commend the sponsors for, you know, trying to facilitate that. And with that in mind, you know, I'm just trying to bring some balance and reason to the process. And with that, I do have an amendment.

Senator Liston.

I move amendment L-008 to House Bill 1224.

Very good. Members, what this does, generically, it's a threshold for expense documentation. This amendment seeks to modify the legislation by either striking the requirements for invoices over $500 or increasing that threshold to $5,000. The primary objective is to balance the need for financial transparency with the practicalities of modern organizational management and legal protections. The current $500 threshold is viewed as administratively unworkable as it triggers a massive volume of documentation for routine, low-value transactions that do not align with the standard commercial record-keeping practices. The rationale behind this, it's for operational efficiency. It's for commercial standards, you know, a $5,000 threshold, better lines with standard micro-purchases or simplified acquisition limits. And it gives protection of legal privilege and strategic oversight. This is a reasonable, you know, you don't want to have to turn over volumes of records for low transactions of just $500 or so. So this is a rational amendment, and I would urge an aye vote on Amendment L-008.

Senator Cutter. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the good Senator from Colorado Springs engaging with us on this important policy, but we would request a no vote on L-8. This would render one of the main disclosure provisions functionally useless by only requiring disclosure of invoices for bills that are 5,000 or more. Most invoices will be less, and residents need to know what those are, like the cost of operating the park, in order to make an informed offer. So we would urge a no vote.

So with that, I have another amendment in mind to try and make this process work on a little more balanced basis.

Senator Liston.

I move Amendment L-009 to House Bill 1224.

Very good. Members, what Amendment L-009 deals with is lot fee splitting. The current law states that the mobile home park can charge up to half, just equal, of each side's registration fee to the resident. This is reasonable and fair. This amendment preserves what is already in statute. So, you know, 50-50. If there's different fees or whatnot, you know, we'll pay half and you pay half. That's, you know, what a lot of people do, you know, if they have a, you know, to take care of expenses, you know, I'll meet you halfway. The mobile home park program was created with a purpose for both the park and the residents benefiting from the program. So, like I say, it just makes sense that this cost should be split evenly. When the mobile home park program recognizes that residents are sharing in the cost of the program, it helps to temper, you know, all the different fee hikes. I could give you an example, a detailed example, but I won't go through that. The idea of this is, you know, let's just keep it in current law, keep the fee splitting 50-50. That's nothing unreasonable. It's done under current law right now, and this amendment, L-009, just preserves what's already in statute. I urge an aye vote for L-009.

Senator Roberts. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the good Senator from Colorado Springs for his engagement on this bill. And I appreciate where he's coming from on this amendment. I just wanted to note that this isn't about fees related to the park or living in the park. This is about the registration fee that a mobile home park owner pays to the Department of Local Affairs to be a part of the mobile home park ownership program and settle disputes and other things through the department. So they already get a benefit by removing a lot of litigation costs by being a part of this program. And the $17 here was negotiated with DOLA to try to make it fair between the mobile home park owners and the residents. So if we got rid of this $17 provision that's in the bill already, those fees would fall more solely on the mobile home park residents rather than the park owner who's the one receiving the benefit of the program in the first place. So respectfully ask for a no vote on L9.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to layover House Bill 1342. until Wednesday, May the 6th.

Mr. Majority Leader.

I move the committee rise and report.

Senator Wallace.

Thank you, Mr. President.

May 5, 2026. Mr. President, your committee of the Holbeck's leave the report has had any consideration of the following attached bills being the second reading thereof and makes the following recommendations thereon. Senate Bill 167, as amended, passed on second reading in order to engrossed and place on the calendar for third reading and final passage. House Bill 1078, as amended. House Bill 1069, as amended. House Bill 1132, as amended. House Bill 1347. House Bill 1210, as amended. House Bill 1196. House Bill 1224, passed on second reading in order to revise and place on the calendar for third reading and final passage. House Bill 1342, laid over until May 6, 2026, and retaining its place in the calendar. Senate Bill 68 laid over until May 14, 2026 and retaining its place in the calendar. Senator Wallace.

The motion is the adoption of the committee of the whole report. Are there any no votes? With a vote of 33 ayes, 0 no, 0 absent, 2 excuses, the committee of the whole report is adopted. Senate bill 167 is amended, passed second reading, order of gross, placed a count of third reading and final passage. House bill 1078 is amended, 1069 is amended, 1132 is amended, 1347, 1210 is amended, 1196, 1224. Passed the second reading, order of gross, placed a count of third reading and final passage. House bill 1342 later over until 5-6-2026, retained is placed on the calendar and Senate bill 68 later over until 5-14, 2026 retained is placed on the calendar. Mr. Schoffler, please excuse Senator Danielson.

