Colorado Senate 2026 Legislative Day 104

The Senate will come to order. Mr. Schoffler, please call the roll.

Mr. President.

The morning roll call is 34 present, zero absent. One excused. We have a quorum.

Thank you, Mr. President. Let's do this. Everyone, please stand for the pledge. Let's do it. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Senator Lindstedt. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the Senate Journal of Friday, April 24, 2026, be approved as corrected by the Secretary.

Aye.

As the days whittle down and we rarely have opportunities like this I want everybody to sit here and recognize that we have an opportunity to proceed out of order for a rare moment of personal privilege. So Mr. Madam President I make that motion to proceed out of order for a moment of personal privilege. You have

The Senate of the Colorado Legislature convened in the second regular session of the 75th General Assembly hereby extends heartiest congratulations and commendation to Denver Summit FC The Colorado Senate proudly recognizes the Denver Summit FC, Colorado's first major professional women's sports team for their inaugural season and celebrate Denver Summit FC Day proclaimed on April 27, 2026 in Colorado. Denver Summit FC was officially awarded an expansion bid by the National Women's Soccer League on January 30, 2025. The league's 16th team began play at the start of the 2026 season. Denver Summit FC's first home match took place on March 28th, marking a new attendance record for any single NWSL National Women's Soccer League match with 63,004 fans at Empower Field at Mile High Stadium. The Denver Summit FC await their permanent home at the Santa Fe Yards dedicated to excellence in women's sports, which is expected to open in the spring of 2028. The Denver Summit FC earned its name and was created by the community for the community. The name Denver Summit FC speaks to our aspirational goals of the club and pioneering spirit to build the best soccer club in the world. Colorado wishes Denver Summit FC and women's professional sports continued success. On the request of Senator James Coleman, given this 27th day of April 26 at the state capitol in Denver, Colorado, signed by James Rashad Coleman, Sr., President of the Senate.

Do it. I will, but you'd already called my name, so.

Request a moment of personal privilege.

Request a moment of personal privilege.

Thank you, Madam President. Members, Denver is a sports-savvy city, and as one of the strongest youth soccer ecosystems in the country. Denver Summit FC came out of the gate with real momentum, and there is so much room to grow. In the next two years, we will see the opening of the Common Spirit Performance Center, Centennial Stadium, and then a permanent stadium at Santa Fe Yards for the 2028 season and beyond. Summit FC was deliberate about building this brand with the community. The club was born from a grassroots movement of Denver supporters who believed women's soccer belongs at the highest level in this city. And I would also say shout-out to my main man, Rob Cohen, because he predicted this. He's a prophet. And next up, we'll have a WNBA team here in Colorado. Those dreams continue to become reality every day, and that movement hasn't gone away. It's been named. The 14ers are the official supporter group of Denver Summit FC, and I even saw the player of the match plaque that they gave out was made from repurposed beetle kill wood. And we all love that.

Ask for a moment of privilege? I'm afraid, yeah, we have to keep doing that over and over.

It's okay. Ultimately, Denver Summit FC is not just a team. The club is contributing to a broader soccer and sports culture in this state Colorado is a true soccer state with over 63 organized youth players 2 adult players and over 3 refs according to the Colorado Soccer Association. There is real energy in the state of Colorado for soccer, moments like the Summit's inaugural home opener with record-breaking attendance of any domestic soccer game in history, and on the men's side, the second largest single game attendance record in Major League Soccer at the Colorado Rapids versus Inter-Miami on April 18th. Colorado isn't just engaged, Colorado is invested and showing up. Colorado kicks above its weight, with 21 active National Women's Soccer League players hailing from the centennial state, one of the highest totals of any state in the nation. Four Colorado natives are currently on Summit's roster, and they're here with us this morning. Janine Sonis of Highlands Ranch, Allie Brazier of Colorado Springs, Jordan Nytas of Aurora, and Meg Boat of Longtree. Additionally, another Colorado native will join the club in July. U.S. Women's National Team Captain Lindsay Heaps, a FIFA Women's Club Champion, and Olympic gold medalist. Lindsay is from Golden, Colorado, and I know on behalf of all of us at the state capitol, we are proud of each of you and your pursuit of excellence. Thank you for being here. Please welcome our guests.

Senator Danielson.

Senator Gonzales.

Granted.

Very good. Further moments of personal privilege.

Senator Lindstedt.

Ah, granted.

Welcome, welcome, welcome.

Grant leave JBC.

Thank you, colleagues. Pursuant to Senate Rule 21C, I move that the Senate grant leave to the Joint Budget Committee to meet in conference committees on working on the budget.

Aye.

No.

We love y'all.

Thank you, colleagues. Before we get into it, we'll be proceeding out of order to take up second readings. Senate Bill 160 will be removed from third reading consent calendar and placed before Senate Bill 135 on the third reading of bills. FYI. Thank you, Mr. President. I move the Senate proceed out of order for general orders. Second reading of bills consent calendar.

major

The motion is to proceed out of order for general order second reading of bills consent calendar. You've heard that motion. All those in favor say aye. Opposed no. The ayes have it and that motion

You have the motion. All those in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. The Senate resolve itself to the whole for consideration of general order, second reading of bills, consent calendar. Senator Wallace will take the chair.

will the clerk please read the title of the bill on general order second reading

majority leader Rodriguez thank you madam chair I move for the passage of the bill on second reading of bill's consent calendar and which is house bill 1318

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

Thank you, Mr. President. The committee has met and had a bill under consideration. Will the clerk please read the report?

Senator Wallace.

The motions to adopt can be the whole report. Are there any no votes? With a vote of 34 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent, 1 excuse, can be the whole report is adopted. House Bill 1318 is amended, passed the second reading order, revised, placed on the counter for third reading, and final passage. Majority of the robbery goes.

You've heard the motion. It is to proceed out of order for general orders, second reading of bills. All those in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. That motion is adopted. We'll proceed out of order. General orders, second reading of bills.

Opposed no the ayes have it and that motion is adopted the Senate will resolve itself into the committee of the whole for consideration of general orders second reading of bills and Senator Wallace will take the chair The committee will come to order and the coat rule is relaxed.

The motion is to lay over Senate Bill 134 to the bottom of the calendar. All those in favor, please say aye.

Opposed, no. The ayes have it and the bill will be laid over.

The motion is to lay over Senate Bill 68 until Friday, May 1st. All those in favor, please say aye.

Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill will be laid over.

The motion is to proceed out of order to take up Senate Bill 131. All those in favor, please say aye.

Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the Senate will proceed out of order.

and sports betting senator pelton thank you madam chair i move senate bill 131 in the finance

So we just made sure to take that language out.

Aye.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In the appropriations committee, we removed the provision in the bill that would have banned proposition bets. Those are the bets that are not on the outcome of a game but on an individual athlete's performance. That was removed from the bill in appropriations. That also reduced the fiscal impact of the bill, and I ask for an aye vote.

Aye.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank all the people who've worked so hard on this bill because it's a broad coalition that's been behind us, and I want to thank my co-prime sponsor as well. colleagues when Colorado legalized online sports betting back in 2019 what we legalized is a lot different from what we have now the first bet that was placed on an online sports betting platform I believe was Alec Garnett who placed a bet on the Broncos to win and that's what sports betting had looked like for a very long time but that's not what the apps that do online sports betting look like now. They have really evolved into a casino in your pocket, and most people can handle that well. They can create a budget for themselves. They can handle that responsibly, but some people can't, and for the folks who can't, the impact of a gambling addiction can be really, really remarkable and very negative. Gambling addiction is different from a lot of other addictions because it's very easy to hide. And so what happens is people hide an addiction while they become more in debt and more in debt and more in debt. And by the time they have to come forward and admit they have a problem, it's frequently too late. And for that reason, gambling addiction has a very, very high correlation with suicide. One in five people with a gambling addiction actually attempt suicide. Half of individuals with a gambling addiction, at least consider it. And I think we need to grapple with that. We need to grapple with the impacts of that on public health as a society. Like we do with cannabis, like we do with alcohol, like we do with cigarettes. It's a balance because we don't want to impact people who don't have a problem and are betting on sports legitimately and can manage themselves. But we do need to do something to protect people who are vulnerable. And that includes kids. 40 to 60 percent of high school kids report placing a bet on sports in the last year, even though it's illegal for anybody under 21. So this bill is a really important step towards that goal of trying to get our hands around this emerging problem. Everybody's seen it. The average sports fan now sees a mention of a sports book once every 13 seconds while you're watching a game. And we're really proud of what's in the bill, and we have a couple of amendments to bring here today that put this bill in a good place. So on that note.

Will the clerk please read the amendment number nine Amendment L amend the bill page 7 line 16 strike requirements of prohibitions and substitute prohibitions Senator Ball Thank you Madam Chair

Further discussion? Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of Amendment L9. 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 No. 14?

Report. Senator Ball. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Amendment L14.

To L14, Senator Ball. Thank you, Madam Chair. L-14 comes at the request of, I believe we already moved it. I'll move it again. I move L-14.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

L14 came to us from the professional sports leagues who wanted to change some of the language around how they can make reports to the Division of Gaming about activity on sports betting platforms. Ask for an aye vote.

Aye.

Will the clerk please read amendment L9? Amendment L9, amendment printed bill page 7, line 16.

Further discussion? Senator Sullivan.

Senator Ball.

Further discussion? Okay, to clarify, we have already discussed Amendment L-9. We are just going back to ensure that we have moved it, which we have now done, so now we will vote on the adoption of L-9. 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 No. 15?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Amendment L15.

Senator Ball. Thank you, Madam Chair. Amendment L15 makes some small wording changes that came at the request of the industry to clarify what a 24-hour time period means and to clean up some of the language around push notifications. It also changes the threshold for the deposit limit from 5 to 6, and I ask for an aye vote.

Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess we could talk about it now. I was going to talk about it in the context of the bill. There's already online you have the ability to shut off your ability to gamble during a particular point in the day. You can shut your entire app off for several days. You also have the ability to make sure that you don't make any more deposits on that day. The people who are using these apps already have this ability to do. I think something like this is redundant for what is actually on the apps and that the people are doing. And again, I mean, I just question what the reasoning is for something like this and that I believe that this is already being used. And so I would be a no on this.

Senator Ball. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you again to the good Senator from Centennial for those questions. The key difference is really important, which is that those are optional tools. and this is something that is not optional. And we know that when you rely solely on the willpower of someone who has an addiction, whether it's an addiction to drugs and alcohol or an addiction to gambling, frequently that's not enough. So six is a very high number deposits. There's no limit on the amount you can deposit or the amount you can bet, but this will have an important impact on people who are chasing losses, making frequent deposits because they don't have the ability to control themselves.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I don't know if anybody's actually been with a group of people while we are watching sporting events and placing our bets. There is nobody that believes that they have to put $100 into an account to turn that into the next big. They believe they can do it with $10, okay? I mean, and we hear those stories. Someone will tell you, I started the day with $10, and I've got $2,000 as I'm walking away from the sports book. That's what they do. Plus, you're sitting there with a bunch of pals or family members, and all of a sudden somebody else gets a hot tip, or you see that the rain is really coming down, or the snow is falling consistently during an AFC championship game. and it is so easy to continue to hammer that under on that game as every time there's a timeout and you had the ability to do that and you just keep adding more money to your account. And this in relationship to problem gamblers, they've already got the other spaces to go. They already have multiple locations in which they're placing their bets. This is the same thing with alcoholics. You pull all of the liquor out of the liquor cabinet, and they've got a bottle stashed in four other places in the house. That's how it works. But that's not who this is impacting. This is impacting the guys and the women who are sitting there trying to have a good time legally, by legislation that they passed, that they voted for several years ago, and have the ability to go either to these places in person or to do it online with their pals in the comfort of their own home.

Aye.

No.

Amendment L16, amendment printed bill, page four lines.

To the amendment, Senator Ball.

Senator Pelton.

Further discussion, Senator Marchman.

Senator Ball.

Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of L16. All those in favor, please say aye.

Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. to further discussion

I don't know where the money is going to come from that's going to be impacting our water here. But again, I heard the opening comments there that this maybe isn't what the people voted on. And I certainly can tell you, and I've talked to several people, when Las Vegas was first built, those casinos were bungalows. They were just one level, small, ranch style types of casinos. And then in the early 60s, there was a guy in Reno who was taking sports bets and decided and came up with the idea of this. Well, hey, if you're so smart that you can pick one winner on a Sunday afternoon, I'll give you more money if you can pick two. And thus, the parlay started. And once the parlay started, you know what happened to those casinos? They started putting in towers. They started putting in pools outside. They started making bigger ballrooms because those are sucker bets. But occasionally they do come in and that's what people like. Now we have moved to the point where the leagues are doing nothing but promoting their players. They're promoting the individuals. Again, if you have been to one of the Colorado sportsbooks on a Sunday morning, getting your bets all in. Those people that are there, they couldn't care less about who's going to win the game or lose the game. What they care about is how many yards they're going to throw, how many yards they're going to run for, who's going to score the first touchdown, who's going to score the last touchdown. And they sit there and they bet all of those because that's what they know is the player. I mean, we had the women here from the soccer league, and the president talked about us maybe getting a WNBA team. Yeah, they're just waiting to figure out how they can get people to be able to bet on Caitlin Clark. Because she's the one that they all know. They got no idea that she plays for the Indiana Fever and how her team is doing But they like her and they want to bet on her And this type of legislation that we moving forward is the stuff that's going to do away with that ability, the enjoyment that these people, the way that they're selling these sports to us. It's all about selling jerseys with names on the back. That's what it's all about and that's what the people know and that's who their favorite player is. That's how they want to move forward. And they just want to have some fun with it and enjoy what is happening with their favorite players and occasionally their favorite teams. Yeah, we're clearly not doing enough for problem gamblers. Again, they are finding their ways. You do away with this. They're already online with somebody else. they're already I mean I think we've got another bill we're going to be bringing forward and talk about that here in a little bit or later today there's illegal games going on and for the life of me I've never understood why someone would go in there and and put your confidence that you know Vinnie in the back is the one who's going to have the money to pay you off whereas you go into the casino and it's, you know, MGM Grand and they're listed on the stock exchange. You know where your money's coming from when you bet with those guys. Not that you have any better chance of winning, but at least you know where you can find them should you need to collect on a bet. So I'm glad they made the changes that they did. all the sports bettors that I have seen on Sunday mornings and Saturday afternoons and that they really enjoy the props. That's the move that we've been taking. That's what the people I think of this state voted for. And so now with the changes, I think I'm okay with this, but please be aware. There's a Racino that they are advertising that's in Nebraska. That's a casino that has horse racing. It's right there. There's one in Wyoming. And right now from my house, it's about an hour and 20 minutes to get up to Blackhawk. So it's another 40 minutes in the car to get across the border, to go somewhere where I can continue to do this gambling and And as a matter of fact, I have an $86 one-way ticket to Las Vegas that all of this stuff is available to me. So I don't even have to spend any of my money here in the state as long as they continue to make these kinds of moves. So thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Minority Leader.

Further discussion? Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of Senate Bill 131. All those in favor, please say aye.

Opposed, no.

The ayes have it, and the bill is adopted. Mr. Senatorial 5. Mr. Majority Leader. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the Senate

Senate Bill 166. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the Senate will proceed out of order. Will the clerk please read the title to Senate Bill 166. Senate Bill 166 by Senators Benavidez and Kipp and Representative Goldstein concerning school board member disqualifying convictions. To the bill, Senator Benavidez.

to the committee reports. In committee we passed an amendment that added a small change that if anyone was convicted of the additional crimes identified in the bill if they had fully completed their sentence and 10 years had passed then they were eligible to run for school board Further discussion? Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of the Education Committee report. All those in favor, please say aye.

Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the report is adopted. To the bill, Senator Benavides.

Senator Kipp.

FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, THE MOTION IS THE ADOPTION OF SENATE BILL 166. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. OPPOSED, NO. THE AYES HAVE IT AND THE BILL IS ADOPTED. MAJORITY LEADER ROGRIGUEZ. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I MOVE THE SENATE PROCEEDED OUT OF ORDER TO TAKE UP SENATE BILL 142. THE MOTION IS TO PROCEED OUT OF ORDER TO TAKE UP SENATE BILL 142. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. Opposed, no. The ayes have it and the Senate will proceed out of order. Will the clerk please read the title to Senate Bill 142? Senate Bill 142 by Senator Ball and Representative Joseph Gonzalez concerning the development of thermal energy resources. Senator Ball.

To the committee report, Senator Ball.

Further discussion on the committee report Seeing none the motion is the adoption of the Transportation and Energy 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 Ball Thank you, Madam Chair.

Senator Kipp.

Further discussion? Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of Senate Bill 142. All those in favor, please say aye.

Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill is adopted. Majority Leader Rodriguez.

The ayes have it, and the Senate will proceed out of order. Will the clerk please read the title to Senate Bill 134? Senate Bill 134 by Senators Lindstedt and Judah and Representatives Durand and McCluskey concerning the imposition of fees by payment card networks. Senator Lindstedt.

To the bill, Senator Lindstedt.

Senator Joda. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I just wanted to clarify a few misconceptions about this bill, which I think have been fair and actually good questions. The first is that it's too complicated and the system cannot separate sales tax from the transactions. So So to be clear, 134 only prohibits the collection of this interchange fee as my co-prime had explained. So it's the interchange fee on the tax portion of the transaction. Sales tax data can already be transmitted through existing credit card systems using what they call type 2 data. In fact, one of the largest payment processors in the country actively encourages merchants to transmit type 2 data because it improves fraud protection and reduces processing costs. Card networks themselves already package and sell this same data back to merchants as a value-added service. This argument is really... every time a change is proposed to the payment system. Each time banks and credit card companies find a way to comply, they can comply with 134 as well. So on that note, which again I think is a very valid question, is the logistics and implementation of this bill. So calculating interchange fees at the point of sale is only one compliance option under 134. If a merchant system cannot separate tax data at checkout, the law allows other compliance methods, including networks, eliminating percentage-based fees on taxes, or merchants requesting refunds for taxes, including in fees. So otherwise, SB 34 does not require the purchase of any new hardware or systems. I also want to clarify that a recent federal rule does not prohibit states from passing laws like this. The Office of the Comptroller of Currency, or OCC, a federal agency historically friendly to banks and credit card companies, recently issued a final rule reviving the same federal preemption arguments used in the Illinois lawsuit. However, in that case, the federal judge ruled that the National Banking Act does not preempt states from regulating credit card networks. Additionally, the OCC rule creates uncertainty rather than clarity. While it claims national banks may not need to comply with the Illinois law, it does not address whether card networks or other payment systems participate must comply. So SB 134 is narrowly targeted at credit card networks and their ability to charge interchange fees on taxes collected. As such, the federal rule does not affect SB 134. Next, this bill would enforce customers to pay sales tax in cash. SB 34, that is the misconception, I want to be clear. SB 34 provides multiple compliance options and networks already separate out of tax portions on current transactions. So it will not force customers to pay sales tax with cash. While systems are already capable of including taxes and percentage-based fees, that is only one method. So alternatively, networks could shift to a flat fee structure rather than a percentage-based fee, or merchants could require reimbursement for fees charged on taxes. So the claim is nothing more than a fear-based rhetoric aimed at cardholders. Another big and very unfortunate misconception is that this bill will harm community banks and reduce lending in local communities. As my co-prime said, 134 explicitly exempts credit unions and reduces lending to local communities. I'm sorry. It exempts credit unions in any financial institution with less than $60 billion in assets. So again the exemption includes every Colorado chartered bank and credit union So the language was added after three weeks of direct collaboration with community banks and credit unions and reflects these provisions as they specifically were requested SB 34 is narrowly focused on the large credit card networks and applies only to card issued by the top 1% of banks globally. which account for more than 80% of all credit card transactions. Finally, I want to address the fear of fraud and losing of reward programs, which is a big deal and it's a fair concern. Rewards are not tied to taxes in any meaningful way. Points are earned on the total spend, not on the tax portion. Reward programs are optional pricing tools, while fraud protection is a basic requirement, and the two should not be conflated. Banks already spread costs like risk and fraud across their entire portfolio, not transaction by transaction. This bill will remove these fees on tax portions a small slice, while banks still collect interchange on the full pre-tax purchase and tips. If rewards change, that's a margin decision, not a structural necessity. Banks can easily adjust pricing across millions of transactions as they already do. And in other markets with lower interchange, rewards and fraud protection still exists. So, members, at its core, it's a fairness issue. Merchants and consumers are paying fees on money that never belong to the business, which is hard to justify. And I kindly ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. L-29 is a pretty simple amendment. It extends the effective date to January 1, 2028. You know, we've heard a lot of concern from folks about the technical specifics of this bill and the capabilities of folks to follow this law. I think a year and a half is a long time. And I think some of the largest technology companies in the world can make this work within a year and a half. So it will give them a year and a half to comply with this law so that they stop skimming profits off of sales tax dollars. I ask for an aye vote.

