Colorado Senate 2026 Legislative Day 111

Here.

Let's do this.

Senator Pelton B., would you please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance? Please rise so we can say the Pledge of Allegiance.

Approval of the journal, Senator Immobile. Approval of the journal. Oh, Senator Bridges.

You've heard the motion. All those in favor, say aye.

It happens.

Say it again. No one's listening anyway.

Mr. Senator from Greenwood Village.

That's pretty good. Senator Liston, that was pretty good, right? You've heard the motion. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. Something's wrong with my hearing. I think the ayes have it. That motion is adopted. Senator Services.

Business, labor, and technology. Majority Leader Rodriguez. Proceed out of order for resolutions. Thank you, Mr. President. I move the Senate proceed out of orders for consideration of resolutions.

Senate Joint Resolution 25 by Senator Simpson, Representative McCluskey, concerning recognition of the 150th anniversary of Colorado Mining Association, the oldest mining association in the United States.

Mr. Schaffler, please read SJR 25 at length.

Mr. Minority Leader.

Welcome to the Senate. Further discussion? Seeing or further discussion, the motion is the adoption of SJR 25. Are there any no votes? With a vote of 34-0-0-0, absent one excused, SJR 25 is adopted. Co-sponsors, Mr. Minority Leader.

Seeing no objection, the current roll call will be added as co-sponsors. Mr. Schaffler, please read the title of HJR 1030.

Senator Bright. Thank you, Mr. President. I move House Joint Resolution 261030.

And request that it be read at length.

Whereas on June 1, 2014, the Greeley community was deeply saddened by the tragic loss of two vibrant young student-athletes, Edward Mono Hernandez and Matthew Garcia, following a traffic accident on County Road 90 and Colorado Highway 14. And whereas both Mono and Matt were cherished members of the Greeley Central High School basketball team, recognized by their teammates and coaches for their exceptional character, sportsmanship, and infectious spirits. And whereas Mono and Matt were more than just teammates, they were symbols of the dedication and heart that defined the Greeley Central High School spirit, leaving an empty chair on the court that the community still feels today. And whereas the tragic accident on County Road 90 on June 1, 2014, served as a poignant reminder of the fragility of life and sparked a renewed commitment to road safety and community support within Weld County. And whereas in the wake of their loss, the Greeley Central family and the city at large demonstrated extraordinary resilience coming together in candlelight vigils and memorial games to ensure that the light these two young men brought into the world would never be extinguished. And whereas Mono and Matt are remembered by their coaches and peers for their infectious smiles and unwavering positive energy, qualities that made them natural leaders and a friend to all who knew them. And whereas they were recognized for their tenacity and sportsmanship, embodying the grit and determination of a true student-athlete, both on and off the basketball court. And whereas in the years following their passing, the community has continued to honor their memory through tributes and memorials, demonstrating the enduring impact these young men had on the lives of those around them. And whereas it is fitting and proper that we preserve the legacy of these two sons of Weld County by designating the site of their memory as a place of lasting honor. And whereas it is the intent of the Colorado General Assembly to ensure that the names of Eduardo Mono Hernandez and Matthew Garcia remain etched into the geography of the state they called home, serving as a permanent tribute to their youth, their friendship, and their legacy. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the 75th General Assembly of the State of Colorado, the Senate concurring herein, One, that the portion of Colorado Highway 14 between mile marker 165 and mile marker 167 be designated as Mono and Matt Road. Two, that the Colorado Department of Transportation may accept and expect and gifts, grants, and donations for the purpose of the initial placement of signs to mark the portion of Colorado Highway 14 between mile marker 165 and mile marker 167 as Mono and Matt Road. And three, that the Colorado Department of Transportation may explore a cooperative agreement with Weld County for the maintenance of the signs marking Mono and Matt Road. Be it further resolved that copies of this joint resolution be sent to the families of Eduardo Hernandez and Matthew Garcia, the Weld County Board of Commissioners, and the Greeley Central High School Athletic Department.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today to ask for everyone's support of House Joint Resolution 261030, a measure that has already received the favor of the House and now becomes before this body, to honor these two young men whose legacies remain a heartbeat of the Greeley community. Nearly 12 years ago on June 1, 2014, Colorado lost two of its brightest lights, Matt Garcia and Edward Mano Hernandez. They were more than just standout student athletes at the Greeley Central High School. They were recent graduates with their entire lives ahead of them known for their character and the joy they brought to everyone that they meet. The accident at County Road 90 and Colorado Highway Road 14 was a profound tragedy that shook our state. But in the decades since, the people of Greeley haven't just remembered how these young men died. They have celebrated how they lived. Matt and Mono were leaders who embodied sportsmanship and unity, qualities we strive for even in this chamber. This resolution officially designates the stretch of Colorado Highway 14 between mile markers 165 and 167 as the Mono and Matt Road. By passing this, we ensure that every traveler who passes through this part of Weld County is reminded that a community's bond is stronger than any tragedy. It is a permanent tribute to the two lives that, though short, left an enduring mark on the spirit of Colorado. I would urge my colleagues to join me in voting aye to honor the memory of Matt and Mano and would also like to recognize those on the floor. Israel, Julian, Lisa, Angelo, Dallas, Lenique, Maddie, and Natalie. Thank you.

Senator Bright. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the current roll call will be added as co-sponsors.

Mr. Majority Leader. Thank you, Mr. President. I request a senatorial five.

We're just missing balls. Let's get started, man. Robert, we're just missing the ball. I know we do, but we're not going to take the vote until he's back. Let's get going with the discussion.

No, we're going into the discussion. Mr. Majority Leader.

Member of the Transportation Commission, effective July 2, 2025, for term expiring July 1, 2029, Juan Marcano of Aurora, Colorado, to serve as a commissioner from the third transportation district appointed.

Sorry about that. Go ahead.

Further discussion? Seeing no further discussion, the motion is for the appointment of a member to the Transportation Commission. Are there any no votes?

with a vote of 19 I 16 0 0 absent and 0 excused the appointment is confirmed the following person Juan Marcona was appointed to the Transportation Commission third reading the bills consent calendar Mr. Schauffler please read the titles of all the bills

Mr. Majority Leader. Thank you, Mr. President. I move for the passage of all the bills of third reading of the bill's final passage of consent calendar, which are House Bill 1235, House Bill 1299, and Senate Bill 175.

Senator Zamora Wilson. Thank you, Mr. President. I wish to be a no vote for House Bill 1235.

Senator Rich. Thank you, Mr. President. I wish to be recorded as a no vote on House Bill 1235.

Senator Baisley. Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to please be recorded as a no vote on House Bill 1235.

Senator Carson. Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to be recorded as a no vote on House Bill 26-1235.

Senator Kip, co-sponsors on 1235.

Oh, please add the president. I forgot what I was doing. Oh, and Senator Snyder.

Seeing none.

Senators, Kip.

Oh, Senator Kipp. Thank you so much. That way I'm not by myself. Oh, and Senator Benavidez.

Yep, Senator Liston.

and Mr. Majority Leader.

Please add the President. Third reader of the bills, final passage, Mr. Schaffler.

Senator Wallace. Thank you, Mr. President. I move House Bill 1113 and ask permission to move a third reading amendment.

Senator Wiseman. Thanks, Mr. President. This is a drafter-generated amendment. Our intrepid drafter was reviewing the revised over the weekend and alerted us that some technical cleanups and citation references to federal law would be in order, so that's what this is.

Mr. Schaaf would please read L50. Amendment L50. Senator Weissman.

the motion is the adoption of L50 to House Bill 1113. Are there any no votes? Senator Zamora Wilson, Baisley, just in case. With a vote of 33 ayes, 2 no, 0 absolute excuse, L50 is adopted. Further discussion?

Further discussion? There is discussion.

House Bill 1113.

Further discussion? Seeing in front of discussion in motion is the passage of House Bill 1113 Are there any no votes Senators Mr Minority Leader Frizzell Kirkmeyer Zamora Wilson Rich Pelton B Bright Carson Pelton are Catlin listen Baisley with a vote of 23 eyes 12 no zero absolute excuse House bill 1113 is passed. Co-sponsors senators Kip.

Gonzalez, Judah, Marchman.

Benavidez, Snyder, Sullivan, please add the president.

House Bill 1346 by Representatives Titone and Woodrow and Senators Kipp and Snyder concerning allowing the Department of the Treasury to sell unsold insurance premium tax credits to entities that are not insurance companies.

Further discussion? Seeing or further discussion of motions, the passage of House Bill 1346. Are there any no votes?

very good job oh okay Senator Carson as well alright I thought you were telling him to vote yes

Helton B

1346 and Senator Bridges.

House Bill 1252 by Representatives Bradfield and Morrow and Senators Marchman and Carson concerning updates to state entities responsible for responding to emergency situations.

and ask for a favorable vote. Further discussion. As you enter further discussion in the motions of passage of House Bill 1252, are there any no votes?

basically, with a vote of 33 ayes, 2 noes, 0 abs, 0 excuses. House Bill 1252 is passed. Go sponsors. Hmm. Please add the president. Mr. Schauffler, please read the title of House Bill 1010.

Senator Danielson. Thank you, Mr. President. I move for the passage of House Bill 1010 on third reading and final passage.

Senators, Zamora Wilson, Rich, Baisley, Liston, Helton R., Frizzell, Kirkmeyer, Carson, Mr. Minority Leader, Bright, Helton B., with a vote of, and Senator Catlin as a no vote. that horrible who said he has short arms Senator Liston will be fined for saying Senator Catlin has short arms With a vote of 23 ayes 12 noes 0 absolute excuse House Bill 1010 is passed

Senate Bill 177 by Senators Ball and Benavidez and Representatives Gilchrist and Mabry concerning a property owner's ability to petition a court for limited access to an adjoining property to make repairs.