Thank you, Mr. President.

until Wednesday, May the 6th. The motion is to lay over the second reading of bills calendar until Wednesday, May the 6th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The second reading of bills calendar will be laid over until Wednesday, May the 6th. Consideration of House amendments to Senate bills.

Thank you Mr President I move to layover consideration of Senate Bill 12 until Wednesday May the 6th The motion is to layover Senate Bill 12 to Wednesday May the 6th All those in favor say aye Opposed no The ayes have it And Senate Bill 12 will be laid over to Wednesday, May the 6th.

Senate Bill 150 by Senators Ball and Judah and Representatives Roelick and Jackson

Senator Judah.

I know. All right, tell us. We approve.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion of the Senate concur with House Amendment 2, Senate Bill 150. Are there any no votes?

With a vote of 31 ayes, 1 no, 0 absent, 3 excused, that motion is adopted.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Yeah. The motion is the repassage of the Senate Bill 150. Are there any? No votes. Senators, Mr. Majority Leader and Mr. Minority Leader in Frizzell. Samora Wilson.

Benavidez, Baisley, Pelton B, Pelton R, Catlin, Carson, Bright, and Senadora Gonzalez. Any further no votes? With a vote of 19 I's, 13, no, zero, abstinence, three excused, Senate Bill 150 is repassed. Most sponsors. Mr. Schaffler, please read the title of Senate Bill 142. Senate Bill 142 by Senators Ball and Kip and Representatives Joseph and Gonzalez concerning the development of thermal energy resources.

Please tell us why. Thank you, Mr. President.

Are there any no votes? With a vote of 32i0, no, 0, absent, 3, excused, that motion is adopted.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I move for the repassage of Senate Bill 142.

Seeing the further discussion of the motion is the repassage of Senate Bill 142 as amended. Are there any no votes?

Senator Rich and Zamora Wilson and Baisley and Carson and Pelton R and Liston and Bright and Please do not add the president. With a vote of 25 eyes, 7 no, 0, 0, 0, 3, excuse, Senate Bill 142 is repassed. Post sponsors, Senator Bridges. Committee report.

Delivery to the governor. To the governor for signature on Tuesday, May 5, 2026 at 1140 a.m., Senate Bill 95, 101, 120, 124, 136, 137, 143, 158, 159. Message from the governor.

Announcements. Senator Mullica.

Happy birthday Commissioner

Thank you Mr. President I also came to the well to wish Senator Mullica's wife a very happy birthday Commissioner Mullica we appreciate you Actually, the Senate State Affairs Committee will be meeting today at 2 p.m. We will hear House Bill 1287, 1130, and then Senate Bills 108, 168, and 190. Thank you, Mr. President.

Senator Kipp.

Very good. Senator Bridges. Thank you, Mr. President. My wife's birthday is in November,

Excellent. Senator Henriksen.

Now that's how it's done.

Members, tomorrow, May 6th, please join the National Alliance on Mental Illness outside the old Supreme Court from 730 AM to 9 AM for bagels, pastries, coffee, juice, and conversation to mark tardive dyskinesia awareness week. Tardive dyskinesia is a movement disorder that causes a range of repetitive muscle movements in the face, neck, arms, and legs. It primarily occurs as an adverse effect associated with use of certain medications, including antipsychotics, medications for nausea and medications that treat Parkinson's disease. So tomorrow, Wednesday, May 6th morning, outside the old Supreme Court, they'll be there to raise awareness of tardive dyskinesia and to have food and coffee available for members to join the conversation.

Tony said five bucks. I think one dollar each because I can't afford it.

Thank you, Mr. President. Senate Business, Labor and Technology Committee will be meeting today in Senate Committee Room 352.

We will hear Senate Bill 189, 184, 185, 186, and House Bill 1139 and House Bill 1263.

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I've spoken to the minority leader and the majority leader and asked to be excused this Friday, May 8th. Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senate Appropriations will meet tomorrow morning. Oh, I'm sorry.

You still have time.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Senate Appropriations will be meeting tomorrow in LSBB, and that's Tuesday's calendar. We'll be meeting at 8 o'clock and we will hear the bills that are on the calendar.

Thank you.

thank you Mr. President thank you colleagues for the work today we will be recessing as we need to read bells across the desk there's no need to return on that Mr. President I move the Senate Recess until 1 p.m. today.

Thank you. .