May 7, 2026 · State, Veterans, & Military Affairs · 20,442 words · 18 speakers · 112 segments
The Committee on State Veteran and Military Affairs will come to order. Mr. Sayed, please call the roll.
Sanders, Linstead. Excused. Liston. Excused. Damore Wilson. Present. Sullivan. Here. Mr. Bound chair. Present.
Welcome, everybody. We have several members coming in and out as they are presenting other bills in these last few days of session, I will have to do so myself too at certain parts of committee. So just appreciate everybody's patience as we roll through the various bills moving. We will start today with House Bill 1272. And I see that our sponsors are here. Who would like to kick us off?
Senator Cutter. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I'm really happy to bring forward HB 26-1272, protecting workers in extreme temperatures with my co-prime, Senator Weissman. and excited that a version of this has finally made its way to the Senate. We've been working, and I should say by we, I mean, really advocates have been putting in yeoman's work over the last few years to try and get some kind of policy to help workers in the face of what we know is increasingly volatile weather and temperature fluctuations. So this has come a long way since last year, and even this year's introduced version was vastly different. But here we are, and we're here because no worker in Colorado should ever have to risk getting sick, hurt, or not making it home because they worked on a dangerously hot or cold day. Across Colorado, workers are already dealing with the effects of extreme temperatures. They are pouring concrete, building houses, stocking warehouses, cleaning hotel rooms, delivering packages, landscaping, working in kitchens, clearing snow, and doing all the work that keep our communities functioning. A lot of these employees don't have much control over their schedules or their working conditions, and by much, like zero, probably, on their schedules. They can't always just step away when it gets unsafe. They have to be out there doing the work. And we've heard what that can look like when workers are expected to push through these really unsafe conditions. We've heard from families who know the cost of a preventable workplace emergency in the most painful way, such as the two young girls who lost their father who collapsed on a 100-degree day in Colorado. How are we allowing that to happen? We know these risks of preventable injury or death don't fall evenly. Workers with lower wages, workers with less power on the job, and workers in outdoor and or physically demanding jobs are often the most exposed. And yet one of the arguments we kept hearing was, do we really know how big this problem is? So, 1272 is working to answer that question by directing the state to collect better data on temperature-related workplace injuries, illnesses, and emergencies. It creates a way for incidents to be reported, and it pulls together information from existing sources like public health records, workers' comp, and other health care data. It also requires CDLE to create a model TRIP, a temperature-related injury and illness prevention plan that employers and workers can use as an easily adjustable and understandable safety guide. This model plan will include basic practices like access to drinking water, cool down or warm up areas monitoring temperature conditions helping new or returning workers acclimate recognizing warning signs and knowing how to respond in emergency Again such we think such reasonable accommodations This bill started out, as I said, as a much broader proposal. It would have created more direct workplace protections and more requirements for employers, but because budget, you've heard on many bills, I'm sure, it's been narrowed substantially and it no longer requires employers to submit plans. It no longer creates a review process and it no longer contains the broader enforcement provisions. It's been pared down to data collection and a model plan. So seeing there's nothing left to go out of this bill and we don't have any amendments, I respectfully ask for your yes vote today on 1272.
Perfect. Can we please add Senators Liston and Lindstedt to the roll? I know we're all scrambling today. Welcome, gentlemen. Thanks for your patience and thanks for being here.
Senator Weissman. Thanks, Madam Chair. Not a ton to add to what my colleague from Jeffco said. This bill has been on a long road to this point. What is here before the committee today is essentially a data gathering bill. If you skip over the necessary definitions and a legislative declaration, the rubber starts to hit the road on page 8 of the re-engrossed where we are directing the Division of Labor Standards and Statistics and CDLE to start pulling together data. CDPHE has some in the world Division of Workers' Comp. Funny, we just had a bill on that subject on different sorts of maladies across the street. But we are talking about here the possibility of workplace injury that could go through the work comp system. We don't have great visibility right now into what we're talking about here, excessive heat and cold in the workplace and the comp system. So part of the bill is to try to increase that visibility. The reference to the Center for Improving Value in Healthcare is an organization that works with data out of the APCD or All-Payer Claims Database. That is visibility into what's going on in the health insurance system. Again, another way to try to lift up visibility. And then page nine, as amended, we have essentially a directive to the division to do a model plan with a fair bit of flexibility built in there. This bill originally, or the idea for it, arose out of advocates, some of whom I think you'll hear from, who are really organized to support workers in rural parts of our state, including those who work in an agricultural context. If you know about Senate District 28, you would know it is not really an agricultural area, but of course the bill is not limited to that. I represent a lot of folks who do more urban or suburban outdoor work, roofing, other contracting, landscaping, public works type of construction, including when it's 90 or 100 degrees or more. you know we're also talking about indoor contexts or things we might not even think of like maybe we've seen stories about how if you are just driving delivery on a hot day if there's not climate control in the vehicle you are driving the sun baking the metal in the back of the vehicle can produce some pretty shocking temperatures actually the human body is is pretty remarkably adaptable within bounds. You know, we have a kind of a funny climate control system around here. I think we all deal with it but you know we lucky because if we a little bit chilly it probably 65 And if we a little bit uncomfortably warm it 75 And we not talking about that in this bill We're talking about lows that are much lower than that and highs that are much higher than that to the extent that they can have effects on the human body. You'll see a reference in the bill to a condition called trench foot. If you don't know what that is, look it up. It's pretty gross. excessive heat can strain the vital organs of the body, the kidneys, for example. So much bigger conversation to be had about how our laws continue to evolve to protect workers from these conditions as climate, especially for outdoor folks, continues to become more challenging. But again, we're beginning here with an attempt to improve the state's awareness through data gathering and over a longer term by 2028 have a model plan for future reference, and we hope the committee will support that initial effort today.