Aye.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I MOVE AMENDMENT L-31.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. L-31 IS A PRETTY SIMPLE AMENDMENT THAT CLARIFIES THAT REVENUE RAISED BY LARGE EMPLOYERS IN THE STATE AND THE SAVINGS THEY MAKE ON BEHALF OF THIS CHANGE GOES TO REDUCING COSTS FOR CONSUMERS AND PAYING EMPLOYEES. It makes it very clear that this bill will go to the benefit of Colorado's consumers and the employees who work at these businesses. I ask for an aye vote.

Certainly with the wage theft that these large corporations take with their employees and even with the smaller, small businesses, how the small businesses also seal wages, that this portion right here is going to make it so that this 3% that they are being saved, they're going to take that money and direct it back to employee benefits and wages. And I'm not sure, I appreciate that, but where are we going to make sure that they're still not stealing people's wages or making people come into work at 6 and then not allowing them to clock in until 8? Where is that going to work out in this?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Minority Leader. Thank you, Madam Chair and sponsors. So, this is brand new to me. So, amendment for the 26-27 state fiscal year and each state fiscal year thereafter. A retail business that has more than 500 employees statewide. I'm curious how that determination is made. Who or how do you figure out who this is applicable to? 500 employees statewide on the effective date of this section. So only when on that date or is it subject to an annual review that has more than 500 employees statewide on the effective date of this section shall apply any savings resulting from this section. So the savings they see are not paying the swipe fee on the sales tax portion of their sales to reducing prices for consumers or investing in employee wages or benefits. I'm not sure how, where's the verification process to figure out that these vendors are applying. So the question is, it's just those employees, those businesses with 500 employees on the effective date of this section only, and then how do we do verification?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the amendment is pretty clear. I do sincerely appreciate my colleagues for working with me on this language and on this amendment to protect Colorado's employees at these businesses and to lower the cost of goods for consumers. What the amendment does is clarifies that savings that larger employees receive from not paying money on sales taxes that were never theirs, that large financial institutions have been skimming off of them, go to consumers by reducing prices or by investing in our employees. And I'm not here to defend some of the claims we heard about earlier on large employers, but this is a way for money to go to employees to help make sure that they can afford to live in our state. So it a pretty clear line in the sand that those savings have to go to employees and go to lower prices for consumers who I know are struggling in our current economy I ask for an aye vote Further discussion on L31 Senator Bright

You know, I've been watching this bill carefully, and this particular amendment touches a space that I think a lot of Coloradoans are affected by. The price of child care, the wages that child care employees get. I don't have 500 employees. I have about 160. but I compete with other child care companies that do have in excess of 500 employees and so you're saying that with this amendment if my company were to achieve savings on this I wouldn't have to plow that into staff wages but my competitor would have to so I'm trying to decide does this start to create a divide in competitiveness I can tell you that my company pays over $10,000 a month. That's $120,000 a year in swipe fees. That all goes to or gets passed along to the customers. That's a cost of doing business. Those customers show up. They use a credit card to pay. They want to get the miles for their child care. It's a significant expense. Earn a lot of miles on a child care expense, obviously. If you're paying your mortgage with it, you'd probably do that too. Just wondering if this is going to start to create a disparity on employers and their ability to price their products and or pay their staff based on this. I saw within the Department of Veriliged Childhood over the course of the last couple of years, they implemented a program where they artificially pumped in dollars to pay for child care staff at 20 facilities in the state of Colorado. Out of 4,500 facilities, they pumped it into 20 and created a wage disparity with that company versus all the rest of them. So the employees of that particular location earned $2 an hour more. and yet all the other providers around town were held the same because it didn't have that artificial governmental input put into it. And so I'm just trying to decide, like, is this fair? Is this fair for everybody else? I understand we're making carve-outs. I understand that a lot of folks are exempted from this bill, and I'll be speaking more to that later,

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think, you know, specifically to my colleague from Platteville, I would say in his specific instance, I don't believe the child care centers do pay sales tax, so they effectively would not be caught up in this. I did, however, want to address the concern about wage theft, which I think is... is very fair. If retailers are going to benefit, there's a clear expectation that workers and consumers benefit too. And so what we want to do here is make sure that, to my colleague's point, they are not having to work 12-hour days in these larger employers or big-box stores simply to make a wage and not have to deal with wage theft. So I want to thank my colleague from Centennial that, you know, we share the same concern, but that was the whole point of the amendment was to make sure that these savings are in fact passed along to the employee and to the prices. So I think it's a good amendment on that front.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just, this amendment brings so many questions to my mind that, gosh, just trying to process. I think that it is admirable, say, if you are Walmart, for example, and you are saving a whole lot of money, if you're Walmart, or Home Depot or any of these big box retailers, and you are achieving a good chunk of change in savings on your interchange fees, and you are going to, you are required now, assuming this amendment passes, you are required by law to apply any savings resulting from this section to reducing prices for consumers or investing in employee wages or benefits. Okay. How do you know? How do you know that Walmart is using their savings for these particular items? because, oh, by the way, it does say shall. You shall apply any savings. How are we tracking that? Who's tracking that? Are we just going on trust? To my good colleague from Platteville's point, Say you're Walmart, and you apply all your savings towards investing in employee wages. Great. So say you are a Walmart employee, and you're making now, I don't know, $2 more than some other retailer with fewer employees, that does create wage discrepancies That does affect the wage market So while true in child care services I guessing sales tax isn paid this is actually a real application of what my good colleague from Platteville was talking about. so my question is my question to the bill sponsors is who is paying attention to this who's tracking it who's making sure that those retailers those businesses big businesses are actually applying the savings that's my question

Thanks, Madam Chair. Members, not my bill, although I did decide to support it this year and put my name on the front. But just to the point we're talking about here, what is a small business? Why 500? The U.S. Small Business Administration defines as a small business companies with fewer than 500 employees. They go on to say that that is 99.9% of all businesses that exist at all in the country. We commonly, and I think appropriately, talk down here about the unique challenges facing small businesses. They can't necessarily get the same economies of scale. They may not have the same bargaining power. They can't necessarily develop the same bespoke algorithms, you know, to try to gain market advantage over their customers that big businesses can and do. So here we have an amendment that proposes, frankly, some flexibility, some concession allowed to the 99.9% of businesses that are small businesses by not placing a requirement on them and instead having a requirement only on the biggest of the big, I guess, on the judgment that, you know, they can most bear it. So it is strange that we're now arguing against an amendment that tries to help small businesses when often we're doing the opposite of that down here. So for what it's worth and narrowly to that point, I do support the amendment. I think we all should.