Further discussion. There is further discussion.

to make repairs that are for their property. It is my property. There is no reason why they can't work from their own property to get their repairs and their maintenance done. I can't think of any reason where there would be that. If they have a common wall, do it from your own side of the wall. What if they put a hole in the wall and who's going to repair that? Who's responsible for that? And I know you think that the court will do that do we end up right back in court? What if they don't repair it to a standard that was consistent to the way that the wall was in the first place? Do I now have to take them back to court? Go to small claims court? You're just opening up a huge can of worms here. But more importantly, a court should not get to determine access to my private property just so my neighbor can repair or maintain something on their property. Here's the key words. It's on their property. Go repair it on your property. You know, you can even trim trees from your own property. You don't need to go on your neighbor's property to do things of that nature if that's what's meant by maintenance. But I have no idea here because these words are so vague and so broad. But again, this just should not be allowed to happen. I understand that maybe there was a case someplace where a neighbor needed to go, where someone needs to go on someone else's property to try and fix their property, and they couldn't get it worked out. Believe me, I've heard several cases of those in the past in a former life. They shouldn't get to go petition the court. The individual who does not wish to have someone on their private property for whatever reasons, it's their property. It is their home. It is where maybe they're doing their business. And they should get to say who gets to be on their property for whatever reason. Otherwise, it's called trespassing. And we should not be dictating this in a court of law. This is not where this needs to go. Maybe they need to just try and figure it out themselves, or maybe they need to just repair their property, doing so from their property. or maintain their property, doing so from their property. I would ask for a no vote on Senate Bill 177. Let's protect people's homes. Let's protect their property rights. Let's protect the sanctity of their home. They shouldn't be required. They shouldn't have to go through costs, because this will cost them money now. Going to court will cost them money. It will cost them time away from work. It will cost them time away from doing anything else that they would rather be doing. Let's protect them instead of infringing on their property or infringing on their home. I ask for a no vote on 177. We shouldn't be settling disputes with legislation. We should not be settling that with legislation. I ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Mr. President. And I concur with my colleague from Brighton, made some excellent comments and points. I mean, we swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. I mean, our job is to secure life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of Coloradans, and that includes our property rights. and they are, property rights are one of the most foundational liberties protected under the constitutional system. Ownership means more than just simply holding a title that includes the right to control access to your land and the right to exclude others. Yeah property rights include the right to exclude others from entering our land As I had mentioned prior you know, when you purchase property and if there's an easement, you're aware of that. And likewise, there was a concern, well, what if the, you need to get on your neighbor's land and they move and you have a new neighbor, well, the same argument stands. that new neighbor, when they buy it in the paperwork, is aware of any easements. And here, right now, neighbors, if they have disputes, they're incentivized to take it upon themselves to work it out on their own. And if this bill passes, it'll remove that incentive, which increases costs in court cases, bogs down our court systems, and there's the non-monetary costs that my colleague just mentioned. What if they destroy something? Someone enters my property and they destroy something, and then I have to take them to court. That's time, that's money, that's resources that I have to now face, and it's my property. This is government-compelled access onto private property. And again, it was mentioned, rules for thee, rules for me, not for thee. And so this legislation risks weakening the longstanding property rights protections, and I urge a no vote on Senate Bill 177. Thank you.

Thank you. I just wanted to say, you know, with all due respect to my colleagues, I understand your property is your property, and you don't want people on it. and this bill does not take anybody's property. It sets out a procedure if people can't reach a resolution of their disputes. We had one witness, and he talked about a three-year continuing battle where there weren't easements. There's many, like my home is on a corner. I have an easement all around it, but between me and my neighbor, there is no easement. There's a set aside if I want to build something or do something. But there is no easement between properties in that sense that allows anybody to go on or off or anything like that. And three years ago, my neighbor had a huge tree in his backyard. A few of the big branches came over to my yard. He told me he was going to cut it down. He wanted to make sure the people that were cutting it, somebody could be in my yard. so if one of those big branches, they could avoid any damage. And I said, of course, go ahead. And he did that, and that was fine. We resolved the dispute before it became any kind of a dispute. And the witness we had described trying to get, going to the neighbor, asking him, and he said, their houses, it's an older home built in the late 1800s, five feet between the homes. And there are homes. in cities that are that close to one another And if you have to fix the roof and you have five feet you can really do it just on your side So that what that dispute and this is just one example of a dispute. And all this bill says, okay, you tried to reach agreement with them. You can't get a resolution. So now consider mediation, where you can talk with somebody to help you through that. If you can't do that, then as a last resort, go to court and let somebody else, but not dictating, because what else would they do? One side could say, nope, never coming on my property, you can't fix your house. What does that do for that person's property value if all of the property starts being in disrepair? So it is at a point in time, and I know there was an argument made about a party wall. Well, whenever you have those, usually you have covenants and you have homeowners agreements that cover that. But even then, you may have to do that and through the homeowners association to be able to do that. But if they punch a hole in your wall, well, that hurts your property and you don't want that to happen. And yes, there can be somebody gets hurt. but if somebody gets hurt, that's kind of why we all have homeowners insurance. And we don't expect people to get hurt, but things happen. And there is a way to fix that if they were to happen. Otherwise, you'd have to set up a contract every time you want to repair your home with your neighbor to say, this is what I'm going to do. This is how I'm going to do it. This is the liability. If something happens, this is what would happen. That already exists. This is really just to help resolve disputes. It's not taking anything from anyone's property, so I urge I vote.

Senator Kirkmeyer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. I don't know why I keep doing that. I apologize.

Thank you. And thank you to the good sponsor from Adams County. And thank you for letting me know that this is about a roof. So roofs are one of the most dangerous things to be fixing because a lot of accidents and a lot of insurance rates that go up because of accidents that occur. But the roofing company has every ability to provide for the roof and grapple down and do whatever they need to do to fix the roof from the top of the roof, which is on the roof, which is on the requesting owner's property. There's absolutely no reason for you to have to go across the property line to fix the roof, even if there is only five feet between it. There's no reason. So if that's what this issue is about, I guess I just don't understand why we're carrying legislation for a single individual who wants to get his roof fixed. That will impact everybody. I don't get that. Especially when you have the ability, and the roofing company has the ability, to stay on the roof to fix the roof. I know and I think we all know. I'm sure we've all seen roofing companies and individuals who are out fixing roofs after hill storms and how they stay on the roof. They don't climb up from a ladder anymore. They put on like mountain climbing gear and ropes and they have themselves attached to the roof so they can go all the way down to the edge so it not necessary but here the other thing in this bill thank you for bringing it up and oh by the way I understand everyone has homeowners insurance but if an accident occurs on your property and you have to make a claim guess what happens to your homeowners insurance it goes up So I agree people should be good neighbors. We have no idea what happened between these neighbors that they don't want to allow it. Maybe it's because they're worried about the harm or the liability that they may be getting should something occur and someone get hurt and they land on their property and they agree to it. Maybe that's it. I don't know. But there's an amendment that was made before bringing an action pursuant to subsection of this section, the requesting owner is encouraged to engage in alternative dispute resolution. Doesn't say they have to, just says they're encouraged to engage. Does that mean they pay for it? Because alternative dispute resolution costs money. So does that mean they pay for it? Do they pay for the mediation with the adjoining property owner? What if the adjoining property owner just doesn't want to do that? Maybe he doesn't like his neighbor and doesn't want to talk to him. These maintenance and repairs can all be done by the individual requesting this on their property. There is no reason to infringe on their neighbor's property. That's why there's probably at least five feet there so that they don't have to infringe on their neighbor's property. And again, if it is such a great idea, why is the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state, why doesn't it apply to them? Why doesn't it apply to them? So again, I would ask for a no vote. This bill is not necessary. This bill is you're just trying to make neighbors even more ticked off at each other. and probably cause more issues, quite frankly, between those neighbors if they do go to court or if they go anywhere to try and settle this dispute. So court is not the answer. Trying to work with your neighbor, working with the people who are doing the repairs and maintenance and make sure that they stay on their property. They know when they're making repairs that they have to stay on that property owner's property, that they can't trespass onto the next-door neighbor's property. So again, this sounds like it's for a single case, a single situation that we're going to legislate for. I didn't think we did that. But we certainly should not be infringing on someone's private property, on their home, or on their property, for any reason. That should not be happening. So I ask for a no vote on 177.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I stand with my colleagues in opposition of Senate Bill 177. I have been at this podium in the last year talking about the burdens that we have on our court system already. This just adds to that. And I'm glad that it was amended to reflect other remedies because that's really important. Where I live, we have a lot of people homeowners associations, we have other entities that can mediate disputes between homeowners, and that's important that that is really the first thing that happens if people disagree. And I agree with the good senator from Brighton. This is a huge infringement on property rights, And I want to talk about that concept a little bit here, because prior to coming to the legislature, I was a licensed appraiser, a certified residential appraiser. And one of the things that we look at when we are appraising properties is, would be the, they're called the bundle of rights, right? is the bundle of rights of property ownership. And those rights are the right of possession. You have the right of legal ownership and the ability to occupy and hold the property. You have the right of control, the ability to use, manage, or alter the property, like remodeling, within legal limits, of course. You have the right of disposition. You can sell it. You can lease it. And again, legally permissible use. You have the right of enjoyment, the right to use the property for legally permissible activities. And the last stick in that bundle of rights is the right of exclusion. The right of exclusion is really important because that's what this bill is about. One of the sticks in the bundle of rights, property rights, is the authority to restrict others from entering or using the property. And what we are doing with this bill, Senate Bill 177, is we are effectively removing a property right from a property owner here in the state of Colorado. we are saying that you own the property you can enjoy it you can dispose of it you can possess it you can control it but you do not have the right of exclusion here in Colorado and that's important if you are a property owner or you want to be a property owner this is important to you this bill is important because we're taking away a property right I urge a no vote

Senators, Mr. Minority Leader Kirkmeyer, Frizzell, Zamora Wilson, Rich, Bazley, Liston, Pelton R, Catlin, Carson, Bright, Pelton B.

Henrickson. Please add Senator Wallace as a co Further co on 177 Senator Cutter Kipp Snyder Gonzalez

House Bill 1343 by Representatives Morrow and Clifford and Senator Marchman concerning expanding the use of electronic processes and proceedings involving State Administrative Procedure Act.

Further discussion? Seeing none of the motions of passage of House Bill 1343, are there any no votes? With a vote of 3510, no zero, absent, zero excuse, House Bill 1343 is passed. Co-sponsors. Please add to President. Mr. Schaffler, please read the title to House Bill 1143.

Senator Benavides. Thank you, Mr. President. I move House Bill 26-1143 on third reading and final passage and ask for an aye vote.

Rich. Zamora Wilson. Frizzell. Kirkmeyer, Pelton B, Bright, Carson, Pelton R, Catlin, Liston, Bazley.

Go sponsors. Senators Kip, Judah, Wallace, Marchman, Cutter, Exum, Gonzalez.