Thank you so much, sponsors. Members, any questions for our sponsors?
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you both for bringing this up. I couldn't help but remembering back when you talked about the heat inside of vehicles and all of that. I mean, I worked 27 years with the Postal Service. My start date was almost 40 years ago. So at that point in time, the United States Postal Service in their over-the-road vehicles, so these were the big ones that go across, they paid extra money to have the air conditioning units taken out of the vehicles. because they need – for whatever Postal Service reasonings are, they paid extra money because all over-the-road vehicles, even 40 years ago, had air conditioners in them. They paid extra to have those taken out. I think they've moved back into a space with the rest of us, And I think they they do have well, they they contracted all that work out. So they don't care about the contractors that are delivering their mail for them now. But data is king. And to have all of this that we're looking forward to requires everybody else to buy in with all of the changes that you've done, And certainly in the space that I generally work in, I mean, like trying to get homicide rates and crime data, when only 22 out of the 50 states report into the FBI, it makes it very difficult to have accurate information. What in here that you guys have put together is going to make sure that these people who are the players in this are staying engaged? And if they're not, do we have anything that we can do to them?
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Senator Cutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And my co-prime, I might have something to add to this. But CDLE will be driving this. The requirement in statute is that CDLE has to gather. They will be responsible for gathering the state from other sites. So we put the onus on them to gather from existing sources. So does that answer your question pretty much?
Mr Vice Chair Thank you Madam Chair Well again they just I mean there you wouldn think someone would say no to the FBI or just not answer them but apparently that happens So the point there being, they're supposed to turn in the information, they're supposed to check a box or whatever it is that they're supposed to do. What do we have to make sure that they're doing that? And do we have any way to pressure them to fulfill their obligations?
Senator Weissman.
Sure. Thank you. And, Senator, I like the saying data is king. I might have to have that screen printed onto a T-shirt in the interim. I mean, maybe we can set up a cafe shops or something and sell a couple of those. Anyway, look, I think that captures a lot about the importance of data, particularly in our world where data proliferates, fragmented data is a lot less useful than integrated data viewed together. Data that's not integrated maybe doesn't rise to the level of intelligence or visibility, which is really what we want here. So in sub two of the bill, starting in page eight, spilling over to three, each of these is really trying to contribute to that. So the Roman one that you'll see in 2A, about the middle of page eight, is essentially a mechanism for voluntary contribution of information by folks who might experience a temperature-related illness or worse emergency. So that's a way to sort of start to centralize what might now be at the level of anecdote. Folks who have been part of the advocacy effort that brought this bill to this point certainly are in the business of hearing things from their respective constituencies or communities, whether it's heat or cold or indoor or outdoor. The bill spans all of that very deliberately. Repeatedly, for example, dealing with the fiscal questions, we as sponsors and our sort of coalition, if you will, have considered, well, hey, do we want to take a piecemeal approach and only do heat or only do cold or only do indoor or outdoor? The answer to all that is no. We want to be comprehensive across the economy as to injuries that may occur in any work domain, whether from excessive heat or cold. So the bill embraces all of that. Roman 1 is a mechanism to capture voluntary reporting and start to pull it together out of the level of anecdote. Roman 2 is to get CDLE, Division of Labor Standards and Statistics, in better communication with the Department of Public Health. I think we've probably all come to appreciate that things can be pretty siloed around here. not out of any particular ill intent, but people are busy in their lane doing what the law has told them to do. So here we're making some new requirements in terms of the law telling parts of our own state government and executive branch what to do. Likewise, division of work comp. I'm not aware of sort of specific language in the work comp statutes about heat and cold, but a work injury is a work injury. And, you know, if it is at work, you start to go through the adjudicative process. I have long, as long as I've been part of this effort, going back to last year or even late 24, I have long wanted us to have some better visibility into comp in particular because of the question as well, you know, what is it on the employer to start to have ways of dealing with this and taking care of employees? Nobody wants their employees to get hurt on the job because That's lost productivity. And nobody wants to have their claims experience getting out of control because that will lead to them being rated higher and paying more of a premium when it comes to comp. We're far down the road now, but that's the role of comp, and that's Roman III in the bill. So all those are different ways to try to get data into CDLE just when it comes to injury due to excessive heat and cold. Hope that helps.
Further questions? Seeing none, we will move on to the witness phase. Thank you both so much. I'll get Senator so we will call up opposition first Pipe Van Hewen and Parker White Is there anyone else in the room who would like to testify in opposition to the bill? Or online? Thank you. All right. We'll start over here. You can correct me on your name, and you'll have two minutes.
Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Peep Van Heuven. I'm Director of Government Affairs for Colorado's Ski Country USA, and we're Colorado's trade association for ski areas since the 1960s. We oppose the bill. This bill and its predecessor last year presupposes that in every industry, all employees need significant regulatory protection without first collecting and properly evaluating objective data. That shows that there's a widespread problem with heat and cold-related injuries that require medical attention or an evaluation of specific industries that present the problem. Sponsors haven't made the case for intervention at this level, and the ski industry and outdoor recreation industry more broadly are good examples of how far the cart is ahead of the horse on this one. In our industry, our workforce from the first days of skiing has operated outdoors on the snow in the winter, and there's no evidence of a pattern of cold injuries or emergency among workers. As an example, Aspen Skiing Company has about 2,300 outdoor workers during a season. they've had zero cold weather emergencies among staff in the past four years. The first piece of the bill involves data collection, and that's an element in the bill that could help interested parties pick a focus and direction. The second component, the model trip, which may look innocuous, is not. It sets new state standards with its required elements, including those that are nonsensical to any outdoor recreation workforce. Among them, monitoring outdoor temperatures during the winter ski season stands out. Our employees focus on everyday safety practices that keep guests and workers safe. The workforce is built on top winter safety experts. That includes highly trained ski patrol who are there to address any medical emergency for workers and guests. This bill is going to ask them to spend their time filling out temperature logs for weather changes at the Continental Divide instead. A yes vote on the bill, because it requires a state agency to create a new standard, however that is defined, presupposes the outcomes of data analysis. A no vote recognizes that the bill, despite some honorable intentions, isn't ready for prime time, and we're asking for your no vote. Thank you so much.
Next, we'll go on to Mr. White.
Thank you Madam Chair My name is Parker White I the director of the Colorado Competitive Council and C3 is opposed to House Bill 26 1272 even as amended since its introduction There are two core issues that remain that keep us in opposition. The first is the manner that the bill creates the trip model itself. The bill directs the state to build a one-size-fits-all temperature safety plan without first identifying where the specific problems are. Colorado's economy is incredibly diverse, and as a result, so is the workforce and the jobs that our individual workers do on a daily basis. The risks faced by a construction worker on the eastern plains in August are not the same as those faced by a utility worker in the mountains in January. The right approach is to gather occupation-specific data, make it public, and then determine whether a problem exists. If problems are identified, then this body can work hand-in-hand with the business community, those in charge of implementing and protecting workers, to craft a targeted solution. This bill skips those steps entirely. It presupposes an outcome, it sets recommendations based on that presupposed outcome, and then it directs the state to collect data on the back end after we have already come forward with a presupposed solution. The second issue is the broad grant of rulemaking in Section 3A. If the trip is truly intended to be voluntary guidance, rulemaking is unnecessary. The legislature is already directing the division to create it. Rulemaking exists to impose binding obligations on employers. So the question we have is if this bill is about data gathering and plan building, what is that rulemaking authority for? Our concern is that this creates a pathway for a future administration to impose mandates, temperature thresholds, break requirements, penalties, et cetera, without further legislative approval. In short, the TRIP is premature without the data. The larger issue is that the rulemaking authority is unnecessary if this is a truly voluntary endeavor. We respectfully ask for a no vote until this bill is limited to the appropriate first step, gathering and evaluating data. Thank you.
Right on time. Members, are there questions for this panel? Seeing none, thank you all so much for being here. Next, we will call up all folks that we have signed up to testify in support. So that will be Alex Sanchez, Tykee James, Vanessa Martinez. Sorry, I'll go a little slower because I know they're all online. And then in person, we have Ian Tafoya and then Shayna Oliver also online. Ty, I can repeat any of those if you need, ma'am. Is there anyone else in the room who would like to testify in support? While folks are getting pulled up online, Mr. Tafoya, we will start here in person with you. If you could say your name and who you represent, you will have two minutes. Thank you.
My name is Ian Thomas Tafoya. I am the Vice President of State Programs for Green Latinos, a national environmental justice organization. We're here today in support of this bill. been something that has been prioritized by our membership all across the United States, as Latinos are disproportionately part of the outdoor workforce, both in the winter and in the summer. And I myself actually have worked many jobs long before I had this awesome job working for a nonprofit. I worked as an electrical apprentice. I worked in gig work. I even worked in political work where I knocked doors, flired in extreme temperatures and extreme duress under air quality as well. And so for us, this is a bill that is about reaching into different parts of our society to make sure that we are protecting and this to be clear isn't the final bill that I think we would like to see we want to see real protections from the people who are outdoors and I think I can speak for many people in my community have been disappointed in particular this legislature as outdoor workers have lost hours of overtime among other things that at least it could get protections to have access to shade water heating i mean if this isn't an automatic yes i don't really know what it is and i can say that just lastly this is so important that more than 180 latino organizations have signed on to what we call our latino climate justice framework which has an entire chapter about extreme temperatures there are entire councils that are being gathered all across the southwest of local governments and state jurisdictions to try to address this. I think this is just a first step for Colorado. Thank you.
Thank you, sir. Next, we will go online to Mr. Sanchez.