That's it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess the bill's pretty close to perfect now. Just wanted to talk again for a minute about the government getting in the middle of creating disparities between businesses. Doesn't matter how many employees they have, they still sell the same widget. And now we have a disparity between this company and that company based on the number of employees they have. Obviously, I'm here to champion small business. I'm here to champion large business. I here to champion U consumerism and all of the equality that goes into that with regard to market pricing I heard some points made that the credit card companies are definitely sophisticated enough to separate sales tax and not charge an interchange fee on it. And I know they are. I never argued that point at all. I think they're incredibly sophisticated. likely even more sophisticated than the Colorado legislature. I don't know. Just guessing. And if they can figure out how to separate sales tax for the purpose of charging a fee, then they can sure as heck figure out how to shift the costs of their programs to other people who pay credit card fees, like child care. when you start exempting some things and credit card companies have to shift their policy they're going to do it they are sophisticated enough to do that and they will shift it to other areas that aren't as people that just won't scream as much you've got an amendment here because you've got big companies small businesses lobby efforts that are screaming saying hey we don't want to be a part of this we want to be carved out of this who does that leave? that leaves everybody else who can't afford to argue their point down here and I guess I'm here for them I would argue that the small businesses of restaurants that I heard from, that this would be a lifeline, this would be a lifesaver. It would save them $700 to $800 a year, et cetera. And as I look at the incredibly deeply regulated environment that we've created, that we're continuing to run businesses out of the state for. I've got a long list of policies that have come from the Colorado legislature over the last five years that have done the same thing, and yet here we go putting on another layer, another layer of disparity, another layer of compliance, another layer of what can we do to make it more difficult to do business here, whether you're a large employer or a small employer, whether you sell lots of widgets or whether you sell a few widgets. I can't agree with a policy that encourages disparity in the things and the products that we purchase and use on a daily basis. So I'm here standing up for the consumers of Colorado, because I believe that there's a whole lot of them that are going to be left out of this conversation who will be paying more as a result of this, because we're trying to outsmart credit card companies. Guarantee that's not going to happen. So I do not rise in support of this bill. Would encourage a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I assuming that we done with the amendments on this So we are speaking to the bill We are on the bill Thank you Thank you Madam Chair So this has been an incredibly difficult conversation for me personally to have. I've been having this conversation with opponents and proponents since October of last year. And again, this is one of those pieces of legislation where you can agree with 93.4% of everything that's in there, but there's something in there that just doesn't work, and you're trying to figure that part out. Of course, it is outrageous that you're able to take fees off of sales tax and other fees that are associated with it. And the company or the small business or something, they're not getting everything. They're only getting 97%. I mean, and again, I've talked to a couple of people, and I guess there are some old people here, but I recall living in a society in which we had to pay cash for everything. I recall a time when a checking account became a big deal and we used to walk around with checkbooks. And then there was companies that, because of course the checks weren't good and you had to call in and they had to pay a fee and you had to work that stuff out. and then as a GI and again probably none of you have ever heard of this and again this was in a mall and I've heard from most of you that you don't have any malls in your district but there's a mall outside of every US Air Force base in the country and when I was in the service during Vietnam there was a The Montgomery Wards were in all of those. And as a GI, we would go there to get our first credit card to establish. That's what we were told as 18, 19-year-olds. We were told you need to establish your credit. And so we would go there and get our Montgomery Wards credit card and get a $200 limit. and then we could purchase a shirt or a pair of pants or something, and that's what we would do. And what really gets me on this, I mean, this is a monster that was created by these big companies. I mean, if we're going to talk about Walmart, I mean, they're one of the largest retailers on the planet, and everybody is going there, they can set the rules for you to come in. If they want to tell you, you've got to bring cash, you've got to bring a check, or you need to have the Walmart credit card to make any purchases in here, they can do that. And when they did that, they figured, found out, you know what, it's cheaper for me to have somebody else do this, because then I don't have to have an entire credit department. I don't have to have people going out and collecting for people that aren't paying their credit cards. It's cheaper for me to have somebody else do that, and then that caused Visa, MasterCard, Discover. Again, I recall Discover was when they first came on board. They were the first one that gave you cash back. Now they're all doing that. They're giving you something for using it. So just an incredibly difficult thing. And you don't have to take my word for it that there's wage theft going on. All you need to do is read the newspaper, watching newscast. Walmart recently, and this was within a couple of days of one another, $110 million they were fined, had to pay back for wage theft they were stealing, and then another additional $10 million for them to accentuate that and to work that through. A small restaurant, sushi restaurant here in the metro area where we're having underage workers working there and making that maneuver where, yeah, come in at 6, but you don't get the clock in until 8. Or we close at 7, you need to stay until 9 to clean up, or you don't have a job, and that stuff happens. And, I mean, you don't have to take my word for it. It's in the paper. That's what it is. And so that's, you know, part of what 31 was. That was the conversation that I had with them. So we need to make sure that, okay, if you're going to get that 3% back, what are you going to do with it? You're going to kick it back to the employees. You're going to make sure they get what they are doing and getting properly paid. Make them have safer work areas. I'm just getting notifications that that really isn't working out. That's not going to transpire with a couple of the large employers like I was told. And when you're asking how are we going to make sure that this is happening, I was told I had to do it. They told me that I need to keep an eye on this. I don't have enough going on, but now I've got to check to see if Walmart and Target or the local diner is ripping off their employees by not paying them enough. That's what I was told. You need to do it. So, I mean, there's no enforcement in this. We're hopeful that they are. will be back here again if they continue to steal from their employees, if they continue to do what they have been doing in the past. And it's a part of, again, this is a part of their business plan. Their business plan, their way to be successful is to rip off my employees, to me to do this with less that's what's happening and we'll be on the lookout for them apparently I have another job to do to follow up on this but the difficulty of this I gotten reassurances we hear if there any more changes moving forward on this But again thank you Madam Chair

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, rising to just address this bill and talk a little bit about the disparities. A point that I didn't mention last time I was up was the banks and which of these banks will be treated differently. It was a question that I had as I was hearing the bill. Apparently some banks it applies to, some banks it doesn't apply to. That's been a moving target throughout this whole conversation. And again, like if you're a Coloradoan and you bank at a bank and all of a sudden one bank has the exemption and the other one doesn't, then there's disparity. did some quick research and found that, and maybe you bank here, maybe you know a friend that banks here, Navy Federal Credit Union, State Employees Credit Union, Goldman Sachs, Truist, BNY Mellon, State Street Bank and Trust, First Citizens Bank and Trust, M&T Bank, Ally Bank, Northern Trust Company, Regions Bank, USB Bank, UBS Bank, Western Alliance Bank, First Horizon Bank, America, East West, Columbia, CIBC, and Synovus. If your bank was listed on there, you're treated differently than if your bank was not listed on there. We've just created a disparity between those banks and everybody else. This is what happens when the government gets in the middle of business. And it doesn't create the fairness that we're looking for. And we can create as many exemptions as we want to. I can come up here and argue for my company to be exempted, but what does that do for everybody else? I think we're being arbitrary with this policy. I understand the motivation behind it, but I think it's just too arbitrary, and it definitely picks winners and losers in the market, and all of a sudden there will be disparity between outlets, banks, and product providers. So you know where I'm at on this bill. Hopefully we'll get there.

Thank you, Madam Chair. To the bill's sponsors, now that amendment, was it 29? The enforcement, I'm sorry, the 31. Thank you. Now that amendment 31 has been adopted, I am curious how that changes what the estimate around cost savings is likely to be to then better understand how much money are we talking about to actually then go and to the good senator from Centennial point ensure that workers who may be suffering from wage theft and other abuses are made whole Help us understand what the scale of those cost savings are meant to be. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to address the question. You know, what Amendment 31 did is it puts the burden directly on retailers, and it makes it very clear in plain law that savings from this measure that the largest retailers in the state make have to use it to lower prices or to benefit employees. It makes it so these savings don't just end up on a balance sheet, don't just end up in some quarterly profit for the largest retailers in the state. It ensures that those savings go back to community and by lowering prices and benefiting workers. I also just want to hit on the fact that this bill applies to 80% of credit cards. Those 80% of credit cards are issued by banks with over $60 billion in assets, and the savings expected in the state of Colorado are $218 million that these largest financial institutions have skimmed off of our Tabor-approved taxpayer dollars. So it's not a small amount of money. It's a large amount of money that small businesses could use now to stay afloat and that workers at large retailers can use now to be paid a higher salary or have better benefits packages. I think it's a straightforward compromise that will benefit Colorado instead of the largest financial institutions in the world.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to reiterate that our bill certainly does not try to rewrite labor laws, but it does something practical by creating clear policy that savings should in fact flow to workers. And so we wanted to make sure that, one, we're protecting the workers, and two, that they're not getting abused from the employer to the employee. I will also say that, you know, when we are exempting small banks, again, with the threshold of $60 billion, there is only one credit union that meets that requirement, and that is Navy Federal Credit Union, I believe. One call that I got when we were talking about exempting credit unions was that we don't know if we do this, we won't be able to continue our community programs and continue to do these things. And I explained to them, you are exempt from the bill. You will continue to be able to support that local football team, to support that local financial education program. you will continue to do this because we recognize the importance of what it is that these community banks and credit unions provide to our community. I will say that this amendment was not received well, but we still decided to put it in the bill because we wanted to make sure that we were protecting these community banks and credit unions.

Thank you.

No.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So on the heels of adopting Amendment 31, and I'm going to read Amendment 31 again for the chamber's benefit, it for the 26-27 state fiscal year and each state fiscal year thereafter, a retail business that has more than 500 employees statewide on the effective date of this section. So we've had conversations with the sponsors about this is just a one measure at one time. We measure employees statewide on the effective date. Then those folks that have more than 500 shall apply any savings resulting from this section to reduce prices for consumers or invest in employee wages or benefits. So good conversation about I'm not quite sure where enforceability and compliance comes into play into these calculations, both that one-time measure. We're going to measure this one time of the number of employees statewide. So I have some potential considerations for the sponsor.

Amendment L35, Amendment Bill, page 9, after line 23.

Senator Lundstedt.

Senator Fazel.

Mr. Minority Leader.

Further discussion on Amendment L35? Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of L35. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The no's have it, and the amendment is lost. Mr. Minority Leader.

Will the clerk please read Amendment No. 34?

Mr. Minority Leader. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L34. To the amendment, sorry. So this amendment, again, is really trying to get at the crux of where this change in the bill is, where it's applicable to, who has to apply the savings from this policy towards reducing prices for consumers or investing in employee wages or benefits. So the amendment's pretty short, again, for the purposes of subsection 7 of this section, the Department of Labor and Employment shall conduct an audit of each major retail employer in the state to determine which retail businesses satisfy the description in subsection 7 of this section. Again, just an effort to figure out and know who is this applicable to and ask for your support for Amendment L34.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise in support of Amendment L34 to Senate Bill 134. To me, the question of – it's a simple question. If you've got companies that are required to take their savings and apply them to wages, staff wages, how are you going to follow up with that? Like what's the mechanism? Walk me through the logistics of what that looks like. How do you enforce, as a state of Colorado, without being a nanny state, how do you enforce that the savings are applied to wages? What does that look like? And this amendment, L34, helps answer that question because, man, if we're going to pass a law and we're going to require the savings be passed on in the form of wages, then we better follow up with it. Otherwise, our companies that are subject to this policy probably will abuse it. and we'll be back here at the well sometime down the road creating a new law to address the disparity that we've just created. So I rise in support of L-34 to Senate Bill 134.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to reiterate that the Department of Revenue, the Attorney General, no one is asking for this amendment. The plain language in L-31 makes sense. make sense. I think there are some amendments we can take to clarify some of the business descriptors, but no one is asking for an audit of every large retail business in the state. So I think that goes too far and is unnecessary for the enforcement of this measure. I ask

Aye. Opposed, no.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I've shared this amendment with the sponsors and we'll get their perspective in a minute, but oops, maybe I should do this first. There is an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please read Amendment No. 33?