Mr. Schaffler, please read the title of the Senate Bill 182. Senate Bill 182 by Senators Snyder and Simpson represents Caldwell and Pascal

I move Senate Bill 182 on third reading and final passage. Further discussion? Seeing no further discussion in the motions of passage, Senate Bill 182. Are there any no votes? With Senator Kipp is a no vote.

Senate Bill 182 is passed. Co-sponsors.

Please add the president.

Senator Wallace. Thank you, Mr. President.

both sponsors, Senators, Judah, Kip, Danielson, Amabile, Benavidez, Weissman, Henriksen, Gonzalez, Ball, Lindstead, Bridges, Sullivan, Exum, Roberts. Please add the President.

House Bill 1109 by Representatives Stuart Kaye and Joseph and Senator Danielson. Concerning the commission of a study to determine if additional consumer protections are needed for the deaf, hard of hearing, and deafblind community with respect to sign language interpretation services provided in the state.

Further discussion. There is discussion. Senator Danielson.

Seeing no further discussion and motions of the passage of House Bill 1109, are there any no votes?

Catlin, you wanted to be a yes on that, right?

House bill 1109 is passed. Co-sponsors.

Please add the president. Mr. Majority Leader, would you like to grant leave? Mr. Majority Leader.

You heard the motion All those in favor say aye Opposed no For some reason again my hearing really bad The ayes have it That motion is adopted You ain got to go home but you got to get up out of here if you want to General orders Second meeting of the bill Senator Henriksen Thank you Mr President I move that the Senate resolve itself as a committee of the whole for consideration of general order of second meeting of the bills You vote the motion. All those in favor, say aye. Polls know the ayes have it that motion is adopted. The Senate resolve itself as a committee of the whole for consideration of general orders. Second meeting of the bills, then Senator Henriksen will take the chair.

mr majority leader thank you mr chair i move to layover senate bill 68 until tuesday may the 5th

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to proceed out of order to take up Senate Bill 82. Motion is to

Mr. Majority Leader. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to lay over Senate Bill 82 until Tuesday, May the

Mr. Majority Leader. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move the committee proceed out of order to take up Senate Bill 152.

Senate Bill 152 by Senators Ball and Pelton B concerning changes to the usage of automated vehicle identification systems

to the committee report

The motion is adoption of the Transportation Energy Committee report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. The ayes have it. The committee report is adopted.

There is an amendment at the desk. Mr. Schauffer, please read L-07.

So moved.

Motion is the adoption of L-007 to Senate Bill 152. All those in favor say aye.

All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. L7 is adopted. There is an amendment at the desk. Mr. Choffel, will you please read L9.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L009 to Senate Bill 152.

So what we're doing here is we're just, this is an amendment from CDOT that is allowing us, that is telling us how high we need to have the letters when we're putting up the signage and that sort of thing. This is just a cleanup from CDOT to make sure that everybody's uniform. I ask for an aye vote.

Aye.

Amendment L10.

I move L10 to Senate Bill 152.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. What this one does is it actually spells out that this be structured as a flat monthly fee or flat hourly rate. And it is not a contingent among how many upon and does not vary based on the number of traffic citations issued or the amount of revenue generated. There's other stuff in there, but let me just put it to you this way. What we trying to do with this amendment is we trying to prevent these cameras from being revenue enhancing cameras That what we doing with this We making sure to put so much sideboards on it that we trying to prevent companies from making a lot of revenue from these That's the point of this amendment, so I ask for an aye vote.

Aye.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to clear up one thing because there was some reporting on this bill that was not accurate that stated that we were now allowing for tickets where they didn't previously exist for people who are going between 6 and 9 miles an hour. Right now, you can get a ticket from an automated speed camera if you're going one mile over the speed limit. You have to get a warning the first time, but after that, you can get a ticket for going one mile over the speed limit. We are changing that by saying that anything that is below six miles an hour, so between one and five miles over the speed limit, the only thing that you will get is a warning. So I just want to clear that up because the reporting on this bill was incorrect about that provision. and just reassure everybody here that actually what we're doing is really decreasing the amount of penalties that the people in Colorado might get for going two or three miles over the speed limit if they are caught by an automatic speed camera.

Aye.

House Bill 1322 by Representatives Valdez and McCormick and Senators Cutter and Mullica concerning civil actions against certain individuals engaging in conversion therapy efforts.

To the Judiciary Report.

The motion is the adoption of the Senate Judiciary Report to House Bill 1322. All those in favor say aye.

The ayes have it. Judiciary Report is adopted. To the bill, Senator Mullica.

Senator Cutter.

however there is an amendment at the desk Mr. Schauffer will you please read L28

I move thank you I move amendment L28 to house bill L1322 I ask for the support

Senator Cutter okay so this bill has two central goals it really preserves Colorado's prohibition of convergent therapy for minors by clarifying the definition and that ensures that people harmed by conversion therapy have adequate time to bring a claim for damages. So the amendment strikes several subsections that were determined to be extraneous to those two central goals. It removes language addressing substantial causation, language addressing third-party liability, and language addressing expert testimony in these cases. So it was determined by advocates and attorneys that restating those rules in this bill served no operative purpose. So we think this preserves the intent of the bill and just clarifies things, so ask for your support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, House Bill 1322 just flies in the face of the recent Supreme Court ruling. And we're opening ourselves up to more lawsuits. As the Supreme Court already ruled, that was unconstitutional. This is unconstitutional.

Oh, we're still on the amendment.

Do I have anything on the amendment? I will hold off.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. To the amendment, I just wanted to get up and offer my thanks to the sponsor for providing the amendment last Friday. So I got the weekend to go through it because it does amend the re-engrossed bill. And to the sponsor's point, it's largely striking several paragraphs and sentences. and I trying to see that it a I mean it a substantial amendment that does quite a bit of taking language out of the bill I stand in support of amendment L028

Aye.

Senator Isamore Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Now we can talk to them. Yes, as I mentioned, the Supreme Court had already ruled on one of Colorado's laws in regards to this arena and ruled it as unconstitutional. And House Bill 1322 is an unconstitutional workaround that will harm families and the counselors who work to help those families. And this bill allows counselors, parents, and counseling practices to be sued for providing care that accords with biological reality. And this bill departs from normal legal principles extending the statute of limitations. I know we have an amendment. Obviously, I have not been able to go through all of it as far as where the time frames are. but it drastically alters how causation is proved, making it nearly impossible to defend against such actions once in court. And I had already mentioned that this ignores the Supreme Court precedent, and it chills speech and pushes harmful ideology. This bill also has implications for parental rights. When looking at this bill in conjunction with 1309, it is clear that Colorado plans to silence all dissent and punish those who dare to speak up for their children. Under 1322, dissenters can be sued into oblivion, and under House Bill 1309, dissenters risk losing custody of their children. And so in section 1320-1302-3, and again, things have changed, so I don't know how this impacts this, but it provides a cause of action against a licensed mental health professional, A person who employed, a person who negligently hired has that provision in there. This means that not only the counselor be sued, but any organization, school, or counseling practice that employs a counselor who encourages their patient to gain comfort with their biological sex or who simply wants to provide that service to clients who explicitly request it, they can be sued. And further, this provision allows parents to be sued for hiring and or retaining such a counselor for their child. And this means in this bill, for example, someone could sue a counselor, the practice the counselor worked for, and the patient's parents 50 years after the counseling took place. Lawsuits could be brought long after the counseling has ended, the counselor has retired, the practice has closed, and patient files have been lost or destroyed. Thank you. Where have you heard of this? I mean, this is almost unheard of. The claims in Colorado, except those for sexual misconduct, have a statute of limitations. Even when a law does not specifically include a statute of limitations, the default presumption is that the statute of limitation is two years, not unlimited. As it relates to malpractice, all other instances, whether medical or legal, the statute of limitations is two years. There is no reason that this sort of health care-related claim should be any different. And once in court, the bill substantially changes the burden of proof. In most actions for malpractice, a plaintiff must prove that the harm they have experienced was actually caused by the actions of that mental health practitioner. This bill, however, radically alters that framework. Instead, the findings of this bill asserts that causation should be easier to prove, saying Colorado law should allow plaintiffs to establish causation without requiring proof of the precise mechanism by which the harm occurred. And again, I don't know if this amendment that was just passed impacts that. And more specifically, we have causation can be proved with as little as simply introducing scientific literature showing that sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts are capable of causing the type of psychological injury or illness the plaintiff suffers. After a plaintiff makes this general cursory showing, the judge must then presume that the specific causation exists, and a counselor can only overcome this by showing a preponderance of the evidence that the supposed harm was caused solely by factors unrelated to anything the counselor may have done. have done and this is going to make it nearly impossible for a counselor not to be liable under this section. This bill will have the same result as Colorado's previous law, which again the Supreme Court recently held in Childs v. Salazar, was unconstitutional because it violated the free speech clause by selectively silencing only the viewpoints Colorado disagreed with. And lastly, this bill is unnecessary. It's worth noting that Colorado already has medical malpractice provisions under which counselors can be sued. Additionally, counselors can already face professional discipline and have their license revoked for engaging in certain behavior, including ordering or performing any service or treatment that is contrary to the generally accepted standards of the person's practice and is without clinical justification and so I urge a no vote on House Bill 1322 thank you Menorah Leary Simpson thank you Chair When I step into this space without much background or knowledge

I read it as seeking civil remedies for, I don't want to call it bad behavior, but damaging behavior, and I fully support, you know, everybody should be held accountable for their actions. Reading it, it just feels the gut instinct is it just, it casts a really broad net and maybe too overwhelming, I guess, from my perspective, and how do you hold people accountable for therapies and services that they provide? I want to support that, but the bill just feels like it just goes too far to seek actions for claims against what I guess would be characterized as inappropriate therapy. And I just am not comfortable in this space, but trying to figure it out, and I appreciate the sponsor's effort, but I'm going to rise in support of 1322. Did I just say that? Let me rephrase that real quickly and say, while I was looking at the sponsors and wanting to be in support, I'm going to be in opposition to 1322. Thank you.

All opposed, no.

Mr. Majority Leader. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to lay over Senate Bill 115 until the end of the calendar.

Aye.

House Bill 1123 by Representatives Stuart Kaye and Mabry and Senators Amabile and Weissman concerning measures to prevent sexual abuse in jails and in connection therewith making an appropriation.

To the Judiciary Committee report.

The motion is the adoption of the Judiciary Report for House Bill 1123. All those in favor say aye.