Yes. Hi, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Alex Sanchez. I'm the President and CEO of Los Unidas. We are based in the Central Mountains where Latinas and Latinos are the backbone of the mountain resort economy. I'm also here representing the Coalition to Protect Workers from Extreme Temperatures, a coalition of 30 organizations. We support House Bill 26-1272. For three years, we have worked on this issue in good faith. We have worked closely with the first floor. We have met with many stakeholders. We have listened carefully, worked through concerns with sponsors, and kept pushing to move this bill forward in a serious and practical way. To be clear, the larger goal is to prevent death and serious injury when workers are still expected to stay in the job in dangerous heat and dangerous cold. And we have to start somewhere because this is a real issue. My organization knows the workers and families living with this reality. The landscaper who suffers heat stroke after working long hours and high temperatures without any hydration or breaks, who still lives with severe headaches and blurred vision. The snow removal worker who spent 12 hours in extreme cold during a major storm and lost a finger to frostbite. We have met with families whose loved ones have died to exposure to extreme temperatures. This is why we need better data collection on these injuries and on the people impacted because many workers, too often, some of these injuries go unreported. In Colorado, this issue is personal to Latinas and Latinos because Latinas Latinos are overrepresented in these jobs that are exposed to extreme temperatures. This bill moves us in the right direction. We are talking about data collection. We are talking about a sample safety plan. That's it. It moves us forward. Thank you to the sponsors. Thank you for this committee. We urge a yes vote on House Bill 26-1272.
Thank you so much, Mr. Sanchez. Next we'll go to Mr. James.
Thank you, and good morning, or good afternoon, chair and committee members. My name is Taiki James. I serve as the senior environmental justice campaign manager at Conservation Colorado, state's largest environmental advocacy organization, and I urge a yes vote on HB 26-1272. Colorado workers, such as construction workers, landscapers, a lot of folks that we heard about, are increasingly exposed to extreme heat and cold temperatures that are exacerbated by climate change. As climate change worsens, extreme temperature events like intense heat waves and cold snaps become more frequent. Extreme temperatures create serious health problems, heat stroke, frostbite, dehydration, hypothermia, and of course, death. This hurts families, communities, and our state's economy. As we see the dismantling of federal labor laws and worker rights, Colorado must take on the mantle of protecting our workers This is a thoughtful update from last year bill because it focuses on what works measuring the problem so that we can fix it This bill ensures an additional pathway for workers to have a say in their working conditions As amended, the bill directs the Colorado Department of Labor and Environment to collect and organize reliable data on temperature-related illnesses, injuries, and emergencies, technologies, drawing from Worker Reports, CDPHE, and the Center for Improving Value in Healthcare. CDLE would then use all of that to inform and create our state's first model temperature-related injury and illness prevention plan. Don't trip over that. This bill is designed to respect consistency without reinventing the wheel. If your business is doing the right stuff, keep it up, and let's set an example for more workplaces to protect their workers. no one should choose between their livelihood or their lives. For these reasons, I urge a yes vote on HB 26-1272 as amended. Thank you for your service and thank you for your time.
Thank you so much for your time. And finally, Ms. Martinez.
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Vanessa Martinez, and I'm here on behalf of COLORD, the Colorado Organization for Latino Opportunity and Reproductive rights to urge a yes vote on House Bill 1272. This bill is about protecting the health and safety of Colorado's essential workers, who also happen to be those put in some of the most vulnerable situations due to extreme temperatures. Quillard has heard clearly from electricians, construction workers, delivery drivers, many of whom are our parents, siblings, and friends, that a problem does exist, and that problem is very personal. House Bill 1272 strengthens Colorado's system for tracking temperature-related injuries and offers additional supports to employers and workers to prevent harm and be able to respond faster when there is a temperature-related injury or illness. By collecting data and developing model prevention plans, the bill moves us towards practical worker-informed solutions. The bill takes an important first step in equipping both workers and employers with the information and tools needed to prevent further community harm. We also know that due to federal changes and state budget restrictions, more than 280,000 Coloradans will lose health coverage this year, making any injury or illness at work even more devastating. Colorado's essential workers need this bill now more than ever. We urge you to vote yes on House Bill 1272. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
Thank you so much for being here. Members, questions for this panel? Mr. Tafoya, I have a quick question. Do you have any experience working in extreme temperatures?
Yeah, a lot. I started out, my dad was a landscaper and a plumber, and I started working outdoors probably from the age of like eight, nine, and driving little bobcats around. But my dad certainly would let me have the shade. I would say that when I was exposed the most to temperatures, whereas I have one memory working for the National Western Stock Show because I grew up in North Denver. And I was working for the security. And I don't know if you're familiar with them. They have some sort of exemption where they don't have to pay overtime either. And so there are a lot of people in the community who don't get overtime even when you work 12-hour days. And I was out in like a shed box with no heater. And it was probably the coldest I've ever been in my boots. and I used to have to check the cars when they'd come out to make sure nobody was stealing livestock. And that was probably one of the coldest. I can remember, if you ever hit yourself in the cold, when I was an electrician, I helped build the downtown Arvada library from the ground up. And I remember working that winter in the cold. That was probably the coldest winter. And just like a lot of people in the... At that time, I remember everybody would like try to spend some extra time in the port-a-potty just because it was so cold to get away from the wind. And so I think there's a lot of examples. And often what you're doing in those projects, they're trying to under-deliver. They want to cut your time short. They want you to work longer hours. They want you to work harder, faster, better, stronger. And if you hurt yourself, they tell you to cowboy up. And that's just like a part of the work. And then I would say, lastly, you know, you're working on campaigns. And you all are politicians, so you get it. you hire staffers who often put in hours on contract without any sort of meaningful worker protections. And when people complain, they just get fired. Thank you so much for sharing your personal experience.