Mr Minority Leader Thank you Madam Chair I move L33 Thank you To the amendment sir So I trying to think about again this all ties in back to Amendment L31 where businesses with more than 500 employees only on the effective date when this section then applies, then savings from this effort have to go to reducing prices for consumers or investing in employee wages or benefits. So this then says for the purposes of subsection 7 of this section, the 500 employee threshold described in subsection 7 of this section is based on a retail business's parent company and not on a single location of the parent company. So it then pushes those savings for reducing prices for consumers and investing in employee wages or benefits more broadly, covers more businesses. If that's the direction we're going to go, let's make it impactful to saving people money in the state of Colorado and improving wages and benefits and ask for support of L33.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, we appreciate the amendment, and we happily accept this amendment. We ask for an aye vote.

Aye.

Thank you, Madam Chair. What a great discussion. I love well-debated policy because it just ensures that we're all governed by the best of laws when we can debate in this way. There was mention about Navy Federal Credit Union and how this bill applies to them. And I just wanted to bring up that I believe, if my research is correct, that there are 218,000 Navy Federal Credit Union members in Colorado. And again, this bill, Senate Bill 134, treats them differently than everybody else. so again we're creating a disparity in the way that we treat coloradoans in the name of i don't know what um and so i i have still have serious questions about senate bill 134 its applicability and its net positive impact on coloradoans when we're squaring off 218,000 people in Colorado and treating them differently than everybody else. So again, I would encourage a Novot on 134.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I want to question just the general premise of the bill, and I might ask for a response by the sponsors in consideration of costs, because there seems to be a presumption that when there is mandated collection of taxes for the sake of the state, that there is no burden towards that. In fact we did have compensation to the retailers themselves for quite some time the retail vendor fee that they could collect a percentage of the withheld sales tax on transactions and that amount of money kept getting diminished until last year when it was taken out altogether by a bill from last year that actually went into effect January 1 of this year where retail vendors no longer are able to collect any or keep any of that sales tax revenue for themselves to cover their costs. But if the swipe fees, if it were only something for collecting sales tax alone and not the product or service fee in the first place, there would still be a burden. There's a couple of burdens. One is just maintaining and operating the service of the collection in the first place, just the rails as it's called, the Visa or MasterCard, Discovery, whatever. Rails, maintaining all of that, just the whole infrastructure of database, data centers, and internet connectivity, and so on, all the personnel behind all of that, that is a burden, that is a big cost in the first place. But also, there's a guarantee. When there is a swipe that takes place between a purchaser and the provider, there is a guarantee by the credit card company. by the transaction company guarantee of those funds, and that guarantee gets floated by somebody. There is a cash flow that takes place provided by the Visa or the MasterCard and so on. They are funding that transaction through their cash flow. That's part of their role is guaranteeing that transaction is good and that they will back it. And so it's not as if there is no cost. So my question to the sponsors of this, does it make sense that we deny a company that's providing the rails, providing the infrastructure, providing the cash flow guarantee? does it not make sense that they are allowed to cover their costs even though those costs are mandated by the state? I'm wondering where is the thinking in that? Do they believe that there is no cost? So that's my question to the sponsors.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, I appreciate the question. I will say this isn't a traditional business. Merchants who accept credit cards have no negotiating power. And I think in any kind of market-based system, you would expect negotiating power on behalf of merchants to help figure out what fees should be on their behalf. Not even the largest retailers in the country can negotiate with these networks for what a proper fee should be. In other parts of the world, you're seeing fees capped at very low numbers, and they're not facing these same problems. The situation we have here is that essentially a duopoly has price set, in my view, these fees on behalf of business to make money on the entire sales price, including the tax. I think that's immoral. I think we should regulate it on behalf of our small businesses for a service that is now a requirement to participate in the economy here. So, That's the impetus for the bill, and I appreciate the question.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, that being the case, I appreciate the response, but that being the case, rather than say there shall not be any fee charged, would it not make more sense to say that the fee charged shall be negotiable?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the premise of this bill is pretty straightforward, that people should not be skimming money off of the state's sales taxes, that these merchants have the liability and requirement to collect and remit to the state. That's the premise of the bill. I'd be happy to consider other legislation in the future about anti-competitive practices. I think those are fair questions, especially in this arena. But right now, this bill before us is about people skimming profits off of regressive sales tax dollars. So that's the bill before you today.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to get up one last time to talk about this bill. We did, of course, see similar legislation last year that included interchange fees on tips. So this bill is a bit scaled back compared to that. but also just looking at the difference in the banks, the types of banks that the legislation, the policy applies to, that's quite different. You know, we've heard that this type of effort has been going on in several states throughout our country, one of which most predominantly was Illinois. and that is still tied up in court and will be for some time. Regardless, policy like this is best made at the federal level. We're talking about banks of different sizes, state chartered banks versus federally chartered banks. This is complicated, and for states to individually create policy around interchange fees that affects some banks, not all, has impacts on businesses, some businesses, not all, that's just incredibly problematic. And I appreciate the bill sponsor's intention. I really do. This idea of having to pay fees on top of sales taxes collected is very challenging, and I get it. But I don't think that this is a state-by-state type of policy. This is something that really needs to be considered at a federal level. and as I understand it is being considered at a federal level I don't know how many of you go to businesses where and anymore you can pay a different rate for gas depending on whether you're buying with a credit card or not I go into businesses where they're like please can I just have cash or check Those are truly small businesses because they don like having to pay interchange fees There are other businesses who pass those fees along to the customer You have a certain rate if you pay with your credit card and a certain rate if you pay cash. That ability for businesses to recoup fees, interchange fees, already exists. It already exists. and many, many businesses are availing themselves of that ability. But I object to this, Bill, because I really feel like it causes, it creates state policy that treats citizens differently. It treats businesses differently. It treats banks differently. And I don't think that that's right. This is very complicated. Not that we're afraid of complicated. We do complicated in this building just fine. But this is really important. When we're talking about banking policy, it is complex, and we need to be very, very thoughtful about how we proceed. I think that everybody's fully aware. If enacted, there will be lawsuits. Just that's the way it is. I urge a no vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks to the sponsors for the engaged conversation and policy considerations today. I was going to really speak about what the Good Center from Castle Rock was highlighting, and I find great value in going into my restaurants, into my retail stores, and being able to make a choice. They tell me up front, they say, hey, if you're going to use your credit card, I've got to pay additional fees for that service, and are you willing as the consumer to foot some percentage of that, usually 3%. And I just appreciate, you know, it's the cost of business for them. Do they want to pass it on? If it's not embedded in the cost of either the food you're being served or what you're purchasing at a retail outlet, I think it already is, but they can highlight that for me and I can then make a choice. Do I want to pay cash for this opportunity or do I want to use my credit card? I find this policy pretty challenging in this space and would hope you would join me in opposition to this bill. We'll see how the rest of the day goes and probably third reading tomorrow or the next, or at least one day this week. The bill's been around again for quite a long time, so I'm happy we're ready to have the final, or have debate on this and see where we go from here. So thank you, Madam Chair.

Aye.

No.

Senatorial 5.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to lay over the balance of the calendar until Tuesday, April the 28th.

Aye.

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

Opposed, no.

Thank you. I think that's correct. Okay. We'll see that next. Special order. Pardon? So I got a question. Yes. Give two. Finally. I give two, I got one. I want to do this. I want to do this. Maybe Senator.

Mr. Schoffler, please add Senator Rich to the roll, and please excuse Senator Liston from the roll.

Thank you, Mr. President. The committee has met and had a number of bills under consideration. Will the clerk please read the report?

Thank you, Mr. President. I move the report.

Majority of the robbery, yes. Senatorial 5.

Thank you. Thank you. And we're back in the game.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move the Senate to take up special order second reading of bills, which is 1019 at the hour of 1239.

Opposed, no.

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.

Opposed, no.

Senator Wallace, take your chair.

HOUSE BILL 1019 BY REPRESENTATIVE LEADER AND BACON AND SENATORS ROBERTS AND RICH CONCERNING MANDATORY HEALTH CARE COVERAGE FOR PREVIOUS of kidney function screening services.

To the bill, Senator Rich. There is an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please read the amendment number L4?

Senator Roberts. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move amendment L4. To the amendment.

This is just a technical amendment. We received a request from DPA to modify the language in their section of the bill slightly, and that's what this amendment is. I ask for an aye vote.

Aye.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and we're pleased to bring you House Bill 1019 today. kidney disease is one of those conditions that can quietly change someone's life. A person can feel perfectly healthy, continue working, caring for their family, and then suddenly receive a diagnosis that means dialysis several days a week or having to put their name on a transplant list and hope for the best. For many families, that diagnosis doesn't just affect health. that affects their ability to work, their finances, their day-to-day life. It can mean time away from jobs, their family, and significant emotional strength. I know what this is like. I lost a kidney to cancer, and so, excuse me, this early screening is really important. I ask and I vote.

Aye.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the committee to rise and report.

Opposed, no.

Thank you.

Senator Wallace. Thank you, Mr. President. The committee has met and had a bill under consideration. Will the clerk please read the report?

Senator Wallace. Thank you, Mr. President. I move the report.