All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The Judiciary Report is adopted.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate the kind words from the Senator from Boulder County. Members, a lot of the bills that we do in judiciary are sort of of a pattern or of a type where we become aware of some injury or some wrong or some victimization that has happened, and then we have a bill to try to fix the law so it doesn't happen again. We can't rewind time and undo something that has happened, but we can learn from it. Examples are, you know, drunk driving contexts or we don't get a breath test quickly enough. I mean, just to use a few examples from this year in the committee. What's a bit different here is that those victimized were inmates in one of our county jails in southwest Colorado. If you were in a jail, and let's presume that, you know, due process has been complied with, you've done something wrong. You might be serving a sentence. You might be there in a pretrial context. So because of what you've done to get there, you have forfeited some of your rights, but not all of those. you know I think how we're measured in this country is how we treat you know those sort of on the margins and there's some conduct that happened in one of our jails that doesn't measure up to that standard I think nobody is defending that and again as the senator from Boulder mentioned the question here is now how do we go forward and hopefully it never happens again so we adopted the committee report a moment ago. We have had ongoing conversations subsequent to that and reflecting such conversations. I have an amendment. There is an amendment at the desk. Mr. Schauffler,

Senator Weissman.

Further discussion on L24, Senator Zamora Wilson.

Senator Weissman. Thank you. Yeah, we did have a lot of discussion about this in judiciary, so thanks for the chance to unpack. As the bill came over from the House, there was language in the bill that talked about either of two different kinds of camera systems. One was what we might call older sort of security cameras, something mounted on the ceiling or high up on the wall or whatnot, and were we going to use that, or were we going to use a BWC, body-worn camera? the grovelment of all the amendments in Judiciary Committee was to move in the direction of BWC. Obviously, there can be some challenges about that, but a couple of reasons are, for reasons unrelated to this bill, we, the legislature, have mandated those to be used generally in police work for other reasons. So they're out there as the bottom line of it. Also, we know from talking to representatives of the sheriffs, the software or hardware and software vendors have technologies by which you can track access to video, you can tag video so that access can be restricted. We've got language by amendment in the bill about that. So as my colleague from Boulder alluded to, there were really sort of two violations going on here. One was inappropriate strip searches in the county we've spoken of in the first instance. The other was the ongoing violation of officials of that. Sheriff's Office viewing these videos time and time and time and time again, in some cases remotely, not even from within the state of Colorado, obviously not for criminal justice purposes, obviously for prurient purposes. And frankly, I've come to sense through talking to advocates that that was the, if anything, the greater violation against those who were wronged than the search in the first instance. So we need to have, as part of this policy, a way to restrict access and track access of video that is created in connection with a strip search. What we found in our meetings with the sheriff says there's a better ability to do that with the BWC systems. It's just kind of built in. When we tried to grapple with how do we achieve those goals of restricting access and tracking who's accessing with the overhead type of cameras, kind of just can't get there. The technology is just built, not built that way. So we took references to overhead security type cameras out of the bill. When there is a strip search, it will now be captured pursuant to BWC, and any footage will be regulated pursuant to other things we put in the bill by means of amendments. Does that help?

All those opposed, no.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our chairman from Aurora and the senator from Boulder for their work on this bill. I think this is a very important piece of legislation. I want to get a little feedback on this amendment, but you know, we hear a lot of concerning testimony in the Judiciary Committee, and I've got to say, the testimony on this particular issue was particularly concerning. Truly offensive violation of people's, particularly women's, privacy and rights. You know, we're talking about, in the particular instance that I think is the motivator for this legislation, well over 100, maybe well over 100 individuals were impacted by it, clearly having their privacy violated.

Mr. Minori, leader.

The motion is the adoption of House Bill 1123. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. 1123 is adopted. Mr. Schauffler, will you please read the title to House Bill 1226. House Bill 1226 by Representatives Wilford and Froelich and Senators Weissman and Cutter concerning measures to reduce emissions from certain electric generating units in the state. Senator Cutter.

To the Transportation and Energy report. Oh, go ahead. Senator Reisman.

The motion is the adoption of the Transportation Energy Committee report for House Bill 1226. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The committee report is adopted. To the bill Senator Cutter.

and ensures that if coal plants operate past 2034 they will use modern pollution controls Senator Weissman Thanks Mr Chair Members just to add a little bit to that if we zoom out and consider what we talking about here electric resource planning decisions are not made quickly. They're not made lightly. The posture that we are in in terms of the phased closure of certain generating units in our state and what it means for those communities and our attempts here in the legislature to direct transition resources to those communities has been many, many years in the making. And legislators from all over the state and both parties have participated in, or at least been invited to participate in, those decisions. You know, you have policy choices being made as to the emission of certain pollutants. You also have rapidly changing economics of just the cost. THERE'S SOMETHING CALLED LEVELIZED COST, WHICH IS THE ALL-IN COST, CAPITAL, FUEL, IF ANY, TO PRODUCE A MEGAWATT HOUR OR A MEGAWATT OF CAPACITY, TO BRING A MEGAWATT OF CAPACITY ONLINE. IF YOU LOOK AT THAT FROM A SOURCE LIKE LAZARD, YOU KNOW, A BUSINESS SOURCE, YOU'LL SEE THAT THE LEVELIZED COST OF SOME RENEWABLE RESOURCES HAS GONE OFF THE CLIFF, RELATIVE TO 2010, EVEN A COUPLE YEARS AGO. SO THAT'S PART OF IT TOO. AT ANY RATE, WE IN COLORADO HAVE TRIED FOR DECADES TO BE IN CHARGE OF OUR OWN DESTINY TO BRING CLEAN POWER ONLINE TO MANAGE TRANSITION. AND THAT HAS BEEN ONGOING. AND WHEN THINGS LIKE COMENCHE 3 AND THOSE MECHANICAL ISSUES POP UP, WE TRY TO DEAL WITH THEM IN OUR OWN COLORADO WAY. WHAT REALLY BRINGS 1226 ABOUT IS THE CURRENT FEDERAL REGIME HAS DUSTED OFF but decades-old provision of law that I think really went on the federal books to anticipate times when maybe the country would be in more of a war footing. And it has been used concerning a unit in Colorado. There is now litigation concerning how that's going to go. We don't know how that's going to settle out yet. At any rate, what all of that demonstrated is that we need a statutory framework here BY WHICH WE IN COLORADO, PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT EMISSIONS, PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT PROTECTING RATE PAYERS, A FRAMEWORK BY WHICH WE HERE CAN EVEN KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON. SO PART OF THE BILL IS SIMPLY TRYING TO SURFACE DATA AND THEN AS THE SENATOR FROM JEFF COH SAID, IN THE EVENT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE FIND UNITS ARE RUNNING PER FEDERAL ORDER THAT HAS STOOD UP TO ANY LEGAL CHALLENGE FOR YEARS, WE AT LEAST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE POLLUTION CONTROLS BECAUSE THERE CAN BE ALL MANNER OF HEALTH IMPACTS where those issues are not seen to. So it looks like there's going to be some discussion here, but we look forward to having a chat about 1226.

Senators Amor Wilson.

Amendment L-5.

I move L-005 to House Bill 1226.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. So this amendment would delay AQCC's deadline to adopt final emissions rule from July of 2029 to July of 2034 and delay mandatory compliance with the AQCC rule from December of 2034 to December 2040. And again we trying to fight regulation on businesses This amendment protects Colorado businesses and energy landscape by preventing the state from rushing into a costly and inflexible regulatory regime The bill forces regulators to impose sweeping emissions limits on major power plants with a compressed timeline despite the complexity of the grid and available technology. Remember, these rules will dictate decisions in capital investment and long-term operational decisions, as well as install expensive pollution controls and meet strict emissions limits for certain generating units across the state. By extending the timeline, This amendment ensures Colorado does not lock itself into premature mandates that could raise cost, increase risk, and undermine reliability. And the ability to extend compliance deadlines, it goes without saying, it ensures utilities can transition responsibly without sacrificing affordability or reliability. So I urge an aye vote on amendment L-005.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for engaging on this. We've already moved deadlines, and this is contrary to what the intent of the bill is, so we're asking for a no on this amendment.

The motion is the adoption of L-005. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. The no's have it. L-005 is lost. Senator Zemore Wilson.

Mr. Schauffer, will you please read L-006?

Senator Zemore Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L006 to House Bill 1226.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this amendment would remove the requirement for covered generating units to submit quarterly emission reports. Again, we're fighting business regulation, so this protects Colorado businesses by eliminating a burdensome reporting mandate. The bill forces operators to file emission reports every 90 days. This creates constant compliance pressure rather than focusing on actual emissions performance. Unfortunately, these burdensome, infinite reports increase administrative costs and regulatory exposure. And removing this requirement ensures utilities focus on real-world outcomes, such as delivering affordable and reliable energy to everyday Coloradans, not paperwork. Let's not be the most regulated state in the nation. I urge an aye vote on Amendment L006. Thank you.

Senator Kellen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, I'm here in regards to this bill.

Are we talking to L-006, Senator Kelly? Sir? We're on amendment L-006.

You and I got crossed that.

Further discussion on L-006. Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of L006. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. No. The no's have it. L006 is lost. To the bill, Senator Catlin.

All good.

That amendment is at the desk.

I'd like to move Amendment 007 to House Bill 1226.

This amendment would replace the bill's severability clause with a non-severability clause. It's fighting business regulation. This amendment protects Colorado businesses by preventing a broken piecemeal policy from remaining in effect. The bill's provisions are deeply interconnected. Emissions limits, compliance timelines, and operational mandates all function together. If a court strikes down one aspect of this legislation, leaving the rest intact could potentially cause a dysfunctional regulatory structure. This amendment ensures that the entire framework is reconsidered if its core components fail. I think this makes sense. I think it would be good for the communities that are involved with this. I think it would be good for the communities that are paying the rates. I'd ask for a yes vote.