And as a political staffer for 14 years, I certainly understand and hope that we can extend more worker protections to campaign and other political and government staffers because they are certainly overlooked in this. But to the bill at hand for now, I don't think we have any further questions for this panel. Thank you all so much for being here. Is there anybody else who would like to testify on this legislation? Seeing none, the witness phase is closed. Sponsors. I'm seeing no amendments, committee members' amendments. Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. Sponsors, wrap-up comments.
Thank you. Honestly, there's not too much left to say. You've heard some good examples and testimony today. I am truly, all due respect, truly shocked that there's still opposition to this bill because it has come so far and is what I think a very basic and sensible approach to beginning to understand the scope of the problem and taking some steps to move forward. So I hope you will support us today. Senator Weissman?
Thank you.
Yeah, members, I just appreciate how the vice chair put it. Data is king. We are trying in this modest bill to build better state awareness of what is actually happening by pulling together health care payment claims, what the division of work comp knows, what individuals might report through a mechanism that we direct the creation of, through what is captured in CDPHE. We want to start building a better unified awareness of what having to work in conditions of excessive heat and excessive cold is doing to folks. We've had a lot of conversations with employers or folks who represent, say, a sector. And we think there are a lot of people out there who are trying to do the right thing. Part of why we have paired back to this approach which is prior versions, you know, maybe that were only ever in draft. It is challenging to try to span, say, the entire economy and to embrace different kinds of work. So we're not trying to undertake that here. You know, even the model trip, it's going to be a document that folks can look at. There is no other force to it. We're not putting a mandate on employers vis-a-vis that trip, and it won't even exist for more than two years from where we're sitting right now. But, I mean, look, we've just come through a winter that basically wasn't a winter. I'll be candid. I somewhat fear what the summer temperatures are going to be, and I'm lucky. I have a functioning EVAP cooler, and I have air con in my car, and I work in this place, which is a climate-controlled setting. a lot of folks are not so lucky pushing yourself too hard physically in too much heat without ability to just like drop your body temperature can kill you It actually can kill you And we know those stories are out there. So we don't want that happening in our state. That's just inhumane. Bigger conversation. But let's start becoming more aware, more data informed about what's going on. And for that reason we ask you to support 1272. Thank you both so much. Members, any wrap-up comments?
Senator Sullivan. Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. And again, thank you for bringing this
forward. And I concur. It's hard to imagine opposition to this. I mean, you hear the stories. And as a worker, I mean, I think we are all collectively our workers. I mean, we just had May Day, that is Workers' Day. It incorporates all of the workers, not just different sections of workers. And if you are in a certain area of work and you haven't experienced any of these problems, hey, good on you. Keep it up. Maybe share some of your data with us so we can make our workers more safe. Maybe we can help there with it. I do. I feel again, I talked about this before my Irish Catholic background. I mean, I am guilty all the time. I feel bad about workers. Those stories, you can't get shade. They won't allow you to use the restroom. You know, those types of experiences that happen those road workers, I mean, you know, people getting hit. I can't imagine throwing mail in the post office and having a car run me over. I mean, that's not going to happen, but somebody who's out there working on our roads, that is a possibility to them, and because it doesn't happen to me, I feel for them. And the point that Miss Martinez had brought up, I hadn't really thought about it that much, but with the amount of people who don't have the health care that we normally would have, I think we have a lot of people out there who are, you know, have failing health and don't know anything about it, don't know how they can get better. And if we put those people into these extreme situations, they're closer to, you know, collapsing and that kind of stuff. And the, you know, as we know, the lack of health care is going to get more tenuous as we move forward. So if we can at least make sure we can, you know, hydrate them and give them proper breaks and get a cover over their heads while they're working? I don't think that's too much to ask. So I'll, of course, be a yes on this. And thank you again for all your work on this.
I will echo the good vice chair's sentiments here. I think particularly as we see, I have a bill up just right after this one around codifying in the state law OSHA protections, because we're seeing the rollback at the federal level, right? And so I think in combination between one harsh conditions that we know already exist a rollback of health care of other protections from the federal level It just couldn be a more important time for our state to step up and help protect the workers who really should have been all along And I share the empathy for, you know, I've been given a lot of privilege in getting to work inside most of my career, apart from canvassing a whole lot. and that is certainly a privilege unto itself and so we need to be sure that we're really looking out for folks and extending as many protections as possible and this is exactly why unions exist and I'm glad to see you all here fighting with a similar sentiment on behalf of workers. So with that, we are down one member because everybody once again is running between, all committees are running at the same time today. So we are running between votes and we'll lay over action on this bill until a little bit later in the committee when we have all members here. I can inform the sponsors when that's happening, but you all don't need to stick around if you don't want to because we have a couple other bills to take up too. Senator Weissman.
Appreciate that, Madam Chair. I have a committee, and speaking of everywhere at the same time. Yes, sir. I do have a committee, or sorry, a bill and finance committee. I don't know exactly when it's going to come up if I'm not back over here for the final vote because of that.
Okay. Senator Cotter?
Yeah, thank you. I have health three bills up. So if I'm not back, we greatly appreciate you hearing this today, and we'll look forward to the vote.
Absolutely. Thank you both so much. And with that, I have two bills up in this committee and then one in another committee a little bit later. So I will go ahead and turn the gavel over to the good vice chair and switch sides here. I apologize. We actually have the good senator from Broomfield returned. We are blessed with his presence, so we're going to go ahead and vote on this bill now. Don't worry at all. So we'll go ahead and vote on this bill now. Mr. Vice Chair, for a motion.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 26-1272 to the Committee on Appropriations.