Consent calendar Mr. Schaffler please use the titles of all the bill of the bill on the consent calendar. Senate Bill 169 by Senators Roberts and Carson and Representatives Luck and Camacho Concerning the non revision of the Colorado revised statutes as amended and in connection therewith amending or repealing obsolete imperfect and inoperative law to preserve the legislative intent effect and meaning of the law

Thank you, Mr. President. I move with the passage of the bill on third reading of bill's final passage of the calendar, which is Senate Bill 169.

There we go. Senate Bill 169 is passed. Go sponsors. Oh, man. Come on, Roberts. Carson. Nobody wants any of this? Wow. Well, please add the president. Oh, and Senator Bridges. There we go. Yeah. Senator Bright. See? The dominoes start to fall. No? Senator Kirkmeyer. Frizzell.

your title of Senate Bill 116. Senate Bill 116 by Senators Weissman, Representative Zakai, concerning the taxation of property and in connection therewith modifying the qualified senior primary residence benefit and modifying the taxation of business personal property. Senator Weissman. Thank you, Mr. President. I move for the adoption of

Are there any aye votes, no votes? Senators, Mr. Minority Leader, Kirkmeyer, Frizzell, Zamora Wilson, Rich, Baisley, Catlin, Pelton R, Carson, Bright, Pelton B. with a vote of 23 ayes, 11, no, zero, absent, one, excuse, Senate Bill 116 is passed.

Mr. Schoffler, please read the title of House Bill 1008. House Bill 1008 by Representatives Lukens and Taggart and Senators Marchman and Rich concerning measures to enhance outdoor recreation opportunities in the state and in connection therewith, expanding the Division of Parks and Wildlife's capacity for outdoor recreation, coordination, planning, and management, and making an appropriation.

Senator Marchman.

The other Janice. The other one.