Senator Weissman Chair We ask for a no vote on L7 Members we may already all know Severability is the default rule of construction for everything we do here that is per 24204 Colorado Revised Statutes Sometimes we will all put a severability clause in our bill anyway, belt and suspenders. This is a little bit unique, this non-severability clause. The reason that we do severability, frankly, is that's consistent with separation of powers. If somebody goes to court and challenges an enactment that we do here, which it's their right to do, a court will generally invalidate only so much as it really has to. If there's an attack under preemption or whatever on one part of the bill, a court will not necessarily roam broadly in something that we have done here and wipe out the entire enactment. It's fact and law dependent, but I think of the reason for severability as respecting separation of powers. We don't arrogate judicial functions to ourself. The judiciary should not arrogate lawmaking functions to itself. This is going the other way. This is inviting a court to throw the whole thing out. I will say two things about the business narrative. One, we think that the bill is squarely permissible, constitutional, and otherwise, we wouldn't be doing it. Two, we have worked with big utility companies every step of the way for months. They have been part of every discussion about this or that paragraph, this or that amendment. So, at any rate, this amendment is to depart from the norms of how we do things around here. we don't think it's necessary or appropriate we ask for a no vote

thank you Mr. Chair there we go again another one size fits all that disregards state borders, national borders, air quality attainment. Part of the state that I represent and live in is an air quality attainment zone. One size fits all. policies just cost my citizens and myself more and more money while having very little effect out there other than draining our pocketbooks. So with that.

amendment L-009. Amendment L-9.

So moved.

Senator Cutter.

Motion is the adoption of L-009 to House Bill 1226. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. No. The no's have it. L-9 is lost. Senator Rich.

There is an amendment at the desk.

Senator Rich. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Amendment L-008 to House Bill 1226.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really believe that this amendment should replace the safety clause. The amendment protects consumers by restoring their right to challenge sweeping energy mandates. The bill declares itself necessary for immediate preservation of public health and safety blocking voters from weighing in. However these policies impose long costs and structural changes to Colorado energy system So this amendment L would ensure that Coloradans have a voice before these mandates take effect. Again, there seems to be plenty of time for this to take effect if a petition clause is put on instead of using the safety clause. and I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Reason that we're asking for a safety clause, again, we were making plans. We had our processes here in Colorado, including to save people money, because you've got to buy coal to burn it in a 50-year-old power plant. the levelized cost of onshore wind or solar is around 40 per megawatt or less. That's to the economics point. The thing about utility planning is the runways are pretty long. We have deadlines and we have amended deadlines in conversations with the PUC and utility companies we've been speaking with. We need to start now so that people can plan for what is comprehended in this bill, because we don't know what usurpations are going to continue to happen from the federal government. I also do want to point out just concerning this amendment and it's the scope of the whole bill and thus, you know, who is and isn't impacted on whatever timing,

Senator Rich.

The motion is the adoption of L-008 to House Bill 1226. All those in favor say aye.

All those opposed, no.

the no's have it and l008 is lost senator pelton r thank you mr chair

Amendment L-10. Senator Peltner.

So move to the amendment.

Senator Weissman.

ENTIRELY CARVED OUT OF THE FRAMEWORK WE TALKING ABOUT HERE IN THE BILL SO ASK FOR NO vote on 10 The motion is the adoption of L to House Bill 1226 All those in favor say aye All those opposed, no. The no's have it. L-10 is lost. Senator Liston.

Mr. Schaffer, will you please read L11?

Floor is yours, Senator Lisson.

Floor is yours.

So move to the amendment.

Senator Weissman.

Senator Liston.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to support the amendment here, Amendment 11, by the good senator from Colorado Springs. He's been doing a lot of good work here to promote nuclear energy and employment in that sphere in our state. I think it is increasingly recognized that we can develop nuclear power in a safe way and a clean way. I mean, it is clearly a, you know, if the intent of this legislation is to promote clean energy and energy which does not have a lot of emissions, I would think you'd want to make it very clear that nuclear fuels could be included in that. And as to it not being within the scope of the legislation this amendment just simply strikes a couple of words literally not even barely a whole sentence from you know the language here So I think it's clearly within the scope. It's just clarifying that we don't want to exclude nuclear fuels, particularly from this bill. So I support it.

Appreciate the conversation today. And I do have some, like, opportunity to engage with the sponsors that I didn't get to in advance. So, again, the title of the bill is Measures to Reduce Emissions from Certain Electric Generating Units in the State. And the Good Senator from Aurora actually highlighted this point in Section 2, Covered Electric Generating Unit, or unit means an electric generating unit that's owned or operated by an electric utility that's located in the state, and that in county year 2024, emitted 200 tons or more of nitrogen oxides, 200 tons or more of sulfur dioxide or both. So I'm trying to appreciate how many units across the state we might actually be talking about. If they happen to have, because there are only, I don't know, a dozen. I don't know the exact number of coal-fired units left in the state. The three at Craig's Steam Electric Station, three at Pueblo, one at Hayden, Platte Valley. it's pretty limited on the total number that are currently operating, so I'm trying to figure out how many of this is actually applicable to. And while the sponsors are looking for that, I'm interested. It actually very specific references only those that were operating and measured those emissions in 2024. What about a unit that didn't do it in 2024, thinking Unit 3 at Comanche in 26, I THINK IT'S A PROBLEM TO PRODUCE SIX IF IT DOES PRODUCE MORE THAN, LIKE, IS THERE A GAP THERE OR MISS. BUT I'M REALLY INTERESTED IN HOW MANY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SO WE BELIEVE THERE ARE SIX UNITS THAT WOULD FIT THAT DEFINITION. YOU NEED TO PICK SOME YARD STICK, RIGHT? SO WE PICKED A YEAR CONCERNING WHICH ENOUGH TIME HAS GONE BY. WE CAN GET SOLID DATA. THIS IS ONE OF THESE DEFINITIONS THAT STARTS BY SAYING WHAT'S IN AND THEN GOES ON TO SAY WHAT'S NOT. SO IT'S EQUALLY IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT ROMAN II. has converted we call it fuel switching sometimes they're out also what's out is any VGU electric generating unit that already has sufficient pollution control installed flue gas desulfurization that's getting rid of your sulfur emissions selective catalytic reduction that's getting rid of your knocks so if you've already done that then you are also out of the bill but we're really talking about essentially coal burning units that that haven't already installed modern controls that frankly are on some timeline to shut down pursuant to planning that we've already done around here in Colorado could potentially be targeted by a federal order. Senator, or Mr. Mayor earlier.

The last question I had is about establishing the final rules, means the rules adopted by the commission limiting sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides like I thought do we not already have rules in that space I not sure are these a specific set of rules for these very specific units we talking about

The risk of not perfectly understanding the scope of the question. We definitely have a robust body of air quality law going on. I don't think we're in the vein of hazardous emissions here. We care about these things because NOx in particular are ozone precursors. Now we're getting into criteria pollutants and NACs and all of that fund. But the point is here we're talking about a pretty small universe of EGUs that, again, we have made plans for in Colorado. We have tried to set up phased decommissioning, and everybody kind of knew what that was until December of last year. And now we're in this world where at least as to one unit, we don't know what's going on. It's been ordered to operate. Things could continue to come down. Federal Power Act 202C orders can roll downhill kind of whenever. They can go for 90 days. They can be renewed. So we're trying to have a framework in place for transparency, for reporting, for pollution controls in the event things continue to go as they have been going. So we did want there to be some rules that are specific to this context. And we've actually moved some of the rulemaking language and some of the deadlines around in consultation with the executive branch agencies that would be responsible for those so that the deadlines work for them as the implementer. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the discussion this morning or this afternoon now on this bill. I rise to just talk briefly about what this policy means in practicality. What we're talking about here is Craig Station Unit 1. I represent Craig Station Unit 1. I represent the district that has two of these coal fire power plants that would be impacted by this bill. and so for my constituents this is not an abstract policy debate or one that is as black and white as coal good or coal bad and I understand I definitely understand because I talk to these folks all the time hear from their local elected officials talk to them at their doors in Craig in Hayden about what it means when we have retirement dates for these coal plants, what it means not only for the people that work there, but what it means for the communities that are supported by the tax revenue that those jobs and properties create for them. So what happened on December 31st last year when the federal government issued an order saying Craig Station Unit 1 needs to open again further perpetuated the use of these human lives and workers as political footballs. Craig Station Unit 1 wasn't open on December 31st, 2025. It was not operating for other reasons, not even related to AQCC rulemaking or emission requirements here in our state laws. It was closed for different reasons. But now it's open. It's operating. People in Craig and in Northwest Colorado have jobs that they didn't have. And so when bills like this come forward, and no disrespect to the sponsors, I know this is a House bill, and so the conversation probably largely occurred over there, but as far as I'm aware, nobody involved in this policy, House Bill 1226, specifically, spoke to the workers in Craig, talked to the county commissioners, talked to the city counselors, talked to the Chamber of Commerce there, didn't even talk to the union organization that represents a lot of these workers. So as the senator who represents those folks, that gives me great pause and concern about the way that this policymaking has gone. Because first, the Trump administration used these workers as a political football, and now the state of Colorado is doing that same thing from the other side. It's not the way that we should be doing this policy. Whether you agree or not that carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants are causing harm to the state, there are people behind this. There are human lives. These are not numbers on paper. This is not the feeling of doing something about climate change alone. You're impacting people's lives. Better stakeholding should have occurred with this bill. should have had communications with, obviously, the legislators. Sure, maybe check in with the legislators that represent this area, but talk to the people who live there and work in these power plants, the communities that depend on the property tax revenue from these coal-fired power plants. It's just hard. But when I go to Craig, when I go to Hayden, there are people there that understand the market of coal and where it's going in our state. And sure, maybe some of the state's decisions have expedited those conversations and those timelines. But these are men and women. These are their kids. These are the businesses that operate only because those coal-fired plower pants are there. We're having a difficult conversation in northwest Colorado. and jamming through policy like this without engaging those folks is not the most productive way to move forward. I don't disagree that maybe we do have to move forward and of course we need to generate different types of energy and we need to take care of our environment but we need to remember that these are not just AQCC rule makings. These are not just numbers on paper. These are human lives. These are communities that are special places. Let's not just treat them as political footballs from the federal government or the state government. Thank you. Seeing no further discussion,

House Bill 1210 by Representatives Bacon and Mabry and Senators Weissman and Judah, concerning limiting the use of intimate personal data to make inferences that impact a person's financial position. Senatorial 5.

The clerk please read the title to House Bill 1076. House Bill 1076 by Representatives Pascal and Lindsay and Senator Ball concerning modifications to select statutory provisions relating to transportation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1076 and the Transportation Committee report. To the Transportation Committee report.

In Transportation Committee, let me back up a little bit. House Bill 1076 is a cleanup bill. It contains a number of pieces of statute identified by CDOT as needing to be corrected or changed in some way, really just to make the work that they do every day a little bit easier. And so we added some additional pieces through an amendment in the Transportation Energy Committee. These are very small things in keeping with the rest of the bill, such as enabling the state to pay a deductible for rail insurance, cleaning up some timelines around the clean transit enterprise, and things of that nature. Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the adoption of the committee report.

Amendment L4. Senator Ball.

You would like to or you do?

Seeing no further discussion.

Seeing no further discussion, the question before is the adoption of L-004. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Ayes have it. L4 is adopted. To the bill, any discussion?

Seeing none, the motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1076. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Ayes have it. 1076 is adopted.

Senator Kipp.

To the BLT report, any discussion? Seeing none, the motion before us is the adoption of the BLT report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Ayes have it. BLT is adopted. To the appropriations report. Any discussion? Seeing none, the motion before us is the adoption of the appropriations committee report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The appropriations committee report is adopted. There is an amendment at the desk.

Senator Kipp.

To the amendment.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the motion before is to the adoption of L010. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. The ayes have it, and that amendment is adopted. To the bill, any further discussion? Yeah, basically this bill is just based on the idea that we want to make sure

All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Ayes have it. That bill is adopted. Will the clerk please read the title to Senate Bill 115?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We move Senate Bill 115 along with the Judiciary Report and the Appropriations Committee reports.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Following incredible and iterative negotiations alongside impacted agencies and departments,

I ask for an aye vote Seeing no further discussion the question before us is the adoption of the Judiciary Committee report All those in favor say aye Aye Opposed no Ayes have it That report is adopted To the Approps Report Senator Weissman

Seeing no further discussion of the Appropriations Committee report, the question before us is the adoption of that report. All those in favor say aye.

All those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and that report is adopted. There is an amendment at the desk.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We move L-9 to Senate Bill 115.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. L-9 amends this bill by putting a sunset on the bill for three years after the effective date that the policy takes effect. We really seek this as being an opportunity to test whether this works. to see how other policies also impact and effectuate the prison population. And I think particularly in light of our premise and our belief that this will impact a very narrow and limited set of individuals year after year, I do think that in light of that, L9 is appropriate and makes sense because we see this as being an important theory to test that if we actually ensure that people who have demonstrated that they have done the work to rehabilitate, can they actually seek that relief using Senate Bill 115? I BELIEVE THE ANSWER FOR A LIMITED NUMBER OF PEOPLE WILL BE YES.

THANKS, MR. CHAIR. NUMBERS, JUST TO UNDERSCORE THIS, THIS IS THE SECOND MAJOR CHANGE WE'RE DOING TO THIS POLICY. AS AMENDED BY 9, HOPEFULLY IN A MOMENT HERE, THERE'S BASICALLY A ONE-TIME THREE-YEAR WINDOW IN WHICH FEWER THAN 100 POSSIBLY ELIGIBLE FOLKS COULD FILE A PETITION. and then we're cutting off the ongoing impact. So we'll get some data. We'll be able to pull from judicial how many petitions were filed, what can we learn about all that. Past that, the only thing left is what we call prosecutor-initiated resentencing. That's sub-two of the bill starting on page four. That vests 100% of the discretion in the elected DA. different offices have or maybe don't have what is sometimes called a conviction integrity unit or a conviction review. unit, this would be a vehicle for them to effectuate those reviews if they chose and not if they didn't. So we ask for your yes vote on L-9.

Aye.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just want to start with some discussion on the bill. Thank you to my colleagues from Aurora and Denver for bringing this piece of legislation. You know, at first blush, this appears to be all about fairness and reasonableness. second chances. But I think if you take a second look at the bill, the title of this to some degree is a second look on folks sentencing, I think we need to take a second look at the bill. And, you know, what Senate Bill 115 does seeks to allow resentencing, also known as a second look of inmates who've served 20 calendar years in the Colorado Department of Corrections for two populations, for two categories of folks, those who've committed the crime when they were under 21 years old, but were tried or sentenced as adults, and individuals who are 60 years old and older. For context, I think the first thing to talk about for context is to receive a sentence that carries 20 calendar years likely means that the inmate was convicted by either a jury trial or pled guilty to a crime like murder, first degree assault, sexual assault, human trafficking, or a crime of violence. or the individual is a habitual felony offender with at least three previous separate felony convictions. These are the most dangerous and devastating crimes in our state. To be clear, to serve 20 calendar years in Colorado's Department of Corrections means the offender's crime was extremely serious. when accounting for DOC's good time and earned time policies, the offender's original sentence is probably going to have been a lot more than 20 years. You could be talking about some folks that received 30, 40, 50-year sentences. So obviously the longer that sentence is, presumably the more serious and dangerous the crime. just paraphrasing from a recent

Okay. Just to correct my comments, some of the categories have been specifically exempted from the bill. However, we are still dealing with crimes which carry very long sentences, which I think we can all agree are very serious crimes. The sponsors and proponents of the bill speak of the hope that the inmate can have in being released from the Department of Corrections, And that hope translates into engagement in programming, education, and restorative practices with a victim or victim's family. It's odd, however, that we already have quite a few existing programs for shortening sentences for early release, including clemency, pardons, juveniles and young adults convicted as adult programs. earned in good time, special needs paroles that allow for cases to be reviewed, and consideration to be given to reducing sentences. And I would argue that this particular legislation duplicates a lot of these already existing policies. We did hear from a lot of folks in the judiciary hearing who had been released and I think a number of their testimonies were very sincere and admirable. They do appear to have turned their lives around, but the interesting thing is that they were of course released under the current programs. So whatever processes that allowed them to be released early, not to fulfill the entire terms, they're already in place. So the question is, why would we need this additional legislation? And I'll say that victims deserve hope, too. They should hope that they'll be respected and honored by our criminal justice system. They should hope to recover, heal, and feel safe after victimization. They should hope that they can trust that a sentence imposed on their offender will actually be the sentence served, a sentence for a crime in which a jury convicted the offender of, and a judge considered all the relevant factors handed down. Too often we see offenders serving the shorter sentences, far shorter sentences than were initially imposed. And Senate Bill 115, while it may certainly give hope to the offenders, it may well dash hope to victim survivors and their families. So let me talk a little bit about 60 plus and over and the whole issue of recidivism So, there may be sort of a presumption that, you know, clearly there is a correlation that the older in age you get, the less likely you are to engage in recidivism. But there still are clear cases. The recidivism rate of older offenders is 21.3% nationally. Older offenders take a longer time to recidivate, but there are cases, one in five here, where they are rearrested due to committing additional crimes. Overall, the recidivism rate in Colorado is 31%. And while we've made progress to reduce recidivism, 31% is high. Basically, you're saying in the case of folks who are released, one in three are going on to commit additional crimes. Victims are already put under the pressure when they go through the initial sentencing process. and a sentence is handed down and they assume that that period of time is going to be carried forward and then suddenly they find out years later that the rules of the game have changed. And I think to some extent what this legislation does is make a judge's sentence nearly meaningless for victims And this bill will further exacerbate that process of having to go back to the victims and say, well, now this person was sentenced to a very long period of time, and now that they've served 20 years, we get a do-over, we get a second look. So I think we have to think about the impact of all of that on the victims and their families. I am going to, I think when we talk about the age 60 being the cutoff point, I have an amendment here that I'd like to begin with to raise that to 65.

Will the clerk please read L4? Amendment L4.

To the amendment.

Senator Weissman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to ask for a no vote for a few reasons, one of which is that the bill as amended in a probes and further just now by means of L9 on the floor is already profoundly limited. We have defined a narrow universe of criteria in the bill, which when you overlay to the facts, which the fiscal note has done, you're talking about fewer than 100 folks are even eligible. And that doesn't mean that they're going to get a resentencing hearing or a new sentence imposed. It just means they might take that first step. And then because that wasn't narrow enough, we set a three-year sunset on it. And anybody who might even be eligible and for whatever reason doesn't get a petition in IS GOING TO LOSE THAT THAT OPPORTUNITY AND THEN FOLKS WHO MIGHT IN THE FUTURE AGE INTO ELIGIBILITY WILL NOT BY MEANS OF THE AMENDMENT THAT WE DID. NOW. I think as to the question of safety and who maybe should earn their way out and who shouldn't, that's what the hearing mechanism is for. With counsel, with victim input, of course. You may well have it that somebody is in, if we're concerned about what kind of physical shape somebody is in, they might be doing better at 65 than another person might be doing it at 60. It really depends on the person. And that's why we have to, frankly, have the humility in this place to understand that we will never know all the facts in a hearing on the ground what happened. All we can try to do is have sideboards and reasonable processes, which we think this is one of those by which courts, individual judges can really suss things out and decide whether a new disposition is warranted. Now, I think we also sort of mixed up apples and tuna fish and kumquats in the last discussion talking about recidivism. Most folks in DOC are there for a lower level felony, a five or a six, maybe a four. Unless you have, and this is hard to imagine for the lower level offenses, but the governing base range on an F4 even. is 2 to 6. And again, we're saying here you have to have done at least 20. The governing range on a class 3, unless it aggravates or runs concurrently, is 4 to 12. So you're not even in the bill if you're inside on an F3. What DOC's own data shows, yeah, you have recidivism rates that are higher than we want to see for people coming out on a lower-level felony. They're not even who we're talking about in the bill, AND THEY NEVER HAVE BEEN. YOU CAN ALSO LOOK AT RECIDIVISM BY AGE. IT BEARS OUT WHAT I THINK WE ALL UNDERSTAND, EVEN IF WE GO IN DIFFERENT PLACES, FROM THE UNDERSTANDING, PEOPLE DO AGE OUT OF COMMITTING OFFENSES. DOC'S DATA SHOWS THAT 18 TO 29, YOUR THREE-YEAR RECIDIVISM COHORT, WE TYPICALLY TRACK OVER THREE YEARS, IS ABOUT 35%. IT'S 38 AND A HALF BETWEEN 30 AND 39. AGAIN, THOSE AREN'T THE PEOPLE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ANYMORE IN THE BILL. 60 to 69, 1.3%. 70 plus, 0.2%. And that's not zero, and we care about public safety, which is why we have a hearing, which is why we have excluded intentionally from the moment the bill was introduced certain offenses where we have just said as a policy matter folks are not going to be eligible, even for the hearing. That's everyone on an LWAP sentence. That's everyone on a broad universe of sex offenses. That's everyone with certain sensitive victims. And then we're left with maybe a few score folks will get a hearing and a judge based on the facts, based on the argumentation and the legal representation will be the ultimate decider. So that's how narrow this already is and why we don't think we need to further narrow it in terms of the eligibility of those who can petition. Ask for a no vote. Any further discussion?