What? All right. Please, Senator Marchman, please tell us why you need a third amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. this just corrects a math error from an amendment that we added the other day. So we had a total appropriation We subtracted some stuff but we forgot to change that total appropriation so this fixes it Understood The motion is Senator Marchman request to offer a third reading amendment All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed no. The ayes have it and permission is granted. Here's the member of the desk. Mr. Schaffer, please read L12 to 1008. Amendment L12. Amend revised Bill page 18, strike lines 3 through 9 and substitute. March. Thank you, Mr. President. I move L 12 to the amendment. Great. So all this does is it removes the vehicle lease payments of 7,990 from the total appropriation, bringing it to a total of 436,025. And I'd ask for an aye vote. Further discussion, seeing none, the motions, the adoption of L-12 to 1008. Are there any no votes? With a vote of 34 I-0, no, 0, absent and 1, excused, L-12 to 1008 is adopted. To the bill, Senator Rich. Thank you, Mr. President. I renew my motion for the adoption of House Bill 1008 as amended on third reading and final passage and ask for an aye vote. That is a proper, proper motion. Senior for discussion of motion is the passage of House Bill 1008 as amended. Are there any? No votes. After all that, Senators Amora Wilson, Kirkmeyer, Wright, Pelton B, Carson, Baisley, Frizzell, with a vote of 27 I-700, absent one excused. House Bill 1008 is passed. co-sponsors. Senators Roberts, enthusiastically. Please add the president. Oh, and Senator Wallace. Any other co-sponsors on 1008? Judah. Mr. Schaffler, please read the title of House Bill 1009. House Bill 1009 by Representatives Durant and Gonzales and Senators Wallace and Pelton B concerning using a mandatory lethality assessment when responding to a domestic violence incident. Senator, that's right, Wallace. Thank you, Mr. President. I move House Bill 1009 on third reading and final passage. I've never seen one prime sponsor slap down the hand of another prime sponsor. There is further discussion. Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. President. I, of course, support this, but failing to recognize and acknowledge the tragedies from domestic violence, I think we're short-sighting what the real problem is. I will read off the eight children who were murdered by their father in Louisiana just last week. Jayla Elkins, age three. Shayla Elkins, age 5, Braylon Snow, age 5, Kayla Pugh, age 6, Keandra Snow, age 6, Layla Pugh, age 7, Markadon Pugh, age 10, and Sierra Snow, age 11. Those were the eight children that were murdered in a domestic violence complaint in Louisiana. According to the Violence Policy Center's analysis on 2022 homicide data, more than three women were killed by current or former husbands or boyfriends on average every single day The data here from the state of Colorado includes the fact that every year on average, 21 women are fatally shot by an intimate partner in Colorado. 71% of female intimate partner homicide victims are killed with a gun. That is above the national average. In the majority of these cases, the perpetrator wasn't a stranger. It was a parent. The data underscores the strong connection between mass shootings and domestic violence. Two-thirds of all mass shootings start with domestic violence. And that is, as we have defined here in the state of Colorado, the death of four or more, including the perpetrator. That defines a mass shooting, not just coming into schools, movie theaters, and that. Domestic violence doesn't make the headlines because it happens more frequently, as we've seen. This happens every single day in America. The breakdown of the shooters, how it's more family related, is 40.9% of victims are killed by a parent. 40.9% of victims are killed by their parent. 6.8% of them are killed by a classmate. We spend $4.8 billion every year in the United States fortifying our schools because of this perceived perception that this shooter is coming in and is going to kill our children. The reality is that individual is the one who tucks them in at night. That individual is the one that is sleeping right next to them. It's not some school classmate. It's not some stranger that you don't know. You know exactly who these people are. and we have become as a society to believe that it's somebody else and we're putting all of that money right there where it is can you imagine for just a moment where 4.9 billion dollars a year would go to stopping domestic violence to addressing what's happening in our own homes but we're not going to do that we're going to we're going to have a school finance bill coming forward here we're going to dump another million dollars into fortifying our schools and we're not going to do anything to address where our kids are actually being killed they're being killed in their own homes in their bedrooms in their beds That's where this is happening. To failure to acknowledge that by legislation like this is doing a disservice to our kids, to our families, to Coloradans. We need to do more. We can do more... It can't just be done on one side of the aisle. I see that there's somebody up here right now. I challenge them to stay with us and work on these types of problems so that we can save some lives. And one of the biggest problems we have in this state is domestic violence. Thank you for bringing this forward. members I know that this is a tough subject but I'm able to do is encourage us to not necessarily say one side of the aisle is maybe doing more than another but I would also encourage us to say what was said in part we need to figure out a way to do more in addition to what this bill does and I want to thank you Senator Sullivan for acknowledging the families who lost their lives and also making sure that we're focused on the broader issue thank Thank you. Further discussion on House Bill 1009? Seeing no further discussion in motion is the passage of House Bill 1009. Are there any no votes? Senators, Zamora Wilson, Baisley, with a vote of 32 ayes, 2 noes, 0 absent, 1 excuse. House Bill 1009 is passed. co-sponsors, senators, Marchman, Judah, Kip, Cutter, Gonzales, Amabile, Mr. Minority Leader, Frizzell, Mr. Majority Leader, Doherty, Sullivan, Benavidez, Snyder, Weissman, Ball, Lindstedt, Kirkmeyer, Colker, Bridges, Exum, Mullica, Roberts, Pelton R, Rich, Henriksen. Please add the president. Mr. Schoffler, please read the title of House Bill 1053. Are y'all still here? Okay, cool. Next bill. House Bill 1053 by Representatives Morrow and Senators Pelton B. and Wallace concerning the administration of duties related to the ownership of a vehicle and in connection therewith making an appropriation. Senator Wallace, I'm just joking. Senator Pelton B. Thank you, Mr. President. I move H.R. 261053 for third reading and final passage. Further discussion? Seeing for discussion of motion is the passage of House Bill 1053. Are there any no votes? with a vote of 34 I 0 0 0 absent and one excused. House Bill 1053 is passed. Both sponsors. Senators. Marchmen. Don't see anybody else standing up with their hand up high. Bright. Kip. Please. Oh, Senator Carson. Please add the president. Mr. Schaffler, please read the title to House Bill 1088. House Bill 1088 by Representatives Clifford and Tehran, Senators Cutter and Colker, concerning entity filings made with the Secretary of State and in connection therewith making an appropriation. Senator Cutter. Thank you, Mr. President. I move House Bill 1088 on third reading and final passage. Further discussion. Seeing none, the motion is a passage of House Bill 1088. Are there any no votes? with a vote of 34 ayes zero no zero absent one SKUs House Bill 1088 is passed Both sponsors Senators Weissman Marchman Judah please add the President Mr. Schoffler, please read the title of Senate Bill 163. Senate Bill 163 by Senators Roberts and Representative Smith. concerning the regulation of gambling activities in the state and in connection therewith, expanding the membership of the Colorado Limited Gaming Control Commission, expanding the scope of the licensing dues that the Colorado Limited Gaming Control Commission may delegate to the Division of Gaming, allowing individuals to voluntarily exclude themselves from sports betting in the state and allowing the Director of the Division of Gaming to approve optional wagers and minor modifications for certain table games. Well done, Mr. Schauffler. Senator Roberts. Thank you, Mr. President. I move Senate Bill 163 on third reading and ask for an aye vote. Further discussion. Seeing in the motion is the passage of Senate Bill 163. Are there any no votes? Senators Sullivan, Bridges, Samora Wilson, Carson. Further no votes on 163. Seeing no further no votes, with a vote of 30 eyes, 4 no, 0, 0, 0, 1, excuse, Senate Bill 163 is passed. Co-sponsors. Senator Snyder. Senator Marchman. I thought I was going to be alone on this one. Senator Kipp. And please add the President. Mr. Schauff, would please read the title of House Bill 1288. House Bill 1288 by Representatives Joseph and Carter and Senators Roberts and Wallace concerning measures related to jury selection. Senator Wallace. Thank you, Mr. President. I move House Bill 1288 on third reading and final passage and ask for an aye vote. Further discussion? Seeing none of the motion is the passage of House Bill 1288. Are there any no votes? Senators, Zamora Wilson, Baisley, Rich, Kirkmeyer, Mr. Minority Leader, Frizzell, Bright, Helton B., Carson, Helton R., Catlin, with a vote of 23 ayes, 11 no, 0, absent, 1 excuse. House Bill 1288 is passed. Both sponsors. Senators, Weissman, Gonzalez, Judah, Cutter. Mr. Majority Leader, please add the president. Mr. Schaffler, please read the title to House Bill 1320. House Bill 1320 by Representatives Nguyen and Garcia and Senator Benavidez concerning statutory requirements for ballot title language and in connection therewith requiring the use of accessible language and allowing for the modification of statutorily required ballot title language. Senator Benavidez. Thank you, Mr. President. I move House Bill 26, 1320 on third reading and final passage and ask for an aye vote. Further discussion? Seeing none, the motion is the passage of House Bill 1320. Are there any? No votes. Senators, Mr. Minority Leader, Rich, Frizzell, Zamora Wilson, Kirkmeyer, Baisley, Pelton R., Catlin, Carson, Bright, Pelton B. With a vote of 23 ayes, 11 no, 0 abs, 1 excuse. House Bill 1320 is passed. Go sponsors Senators Wallace Marchman Sullivan Cutter Gonzalez Henriksen Mr Majority Leader Judah Snyder Coker Exum Kip please add the president Mr. Schaffler please read the title of Senate Bill 160 from consent calendar Senate Bill 160 by Senator Rodriguez and Gonzalez and Representatives Duranda Martinez concerning employee protections in the workplace Senator Gonzales thank you Mr. President we move Senate Bill 160 on third reading and final passage and ask for an aye vote. Further discussion Seeing no further discussion and motion is to pass the Senate Bill 160. Are there any aye votes? Are there any no votes? Oh, pretty good. How dare I judge you? Senators, Frizzell, Kirkmeyer, God bless you. Samora Wilson, Baisley, Pelton B, Bright, Carson, Pelton R, Catlin, with a vote of with a vote of 25 ayes, 9 no, 0, absent, 1 excuse. Senate Bill 160 is passed. Go sponsors. Senators. Wallace. Marchman. Judah. Amabile. Cutter. Kip. Sullivan. Roberts. Exum, Lindstedt, Bridges, Weissman, Ball, Henriksen, Benavidez. Co-sponsors on 160. Any further co-sponsors? Ah, Coker. Any further co-sponsors? Mullica. Any further co-sponsors? I thought the hand from Fountain was raised. No? 160 co-sponsor? No? 160. 160. Nope. All right. Please add the president. God bless you. And lastly, Mr. Schauff, will we please read the title of Senate Bill 135. Senate Bill 135 by Senators Bridges and Kip and Representatives Bacon and Lukens. Concerning state public education K-12 funding and in connection therewith, increasing appropriations for state public education K-12 by up to two percentage for 10 years, allowing the state to retain an amount of state revenue in excess of the limitation on state fiscal year spending equal to state public K-12 education funding and submitting a ballot question to the registered electors of the state. Senator Bridges. Thank you, Mr. President. I move Senate Bill 135 on third reading. Further discussion. Is there? There is. Senator Kirkmeyer. Thank you, Mr. President, and good afternoon. Good afternoon. Members, I'm sure it's no surprise, but I rise in opposition and ask for no vote on Senate Bill 135. Colorado families are being asked to believe the only way to fund education is to let politicians keep more of their money, their hard-earned money, forever. Senate Bill 135 my opinion is not a serious way to increase teacher pay In fact as I stated the other day that not me that the microphone That's not what I stated. There we go. Members, members. Senate Bill 135, in my opinion, is not a serious way to increase teacher pay, and there is no guarantee, as I stated the other day. There's nothing in the bill that requires, and there will be nothing on the ballot that requires that the additional funding that's coming in, which is a lot, will go towards teacher pay. It can go to teacher pay, it can go to teacher retention, it can go to lowering class sizes, it should pretty much be anything. It can go to a categorical, increasing access to career and technical colleges and classes. It's not just about teacher pay. In fact, it's hardly about teacher pay. It is a backdoor approach or attack on Tabor dressed up in the language of helping kids or stabilizing our budget and increasing teacher pay. Without raising taxes over the course of the last few years, we have been able to increase education funding by more than 1.3 billion dollars annually without raising taxes by governing the right way setting priorities making hard choices and funding schools without breaking faith with the taxpayers. This is a bill that when you look at it and we figure out the numbers it will increase Tabor limit in the first year so the cap and remember I'm using my left arm again remember the original Tabor cap back in 1993 in 2005 and then it'll be 2026 and it'll go like this it can increase the cap in the first year by 4.6 billion dollars those are tax dollars people are out working for. Those are sales tax dollars. By 36-37, it will be $7.6 billion. Has the potential to increase taxes, taxes on people, on our constituents who we've been arguing about affordability and discussing how unaffordable our state is, could increase taxes over the course of the next seven years by up to $37.5 billion, and not just taxes. By raising the cap, it allows us to increase fees. In fact, we could more than double fees, and they'd still be under the cap. The positive factor, well, it is positive $9 billion over 10 years that would go to education. I stated the other day the dollar amounts. In the first year, it's $71 million that are going to 178 school districts. In the second or third year, this could be maybe $500 million going to 178 school districts. But you saw the low dollar amounts that some of our school districts are receiving. The Democrats' deal, I'm sorry. I apologize. I caught myself. Thank you. The deal on the table with Senate Bill 135 is to give government a blank check without taxpayer refunds and in return get an amount for education that really doesn't exceed what we've already secured through discipline and priorities. Terrible trade, in my opinion, for Colorado families. When Tabor refunds hit that $750 mark, the $800 mark, people felt it. And I just want to say once again, thank you to the governor for sending out that check. Even though you took credit for something that was because of Tabor, thank you for sending out the check. For all those people who weren't here in 1992 when Tabor passed, three decades ago, They were here now, and they thought, yeah, we want to keep government in check, and we want our money back. In fact, we don't want to even give it to you in the first place. For many households, they got as much as $1,600 into their family budget. That is not just extra money laying around. That is a grocery bill for a month. Well, that's if you're my daughter, and she has three boys that eat a lot and drink a lot of milk. But it could be the grocery bill for a month, it's new tires, a couple of car payments approximately, back-to-school clothes, help with the property tax bill, or just enough breathing room to catch up when everything else keeps getting more expensive and more unaffordable. Tabor exists for a reason. It protects taxpayers from a government that will always find a new excuse to take more. It forces the legislature to live within its means. just like every family in the state has to do. This Senate bill blows a hole through that protection. Once the state is allowed to keep and spend the revenue from the Tabor refund, taxpayers do not get that money back. It's gone. It comes into our coffers. And history tells us that when politicians get a new stream of money, they never give it up. to me saying that this is for the kids when the record says otherwise is just not right if the legislature truly wanted to prioritize school it could and we have the money is there the money has been there the problem is not Tabor you know I heard several times I've heard several times over the course of the last few years. Tabor is why the government can't have nice things. And I've responded accordingly. Tabor is why the people get to have nice things. The consequences go far beyond the refund. Once Tabor has got it, every other promise, I believe could be put into uncertainty. Again, this bill to me, while it is being portrayed as being about the children, we even changed the name of the fund from the state excess revenue fund to the children's fund. And we did that here in this bill. This bill is about control. It's about whether hardworking Coloradoans keep more of what they earned or whether politicians here at the Capitol get a permanent blank check. We should reject Senate Bill 135, keep fighting for schools without selling out our taxpayers. I ask for a no vote. Senator Carson. Thank you, Mr. President. Senate Bill 135 and the accompanying referendum will be the largest tax increase in Colorado history It could increase taxes on individuals over the next decade by It's an inaccurate measure. It claims to allocate all of the funds to public education, when in fact could result in only a small portion of the funds going to that, the rest of it going to unknown expenditures by the General Assembly. And finally, a measure of this nature is going to further damage the Colorado economy and its ability to create jobs. This bill says we in government need more of your money because we cannot live within our means. We didn't like having to balance the budget. We don't like having to make difficult choices. And we don't like it that we could only grow spending by a couple billion dollars this year. the great British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said that the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money to give away well I suppose those of us who oppose socialism should be heartened that this bill is built on the notion that we have not yet run out of other people's money to give away in fact we know exactly where to find it with a massive tax increase. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. In 2006, the state budget was $16.8 billion. By 2016, it was $26 billion. By 2026, it was $46.8 billion. This could result, for a family of four, up to $30,000 tax increase over the next decade, So much for the affordability for Colorado families. This on top of the cost of health care, on top of the cost of housing, on top of the cost of gasoline, on top of the cost of all of the federal taxes, the income taxes, the excise taxes, the Social Security taxes, on top of our property taxes, on top of the cost of auto insurance and homeowner's insurance, the cost of college and the cost of groceries. More taxes, more taxes on top of all of that. And one of the great ironies of this measure, and I said it was, in my opinion, inaccurate, because by the calculations we've been given, this could result in about $9 billion going to education out of the more than $37 billion potentially raised by it. So you're looking at a maximum of about 24% actually going to education. And the teacher salaries, how much is actually going to go down to the teacher salaries? You look at the growth of administrative costs in public education. So much increase in that area. How much are the teachers actually going to get? Even in the best case scenarios, with all of the money flowing down that would be allocated to the districts, how much of that's really going to go to teachers? How much has gone to it in the past? You know, I ran some quick numbers. Even in my school district in Douglas County, it's quite possible that the raise that teachers would receive, the 3,600 teachers in the school district would receive from this, may be largely eliminated by the increased taxes on that family of four individuals because these taxes are calculated increase not just on taxpayers but per capita in this state So you may well see the benefit even in the teachers salaries if it all flows to them wiped out by the increased taxes. And finally, you know, what's the impact going to be on our Colorado economy? You know, in the last year, we've lost 20,000, over 20,000 jobs in this state. We were ranked number 11, or excuse me, number 3 for the best states for business a few years ago. We dropped to number 11. We're the sixth most regulated state in the country now. We're now ranked 47th cost of living. That means we're the fourth most expensive state to live in in this country by the CNBC calculations. And our housing affordability is near the bottom. Cost of living is ranked number 39, excuse me, cost of doing business ranked number 39 across the country. Ninety-eight companies have left our state in recent years, a loss of 13,600 jobs. This is the first time this year that more people have moved out of Colorado than have moved into Colorado. We've got 200,000 individual regulations according to the Colorado Chamber of Commerce. We're clearly becoming an overtaxed and overregulated state and becoming less able to create jobs and create opportunities for our citizens. Just a couple of quotes here. I want to read from businesses that have left. One saying, The business climate in the state of Colorado is not as contusive to growth as in the state of Wyoming. that by the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association, which has left. Texas has been an important part of TTC's operations for decades. It offers a business-friendly environment, strong economy, skilled talent pool, and dynamic tech and innovation ecosystems. That's a company that's moving to Texas. And finally, as we navigate the current economic landscape, we must make strategic decisions to ensure the long-term sustainability and success of the United Wheels companies and our brands, another bicycle manufacturing company that has left Colorado. So this is clearly going to have an impact on our overall economy, our ability to create jobs and have a prosperous economy. So again, the three reasons, in my view, to oppose this legislation. It's a massive tax increase up to $37 billion, $7,400 per person. It's misleading, in my opinion, as to where the money will go, only a portion of it potentially going to education. And third, the negative impact on our Colorado economy outweighs the benefits of this type of a tax increase. So I would urge a no vote. Senator Bright Thank you, Mr. President Rise today in opposition of Senate Bill 135 This bill passes this chamber It will go to the November ballot The voters of Colorado deserve to hear in plain language What we're actually asking them to approve Every member of this body wants Colorado kids to learn in strong schools with well-paid teachers, those goals are not in dispute here. My question is how we get here. I feel like we have earned or we have put together such an appetite to spend and we feel so constrained by our current budget and our current trying to live within our means as the taxpayer bill rights asked us to do. The only way to really create some room to satisfy that appetite to spend is to just take a big chunk out of Tabor. Obviously, this is subject to the voters. And so we need to be fair with them what we're asking them to do. We're really asking them to spend more, to charge more fees as a state. We could have asked for any portion of what exists under Tabor to be removed. We could have asked for low-income health care to be removed. We could have asked for anything else that exists, but yet we chose education. Why did we choose education? Well, because it tugs at the heartstrings. Everybody wants to see what's best for kids, right? We need to be honest about what we're really doing here. Coloradoans passed the Taxpayer Bill of Rights in 1992 because they wanted three things. A vote on tax increases, a limit on how fast government grows, and a refund when the state collects and wants to spend more than it needs. Three decades of polling has been remarkably consistent on that point. Coloradoans like the taxpayer bill of rights. They like a limited government. Senate Bill 135 asked those voters to give up that refund, likely permanently, at least for the next 10 years, likely far into the future beyond that, in an amount that's tied to state K-12 funding, currently north of $5-plus billion a year. It's not a one-time waiver. It's a structural change in how the taxpayer bill of rights works for the rest of their lives. and here's the part that the ballot title does not say when the state retains a surplus equal to what it already spends on schools does not have to add a single new dollar to a classroom to claim the credit it frees up general fund dollars that that used to compete for k-12 to be spent on other priorities priorities this body picks later to fill that large gap that we've loan with no vote from the people who chose to fund it. This bill does nothing to close the broader pattern Coloradoans have watched over the years where the legislature has steadily moved more state government outside of Tabor Cap through fees, enterprises, revenue retention measures like this one. Each one was sold as modest. Each one was sold as necessary. Together they've eroded the voter approval our taxpayer bill of rights was designed to require. If we want to invest more in our schools, we can do that right now within Tabor and within the general funds. And we can do it honestly. We can prioritize within the budget the people already gave us. We can put dollars directly into classrooms with accountability that does not depend on this body auditing itself. But asking Coloradans to trade away their taxpayer bill of rights refund in exchange for a promise that this time the dollars will reach the classroom. It's not a trade that I can ask the folks to in my district for, and as such I would urge no vote on Senate Bill 135. Senator Rizel.

Senator Vizel, would you like to go on to your next ten minutes?

Senators Amor Wilson.

Senator Zamora Wilson, would you like to go on to your next ten minutes?

Senator Baisley.

Senator Marchman.

uses. It could be teacher pay, teacher retention, smaller class sizes, or career and technical education. And there's a public audit required for transparency for the voters. So we do know how the districts chose to spend the positive factor, giving them four good options for where their dollars can go. When we invest in smaller class sizes and keep qualified licensed teachers in our schools, we're investing in the next generation, the children who will form Colorado's future workforce, economy, and communities. That's just a return on investment argument. It's not liberal. It's not progressive. It's just an ROI. And research shows it is among the highest return any state can make. So I have teachers in my district who are leaving, and it's not because of values. It's because of funding. And this bill begins to address it. So we are not closing the gap today I not going to stand here and tell you we are But this could stop the bleeding And we get to let the voters of Colorado decide do we keep the money that you given us and we can invest it in schools or does it go back That's it. That's the right call. So I urge an aye vote on this bill. Thank you. Senator Cutter.

Senator Danielson.

Senator Pelton B.

Mr. Minority Leader.

Senator 5.

Senator Bridges.

The motion for passage of Senate Bill 135 has been withdrawn.

Now, may I please have another motion for the passage of Senate Bill 135, Senator Bridges.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion is the passage of Senate Bill 135. Are there any no votes? Senators, Mr. Minority Leader, Kirkmeyer, Frizzell. Zamora Wilson, Rich, Baisley, Liston, Helton R., Catlin, Carson, Bright, Pelton B. With a vote of 23 eyes, 12 nose, 0 absences, or excused. Senate Bill 135 is passed. co-sponsors, Senators Wallace, Judah, Gonzalez, Amabile, Lindstadt, Mr. Majority Leader, Cutter, Danielson. Co-sponsors on 135. Snyder. Is there anyone else that wants to be a co-sponsor? Benavidez. Anyone else? With no other bills on third reading.

Senator Weissman. Thank you, Mr. President. I move the Senate concur in House amendments to Senate Bill 95.

absence or excuse that motion is adopted senator weisman thank you i move for the readoption of

the appointments listed on the consent calendar member of the Board of governors of the color state university system for a term expiring december 31st 2028 kayla rail garcia of lakewood colorado occasioned by the resignation of andy worth of manhattan montana appointed member of the state board for community colleges and occupational education for a term expiring december 31st 2027 jennifer allison of franktown colorado to serve as a representative of the fourth congressional district occasioned by the the resignation of Catherine Schell of Fort Morton, Colorado, appointed. Member of the Board of Trustees for Western Colorado University for a term expiring December 31, 2029, Scott Ehrlich of Greeley, Colorado, appointed. Member of the Coal Mine Board of Examiners for a term expiring July 2, 2025, expiring July 1, 2029, Eric Popham of Rangely, Colorado, to serve as a coal mine owner, operator, or manager, engaged in underground mining or an engineering experience in coal mining, appointed. For a term expiring July 1, 2027, Mike Zimmerman of Fruiter, Colorado, to serve as a coal mine owner operator manager or other mine official actively engaged in underground mining occasioned by the resignation of lucas cerna of farmington new mexico appointed mr majority leader thank you

consent calendar are there any no votes with a vote of 35 i zero no zero absolute excuse those appointments are confirmed consideration of conference committee reports mr schauffler

Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the Senate adopt the first report of the first conference committee on House Bill 1357. Further discussion?

Amabile. Thank you, Mr. President. I move for the repassage of House Bill 1357. Seeing no further discussion, the motion is the repassage of House Bill 1357. Are there any no votes?

First report of the first conference committee on House Bill 1411. This report amends a re-revised bill. To the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the first conference committee appointed on House Bill 1411 concerning changes to health insurance benefits for certain low-income individuals who are not eligible for medical assistance, Due to their immigration status and in connection therewith making and reducing appropriation,

Thank you, Mr. President. This is to announce the work of the Judiciary Committee this afternoon. Slight change in order of bills, given our timing here. We'll start with SB 174. We'll then otherwise go in order in the calendar. So it'll be SB 174, HB 1283, HB 1290, HB 1052, HB 1312, HB 1322. we will start at 2.50 p.m. in Old Supreme Court.

Thank you, Mr. President. Unlike my colleague from Aurora, I do not have that kind of memory, so I need to have my notes in front of me. Education will be heard 15 minutes upon adjournment. We will be changing the order. I only have three bills, and I couldn't remember them. So the first one is House Bill 26-1193. Then we will be hearing House Bill 1006, and then we'll hear Senate Bill 173.

Thank you, Mr. President. Senate Appropriations will be meeting tomorrow morning at 8 a.m. We will be hearing all of the bills on your calendar and other bills as assigned.

Thank you, Mr. President. It's that time again. We only got three more Bible studies before we're done. So 715 tomorrow morning down in the basement. Come feed your soul and we'll feed your belly too.

Thank you, Mr. President. I been made aware that Senate Bill 173 wasn on our printed calendar but it is online So again 173 will be heard today It a game bill about Pilates and Bar A or something like that Thank you Very good Mr Majority Leader Thank you colleagues We will be recessing to read bills across the desk later. No need to return on that, Mr. President. I move the Senate recess until 3 p.m. today. Recess. Remember the motion. All