You know, this amendment, I think, is an important step to improve the bill. This is a bill, I want to remind folks, this is a bill that is opposed unanimously by all of the district attorneys in Colorado, all 23 of them. So I going to suggest that they have a bit of concern about this whole issue of second look going back years later and you know re the victims trying to reassess all of the evidence and the reasons why these long sentences were delivered. And, you know, 20 years is a long time to go back. You know, it's a long time for offenders, so, you know, I think that's, you know, one of the reasons the proponents of the bill believe, you know, after 20 years people should have a right to a second look. But it's also a long time for reviewing all the details and all the issues that came up in the case. You know, a significant trial, even the person pled guilty or a significant trial was conducted and the jury convicted the person. A lot of evidence was put out there. The victims had to go through that process. The judge had to make rulings and hand down a sentence. And now 20 years later, we're going to reopen that whole thing. 20 years is a long time. Twenty years ago, George W. Bush was president. Twenty years ago, Bill Owens was governor of this state. So you're going back a long time when you're talking about 20 years reopening cases, taking another look at all of the issues that were brought forward. Quite a few of the facts in the case you're not really going to be able to review professionally. Victims may be gone. Witnesses may be gone. And this is all, you know, built on a one-sided argument that what we have to look at is, you know, the rehabilitation process that may or may not have worked for the offenders. And certainly we have to remember, you know, I've heard a number of times in the Judiciary Committee that the purpose of imprisonment is rehabilitation, well, that may be one of the purposes. But the other purposes are public safety and punishment. And I think we have to recognize the public safety element particularly. There is recidivism. It occurs. And I think when you contrast where the legislature keeps going with these bills and saying we want more early release and more leniency, it's completely contrary to where the public is going. With Proposition 128, they want 85 percent. They want to make sure that serious criminals, violent criminals, are serving 85 percent of their sentences. And so here again we have another bill which is cutting back on the sentences. I think contrary to what the public would like to see. So I think this amendment adds some additional protections to the bill in terms of public safety, raises that age to 65, which is not that old an age today. You know, folks clearly are living well beyond that. So I think 65, that's considered the generally retirement age. I think that's a good measure, a good age to make these folks eligible for this second look provision.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So my colleague from Highlands Ranch made some excellent points. Again, getting back to what do Coloradans want? In 2024, Proposition 28, we voted on it. 62% of Coloradans said they want individuals convicted of specific violent crimes to serve at least 85% of their sentence. Period. They made it clear. 62%. and as my colleague also mentioned, there are other mechanisms as far as for those sentences to be reduced. We do not need this bill. And so to honor the Coloradans' vote, I have an amendment.

Amendment L5, amendment for the bill, page four.

To the amendment.

Is there any further discussion?

WE ASK FOR A NOBODE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION SENATOR ZEMOIR WILSON THANK YOU Mr Chair I appreciate that Then I will restate going back to the voters what they want They want individuals convicted of specific violent crimes to serve at least 85 of their sentence so I urge an aye vote on L005

Any further discussion? Seeing none the most before, this is the adoption of L-005. All those in favor say aye.

Opposed, no.

No's have it. That amendment is lost. Any further discussion? Senator Sullivan.

Senator Zamora Wilson.

And that was no. so it leaves the victims again no way to seek red dress, and we're talking years later. And in regards to when the offender is released, how the victims are re-traumatized. even though it's been maybe 20 years later. One comment was made, the victim never gets to choose the justice. Here's another comment. Regarding the stats about second chances, have we ever seen the long-term impacts on crime? No, we haven't. There exists risk evaluations and this bill doesn't require them. And again, another comment about how you're opening up the case. A judge could be a totally completely different judge evaluating the situation Will that judge have all the information As it was mentioned memories fade and the facts fade away So will there be justice It was mentioned that there's already programs for education as far as contributing to the community. And again, what is justice? And it's different for everyone. And if the victims disagree with the judge, I said it once before, but it was mentioned again. If the victims disagree with the judge or if they're overruled and release happens, can the judge still release based on the fact that the survivors oppose? So, just sharing some of the comments. There's more in here. But again, I will restate, Coloradans have voted 62%. Want those criminals to serve at least 80% of their time. And we should not be solving the DOC's budget crisis by sacrificing the victims of their crimes, potential new victims, and our community safety. I urge a no vote. Senator Carson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, all of our district attorneys oppose this legislation, and I think one of the reasons is the review standard. When this comes back up, everything is reassessed by a preponderance of the evidence. And there's different levels of reviews on these type of things. And if you're, again, as we've said, you're going way back, you're going back 20 years, reviewing these cases, reviewing what the judge ruled, reviewing what the victim said, reviewing what happened in the trial. And with the preponderance of the evidence, I think we need to take a look at a higher standard at least. If we're going to reopen these cases, we should have a higher standard for the public. So I have an amendment here. There's an amendment at the desk. Mr. Schauffler, will you please read L-7. Amendment L-7, amend prayer, Bill Page 6, line 1, strike a preponderance of the evidence. Senator Carson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move Amendment L-007. So moved. To the amendment. This amendment is an important one, I think. If we're going to reopen these cases, this amendment replaces the evidentiary standard of preponderance of the evidence with the higher standard of clear and convincing evidence during the hearing on the petition for post release Moving from a preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing evidence ensures that courts apply a more rigorous reliable standard before granting relief Clear and convincing evidence represents a medium to high burden of proof, indicating that a claim is highly and substantially more likely to be true than false. This standard is more demanding than preponderance of the evidence, but less rigorous than beyond a reasonable doubt. This amendment would establish a higher burden of proof, which requires well-supported decisions. This could increase trust among victims in the community. And the amendment does not disallow post-conviction release, but it does provide a safeguard against unwarranted reversals. Let's make sure we get it right. Again, this is going to be another area where I think the prosecutors in this state are going to at least have some relief from some of the details of this bill. And I appreciate the actions of the sponsors in amending the bill previously. As they correctly pointed out to me, they did remove some of the very, very serious crimes from it, which is good. So I think all these changes are good. And I think it's a recognition that we're treading on some risky ground here. And I just want to reiterate why I think the higher standard is important, because you're looking at this issue of recidivism. For certain major offense types, the type of federal offense that offenders had committed also had an effect on recidivism across age groups. And that's one thing I want to mention here is we've talked a lot about, you know, seniors, those 60 and older or 65 and older. But this applies to folks who've committed crimes when they were under 21. So when we're talking about recidivism, we could be talking about someone who's in their 40s or 30, even if a crime might have been committed. Senator Obama. Central 5. We are back, Senator Carson. Back. We're back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So back to the amendment here on raising the review standard to clear and convincing evidence. And again, the recidivism rate, even if you're talking, whatever age you're talking about here, it does depend a lot on the category of the offense. Firearms offenders had a substantially higher rearrest rate across all age categories than drug trafficking offenders. who in turn had a higher re-arrest rate across all age categories than fraud offenders. So it does appear that the more violent the offense, the greater the potential for a re-offender to go out there to engage in recidivism. So I think we want to have a more cautious approach to this. We want to have a higher review standard, and that's simply what this amendment does. We go to the clear and convincing evidence review standard. So I would ask for a favorable vote for the amendment. Senator Weissman. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Members, as a reminder, here's all that was left in the bill. Folks who are 60-plus have served at least 20 years. LWAP is excluded. A broad category of sex offenders is excluded entirely. What does LWAP mean? LWAP is life without the possibility of parole. In other words, you were sentenced on a felony one. Also, younger victim offenses are excluded, and emergency responder offenses are excluded. So the bill requires a minimum of 20 years' time served. Given the tendency of folks to commit offenses when they are younger, the bill requires you have served 20. In practical fact, it could be 30, 35, 40 by the time you hit the 60-year criterion that is set forth in the bill. And again, per L9 that we adopted here on the floor a few moments ago, now there's only a time-limited window to even apply. The preponderance standard in the bill means that a judge has to find it more likely than not that the conditions talked about are met. And of course, the burden is on the petitioner, as it should be. So we think all of that is a narrow enough set of conditions. We ask for a no vote on the amendment. Senator Zemora Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in support of L007. My colleague from Highlands Ranch, I think he brought up some great points. Let me clear and convincing. As I mentioned, we're talking about cases being revisited after some time where the facts may fade away. And this helps in maintaining the integrity of the case. And so I ask for an aye vote on L-007. The motion is the adoption of L-007 to Senate Bill 115. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The no's have it. L7 is lost. Senator Carson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So just to recap where we've been on this, and I do appreciate the changes that have been made to the bill by the sponsors and others, But I do think it reflects sort of a shared concern maybe that we better be pretty careful with passing legislation like this because it might come back to haunt us. And obviously the more serious the offense the more likely we going to re victims and the greater potential for recidivism And so I just wanted to sort of conclude my remarks on this bill with a few comments to remind folks The district attorneys of this state unanimously oppose the legislation. That's significant. We have district attorneys from all across the political spectrum, Democrats and Republicans, and they're, to put it mildly, not fond of going back and reopening things in these cases. One of the things that struck me in the testimony on this legislation was hearing from prosecutors who spend a lot of time with victims. And, you know, they explain to them, you know, one of the big issues is finality and the sense that these are very serious crimes and you're explaining to the victims this is going to be the sentence. It's going to be final. It's what has been handed down here. That gives them a reassurance of safety. It gives the public a reassurance of safety. And now you're going to reopen all of that and put people through that trauma again. And you listen to those prosecutors saying, And, you know, I can no longer give that level of assurance to the victims with a bill like this. And this is just, you know, another bill in a long series of bills where we seem to have this attitude of more and more second chances, more and more second reviews. and we have in place many, many, many mechanisms already for people who have good behavior in prison. Their cases can be reviewed. As I mentioned, we had a number of witnesses, previous offenders who came in and talked about how they turned their lives around and that's certainly admirable. but they did that under the current system. They did it with all the rules we have in place for second reviews on cases, for clemency. Even district attorneys can come in cases where situations are warranted. We have earned good time. We have many mechanisms where folks can have their sentences reduced and get into an earlier parole situation. So I think we should listen to the district attorneys of this state. We should remember that this legislation is fundamentally unnecessary where cases of early release are warranted. The procedures exist already. and we need to keep in mind the public safety element that the citizens of this state have a right to know that sentences are carried forth. They voted very clearly with Proposition 128 that they want a minimum of 85% of sentences carried out in serious crimes. and here we are again running contrary to that current of the public with more and more legislation which says we're not particularly concerned what the public thinks about the length of prisons and the length of punishment. We want to have more and more mechanisms for early release. So I would urge opposition to this legislation and conclude my remarks with that The motion is the adoption of Senate Bill 115 Division has been requested. Thank you. Thank you. A division has been requested on the motion of the adoption of Senate Bill 115. All those in the chamber not entitled to vote, please be seated. Those in favor of Senate Bill 115's adoption, please stand. Stand with us Stand with us . . Colker. Colker. Colker stands. And then myself. All those opposed, please stand. The chair is not in doubt. Senate Bill 115 is adopted. Mr. Majority Leader. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to lay over House Bill 1210 until Wednesday, May the 5th. Motion is to lay over House Bill 1210 until Tuesday, May the 5th. Tuesday, May the 5th. Motion is to lay over House Bill 1210 until Tuesday, May the 5th. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. House Bill 1210 is laid over until tomorrow, May the 5th. Mr. Majority Leader. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move the committee to rise and report. Motion is for the committee to rise and report. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The committee will rise and report. Thank you. The Senate will come to order. Senator Hendrickson. Thank you, Madam President. Your Committee of the Whole has met and had a number of bills under consideration. Mr. Schauffler, will you please read the report? May 4, 2026. Madam President, your Committee of the Whole begs leave the report. It is under consideration of the following attached bills being the second reading thereof. It makes following recommendations thereon. Senate bill 152 as amended Senate bill 115 as amended pass on second reading order engrossed and placed in the counter for third reading of final passage hospital 1322 as amended House bill 1123 as amended House bill 1226 as amended House bill 1076 as amended House bill 1207 as amended pass on second reading order revised and placed in the calendar for third reading final passage Senate bill 68 Senate bill 82 House bill 1210 late over until May 5th 2026 retaining their plans on the calendar. Senator Hendrickson. Thank you, Madam President. I move the report. The motion is the adoption of the Committee of the Whole report. Are there any... Oh, there is an amendment at the desk. Mr. Schauffler, will you please read S-001. Amendment S-001. Senator Simpson moved to amend the report of the Committee of the Whole to show the following new Baisley floor amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move... Madam Chair. Madam President. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move amendment 001 to House Bill 1076. That is a proper motion. Please tell us about your amendment. Yeah, please. Thank you, Madam President. This amendment, I know this amendment is important to myself and to the Senator from Woodland Park as well, who sits on the Transportation Committee. You know, this amendment basically says that when we're bidding out contracts on transportation projects, and this bill deals with a reorganization and clarification of some transportation department programs, This amendment would basically say when bids are put out, we give a preference to Colorado, to U.S. products, Colorado products, cement products, and so forth in the construction of transportation projects. And Colorado invests billions of taxpayer dollars each year in roads, bridges, and other critical public infrastructure. Yet under current procurement rules, a meaningful share of those dollars can unintentionally flow overseas instead of supporting manufacturing jobs from American and from Colorado companies. Today's procurement system relies heavily on self-reported certificates of compliance, which allow foreign manufactured construction materials to be passed through distributors and marketed as domestic. What this bill does is say when our transportation department, excuse me, this amendment does, the transportation department is putting out these bids that we give preference to Colorado companies for these cement and other construction-related projects. The state of Colorado allocates billions of taxpayer dollars. I think it's important that if these are solid bids that we give preference to Colorado companies. The proposal transcends mere administrative oversight. It represents a strategic investment in the economic resilience of our state. By prioritizing materials manufactured within Colorado, we foster a circular economy in which each dollar expended circulates between three and seven times within our local communities. The establishment of a Colorado preferred procurement tier would provide equitable recognition to local and domestic manufacturers who adhere to our stringent environmental labor and safety regulations. Fortifying our manufacturing sector serves to preserve high-quality employment, safeguard local sales and income tax revenues, and bolster the resilience of our supply chains against global volatility. Colorado infrastructure projects must utilize local materials and labor to ensure that public funds remain a direct investment in our own state This amendment is an important one for our Colorado construction companies our road building companies Basically says when a construction contractor for a public project is to be awarded to a bidder, A bidder using Colorado original cement products shall be allowed a preference against a bidder using those products manufactured in another state or foreign country. So that's what the amendment does, and I would urge my colleagues to support it so we can help out our Colorado manufacturers and Colorado companies on our road projects. Senatorial five. Thank you. Further discussion? Senator Ball. Thank you, Madam President. And I would like to thank the Center for Woodland Park who approached us with the amendment earlier today, as well as the Center for Highlands Ranch for offering this. Colleagues, I'd ask for a no vote on this. I think there is a discussion to be had around the procurement that CDOT uses and where that procurement comes from, but this being the second chamber on the floor for this bill and quite a broad title, which lots of things could potentially fit in, I think that's better to have that discussion next session, perhaps in a standalone bill, because we simply have not had time to speak to all the stakeholders involved in this bill about this policy. So I ask for a no vote on this amendment. Thank you. Now, Senator Carson. Thank you, Madam President. I withdraw Amendment 001. Thank you. Senator Hendrickson. Madam President, I withdraw the motion for the adoption of the Committee of the Whole Report. Okay. And now we are going to excuse Senator. Oh, Mr. Schauffler, please excuse Senator Baisley. Anybody else need to be excused before we do this vote? Okay. Senator Hendrickson. Thank you, ma'am. President. I again move for the adoption of the community of the whole report. Thank you. The motion is for the adoption of the community of the whole report. There There is an amendment at the desk. Senator Carson? Thank you, Madam. Will the clerk please read S-001? Amendment S Senator Carson Thank you Madam President I move Amendment 001 and ask for a favorable vote Great And at this point we can say the adoption the motion is the adoption of the S to the Committee of the Whole report All in favor are there any no votes Senators Henrickson, Weissman, President Coleman, Linstead, Senator Ball, Amabile, Cutter, Danielson Bridges Marchman Judah Sullivan Wallace Gonzalez Benavidez Snyder Senator Mobley, I couldn't tell if you had your hand up. Okay. Senators Exum. Molica. Doherty. Roberts. Kolker. Senator Mobley, are you voting yes or no? I'm sorry. No, we didn't. So do you wish to be a no vote? Oh, you were over there. Okay, thank you. And please add the president. With a vote of 12 eyes, 22 no's, zero absent, one excused, that cow fails. Now the motion is for the adoption of the Committee of the Whole report. All in favor please, oh, are there any no votes? Senators Rich, Carson, Liston, Pelton R., Catlin, Zamora Wilson, Frizzell. Any other no votes? Okay, with the vote of 27 ayes, 7 no, 0, absent when excused. The Committee of the Whole Report is adopted. I believe we are to Governor's appointment. Okay. SB 26152 as amended. SB 2615 as amended. Passed on second reading and ordered engrossed 1115, as amended, passed on second reading, and ordered, engrossed, and placed on the calendar for third reading, and final passage. HB 261322, as amended, HB 261123, as amended, HB 261226, as amended. HB 261076, as amended, HB 261207, as amended, passed on second reading, and ordered, revised, and placed on the calendar for third reading and final passage. SB 26068, SB 26082, and SB 261210 laid over until 5-5 Cinco de Mayo 2026 and retaining their place on the calendar. Okay. And I guess we already did governor appointments so we are on to announcements Announcements Oh Will the Senate choir please assemble to wish happy birthday to Senator Amabile, who has, has she disappeared? Oh, okay, good. Will the sergeants please lock the doors and we'll ring the, no. Please, Senate choir, come on up. Her birthday was this past Saturday, May 2nd. Happy birthday, Senator Amabile. Senate choir. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday, Senator Amabile. Happy birthday to you. Further announcements. Senator Marchman. Oh. Thank you, Madam President. Senate Education will meet 15 minutes upon adjournment in room 357. We'll hear House Bill 1028, House Bill 1282, and House Bill 1317. Thank you. Senator Amapolay. Thank you, Madam President. The Senate Committee on Appropriations will be meeting tomorrow at 8.30 a.m. If you're on appropriations, it's at 8.30 tomorrow. It's not at 8.40. It's not at 8.35. It's not at 8 o'clock. It's at 8.20. Okay, and we will be hearing the bills listed on your calendar and other bills as they happen. Senator Cutter. Thank you, Mr. President. Senate Transportation and Energy will be meeting 15 minutes on adjournment in Committee Room 352. We'll be hearing HB 1420, HB 1269, and HB 1225. Very good. Feed your belly, feed your soul. Senator Pelton R. Thank you, Mr. President. Tomorrow and next Tuesday, and that's all the Bible studies we'll have for this session. So come on down in the morning, 715 in the basement, feed your soul, and then we'll feed your belly too. Hey, further announcements. Senator Weissman. Thanks, Mr. President. Senator Judiciary Committee has some work to do this afternoon. We will hear Senate Bill 176, followed by House Bills 1276 and 1256, starting at 310 p.m. in Old Supreme Court. Very good. Senator Kipp. Thank you. My fellow colleague who happens to be a nurse when he is not here, and I have a tribute for Nurses Week. Nurses Week runs May 6th through 12th this year, so it begins, I guess, on Wednesday. And this year, my good colleague and I would like to take a moment to recognize the important roles filled by nurses, members of the most profession for nearly 25 years. With over 80,000 registered nurses and 8,000 practical nurses, nurses are the most numerous of health care providers in Colorado. We have nurses who hold a diploma, associate's degree, bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, including PhDs. These nurses provide direct care to the people of Colorado in hospitals, long-term care facilities, primary care offices, federally qualified health centers, and even the much legislated medical spas. Nurses also serve as administrators in health care organizations as chief nursing officers and directors of nursing. They serve as nursing and patient advocates through the many professional organizations within our state and across the country. Of course we also see nurses who serve in in policy roles such as Colorado Nurse Physician Advisory Task Force, known as NPATCH, and the Board of Nursing, and my good colleague here in the Senate.

Thornton. My good colleague from Thornton. Today we recognize nurses in all these roles, including those who have joined us in person today in honor of Nurses Week. And I'm getting a lot of kibbutzing here that says I should have asked for a moment of personal privilege to do this. May I retroactively have a moment of personal privilege, Mr. President?

Thank you, colleagues, for a productive day. we will be keeping the desk open to read bills across the desk. There's no need to return on that, Mr. President. I move the Senate recess until 3.30 p.m. today.

Aye.