That is a proper motion. With a favorable recommendation. Perfect. That is a proper motion. Mr. Sayed, please poll the committee.
Senators. Winstead.
Yes for today. Liston.
Respectfully, no. Lamar Wilson. No.
Sullivan. Aye.
Madam Chair. Aye. That motion passes 3-2. You are on your way to appropriations. Best of luck. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you, committee. Thank you Is the sponsor ready Yes sir Okay we are back We are hearing House Bill 261054 We have the sponsor here.
Would you like to tell us about your bill, Senator Wallace?
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. And yes, I would love to, committee members,
I appreciate your consideration for House Bill 1054, which ensures Coloradans' right to a safe workplace is preserved in the face of the Trump administration's choice to stop enforcing federal OSHA protections. This past July, OSHA announced sweeping rollbacks to workplace safety protections that had been ensuring safety for workers for decades. These proposed rollbacks compound an already weak enforcement framework, where we see not only chronic intentional underfunding of public enforcement agencies like OSHA, but also a marked reduction in federal enforcement of workplace health and safety requirements.
This combination of policy change and reduced enforcement exposes millions of workers to preventable injuries and fatalities. In the face of these dangerous rollbacks, HB 1054 will ensure that Coloradans have a right to a safe workplace and the public and private enforcement authority to make those protections real on the ground. This bill codifies on a state level the right to a safe workplace as previously defined by OSHA in September of 2025. It allows public and private enforcers to ensure that employers maintain safe workplaces by seeking immediate equitable relief, as well as deterring and penalizing bad actors. Next, the bill allows the Colorado Attorney General to adopt state-level workplace safety protections and guidance in the event the federal government further rolls back existing protections. And finally, it creates a workplace health and safety fund to build state-level capacity to implement safe workplace requirements, educate the public, and develop workplace safety standards. Workers deserve robust protections, and where the federal government is failing them in that charge, Colorado will once again step up to ensure their protection. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to the conversation. Thank you, Madam Chair. Do we have any questions for the bill's sponsors? Seeing none, we will go on to the witness phase. I have two panels here. I'm starting with these two and then work the rest of the way through the list. Okay. These are in favor. Okay, we're all going to start with a Valerie Collins that is remote. Tammy Munoz. I don't see. Kirsten Forseth. She's back here. Okay. And Aaron Contraeus. Do not see Aaron. Aaron. Oh, he's remote. Oh, gotcha. Erin Contraeus is remote. All right, as we're pulling up our remote people, ma'am, go ahead and state your name, who you represent, and go ahead and start your two minutes.
Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Tammy Munoz, and I am here on behalf of the Teamsters Local 455 representing more than 12,000 Colorado workers across some of the country's most dangerous crafts. Essential workers who can't work from home or sit behind a computer screen and Zoom. Our members understand the risk of their jobs, and they show up every day because they trust that safety measures, reporting systems, and basic protections will be there when they need them. But right now, those guarantees come only in the form of federal law, and if those laws are weakened, rolled back, or go unenforced, it is the workers and the employers trying to do the right thing who pay the price. I'd like to share a few recent incidents involving our members. A 10-year employee at a major delivery company was sorting packages when an automated conveyor belt malfunctioned. The system was supposed to automatically stop when encountering a person or an object, and it failed. She was trapped between a wall of boxes and the belt until another worker heard her screams and came to her aid. She survived but sustained physical injuries and lasting emotional trauma that keeps her from returning to work even to this day. A dedicated family man working for a major airline was fatally injured while relocating man lifts that rises over 100 feet. He left behind three young children. At a sugar manufacturing plant, one of our members was rendered unconscious by a gas leak. Another member rushed to save him, managing to lift him and attempted to carry him out. That member fell during the rescue effort and sustained fatal injuries. Two families were devastated that day. I share these stories because they underscore what's at stake. Workers in Colorado deserve action now, not after federal protections are reduced or as enforcement becomes uncertain. And I urge a yes vote.
Okay. Thank you. And I just was, for Kirsten Forseth, we had gotten notification that Robert Lindgren is online and was going to be speaking for him. So if you want to bring him on in, we'll bring him up. And I assume this is Ms. Collins. State your name, who you represent, and go ahead and start your two minutes.
Wonderful. Thank you. My name is Valerie Collins, and I'm an attorney at Colorado-based Towards Justice, which is a nonprofit law firm that represents workers in an effort to build worker power and advance economic justice. I'm also the author of an American Bar Association Bloomberg Law Occupational Safety and Health Law Treatise chapter on the intersection of private and public enforcement of occupational safety standards. I'm here today to urge you to support House Bill 1054. It's really straightforward. The bill establishes that there is a state duty to maintain a workplace that's free from recognized hazards. And it does so by maintaining this general duty as it existed under federal law before the Trump administration started to gut worker safety protections. So, for example, the administration recently narrowed that duty for work that is inherently dangerous. And the implication here is pretty obvious that the most dangerous work is being carved out of an employer's duty, general duty to provide a safe workplace. And the erosion of these protections are far from hypothetical. The administration has explicitly made it a goal to deregulate workplace safety. And this deregulation is compounded by the drastic cut in federal enforcement. during the second Trump administration, OSHA enforcement in Colorado is down 50%. And that only speaks to safety issues that are actually reported which might be only about 30 And enforcement matters The most recent data shows that 92 Coloradans lost their lives in one year as a result of workplace injuries And that is 92 too many. So in closing, a right to a safe workplace is a necessity. And this bill says clearly and unequivocally that in Colorado, no job is worth a life. and no worker is disposable. So I urge a yes vote. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Lindgren, state your name, who you represent, and go ahead and start your two minutes.
Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Robert Lindgren. I'm representing the Colorado AFL-CIO with over 130,000 union members across 180 affiliate unions. We are in support of House Bill 1054. The AFL-CIO recently released our annual death on the jobs report a few weeks ago. We found 59% jump in deaths on the job for Latino workers in Colorado, the highest number in over 20 years. To paraphrase another labor leader, workers don't die due to bad luck or because the job is inherently dangerous. They die because of decisions and cut corners and schedules that get pushed, training that wasn't taught or safety that was treated like a cost and not a requirement. House Bill 1054 is an important safeguard because Colorado can't rely on the federal government any longer to ensure workplace safety due to reductions in protections and enforcement at OSHA. We commend the workers at OSHA. They have a tough job in the best of times, but they are being actively targeted by the administration, both in their resources and in efforts to reduce the protections that they enforce. House Bill 1054 takes our state's difficult financial situation to account and provides workers with protections by allowing the Attorney General to enforce Colorado's right to a safe workplace and by authorizing labor unions and worker organizations to seek protections for workers through injunctions, stop work orders, or other equitable relief. Private enforcement is important because it helps ensure workers are protected while acknowledging the state's financial situation. I urge you to vote yes on House Bill 1054.
Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for this panel from the committee? seeing none thank you all for your time next it looks like I have a complete remote group I have a Jeff Court right a Sandra Murray Parker and a Sophia Solano okay we'll get the three of them up Oh, I'm understanding that Aaron Contreras might be online. Why don't you go ahead and pull him up for us? We'll add him to this panel. Okay, I see we've got people online here. Ms. Murray, if you're set, introduce yourself. Take yourself off mute. Introduce yourself. Tell us who you represent and go ahead and start your two minutes.
Yes, thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Sandra Parker Murray. I'm Secretary-Treasurer at Local 7777 Communication Workers of America. We represent construction and cable technicians ranging from two years of service to more than 30 years of service I here in support of HB 261054 which creates a state right to a safe workplace and preserves the protections of the federal GDC as interpreted by the OSHA as of September 2025. Over the years and understanding the members' line of work, I've seen and heard of grave injuries. Contractors are not trained properly and are often injured on the job from power lines. Safety was once the priority, but recently safety training has been left up to unions or individuals. Fiber technicians face danger each day on the job. Their proximity to power lines and electrical power, ladder climbing, and splicing fiber for hours could potentially lead to dangerous outcomes without proper safety elements in place. As federal regulations are being rolled back, allowing the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment to adopt state-level workplace safety protections and guidance in the event the federal government rolls back existing protections or offers no protection. This will be critical for safety in all high-risk workplaces. That is what this bill does. It creates a state-level general duty for employers to keep workers safe and a state-level right to a safe workplace. I urge a yes vote on HB 1054.
Thank you. And thank you. Next, we're going to go to Mr. Contreras. If you want to unmute yourself, state your name who you represent and go ahead and start your two minutes
good afternoon thank you very much chair my name is aaron contraris i'm a representative with the western states regional council of carpenters representing colorado local 555 colorado should adapt state-level workplace health and safety protections to fill gaps left by the federal government's reduction in protections and enforcements of osha health and safety standards For too long, Colorado has relied on the federal government to develop and enforce health and safety protections for Colorado workplaces. Under this current administration, the reliance is leaving Colorado workers without protection. That is because the federal government is proposing regulatory changes that will reduce protections available to Colorado workers. And Federal Occupation Safety and Health Administration is dramatically reducing enforcement activities. This leaves Colorado workers without protection unless we step up and codify basic workplace safety protections as Colorado law. That is what this bill does. It creates a state-level general duty for employers to keep workers safe and a state-level right to a safe workplace. These updates to our laws explicitly incorporate the OSHA general duty clause as interpreted by the federal government for decades. So presumably Colorado employers are already complying with those requirements. These updates also ensure that Colorado is not wholly reliant on federal officials to enforce basic safety requirements. Although our state is struggling with revenue shortfall, that does not mean that basic workplace health and safety standards should go unenforced. Therefore, this bill authorizes the Attorney General to enforce Colorado's right to a safe workplace and ensures that any penalties collected through those enforcement activities can be reinvested in workplace health and safety related education and enforcement. This bill also authorizes labor unions and worker organizations to seek injunctions, including stop work orders and other equitable relief needed to ensure that all employers comply with their general duty to keep their workplaces safe. Absent substantial investment in public enforcement the thoughtful private enforcement in this bill are essential to making the right to a safe workplace real in the lives of Colorado workers Thank you I been a carpenter now for 21 years Thank you.
Thank you. We'll come back if we have any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Let's see. I had a Jeff Courtright. Is he online? Is not online. Is he present? Okay. Okay, last person up is Sophia Solano. State your name, who you represent, and start your two minutes.
Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Sophia Solano, and I'm here as the Executive Director of Colorado Jobs with Justice in support of this bill. Every worker deserves the right to a safe workplace, but too many workers in Colorado are being left vulnerable as federal OSHA enforcement declines. In Colorado, an average of 112 workers die on the job every year, and thousands more are injured and become sick because of workplace conditions. We continue to see tragic workplace deaths across the state. Just last week in Colorado Springs, a crane operator was killed after becoming trapped inside equipment at a construction site. He was a father of three. And earlier this year, six Latino workers, including a teenager, died at a Colorado dairy after exposure to toxic gas in a combined space. OSHA investigators found serious safety violations connected with those deaths. At the same time, OSHA enforcement capacity is shrinking. Nationally, there are so few federal OSHA inspectors that it would take roughly 190 years to inspect every workplace under OSHA jurisdiction just once. Worker advocates are already seeing fewer inspections and less oversight on dangerous job sites. We have seen what happens when workers are too afraid to speak up. After the 2019 Hard Rock Hotel collapsed in New Orleans, an immigrant construction worker reported raising safety concerns multiple times before the building collapsed, killing and injuring workers. Shortly after speaking publicly, he was detained by ICE, and many immigrant workers became too afraid to cooperate with investigators. Immigrant workers are disproportionately represented in dangerous industries and often face retaliation, language barriers, or fear tied to immigration status when reporting unsafe conditions. That fear allows dangerous workplaces to continue unchecked. This bill is critical because it creates a clear and forcible right to a safe workplace in Colorado and allows labor unions and worker organizations like jobs with justice to seek injunctions, including stop work orders when employers fail to correct dangerous conditions. These protections are especially important for immigrant workers and others who may not feel safe speaking up on their own. No worker should have to choose between protecting their safety and protecting their livelihood. I urge you to support this bill.
Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Members, any questions for this panel? seeing none thank you all so much for being here today I'm going to finish up with what we still have left of people in favor I have Mr. Tafoya Ian Tafoya scheduled to speak and Angelina or Angela Arkin present one or two I'm sorry no you decided that's you and you're not going to. Okay, and we don't have Mr. Tapoya. Okay, so I will. Is there anybody else in the crowd or on? Are you here to speak in favor? Okay, step on up. Is there anybody else in the crowd who wants to speak in favor? Was there anybody else online that I may have missed? Okay. So, Madam, state your name, who you represent, and you'll have two minutes.
Thank you. My name's Amy Diamond, and I am a constituent of Senator Linstead, here speaking on behalf of myself in favor of 1054. As a psychiatric nurse practitioner working in community health, I see firsthand what happens when folks get injured at work and then lose just about everything, because that's how many end up seeing me, often newly on Medicaid and or Medicare, struggling to adjust to the functional and psychological fallout of their injury. Being proactive with people's health, well-being, lives, families is always the best course. I also believe it is one of the, if not the most, important use of funds for governing bodies to responsibly distribute and regulate, especially the sicker the population and the sicker the health care system. These are people's lives and livelihoods that are at stake. I would just ask that you consider that, along with material and psychosocial causes and effects of a workforce that doesn't feel valued. I believe it's possible, but denying employees the assurance of basic workplace safety measures sends the exact opposite message. What may be an annoying regulation for one person or business is usually protection for a more vulnerable person or labor force that drives the process of productivity, and for the business owner, the profit. That interdependence comes with responsibilities that run both ways. Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions for this? seeing none thank you so much for being here now we're going to move to our those against I have four in person and one remote so we'll try all of you at once I have a Michael Gifford a Michael Smith a Michael Cox and and Parker Michael White, and an Alanka Hahn online. Okay. As soon as you... It's a middle name you didn't know about. We'll start over here. State your name, which Michael you are, and who you represent and start your two minutes.
Thank you. Great. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Michael Cox. I'm an attorney with the law firm Squire Patent Boggs. I'm appearing today on behalf of my client at the Colorado Chamber of Commerce. Occupational safety and health is critical to our state and country's future. Workers must be trained, kept safe, and provided with well-maintained equipment. Workers must be empowered to speak up when they see unsafe conditions or practices. And it is critical that employers value safety as an important non-negotiable value. Thank the sponsors for shining a light on an important subject. That said this bill is misguided and should be defeated for the following reasons First unless Colorado goes through the state plan approval process Colorado is preempted by federal law from regulating workplaces currently regulated by OSHA The responsibility for enforcing the general duty clause belongs exclusively to OSHA. Colorado cannot simply replace it with its own general duty clause. Second, OSHA's general duty clause is statutory. There is no bill before Congress to rescind or modify it. OSHA's proposed rule from July 1st, 2025, regarding the General Duty Clause has been widely distorted and misinterpreted. This proposed rule is expressly on a narrow, discrete issue and would affect a very small subset of employees and employers of the arts, entertainment, sports, animal care, recreation sectors. It does not target generic workers, laborers, contractors, construction, who we're hearing a lot from. This is only proposed rule at this stage but if enacted it would have a narrow application and again a limited number of Colorado employees and employers would be affected. Arguments that this is inherently risky exception would be expanded to other industries and professions as highly speculative. As a result, HB 1054 is an overreaction to a narrow largely innocuous proposed federal regulation. In the long term the bill will create more problems than it solves given the conflicts with federal law, other Colorado state law, added legal pressure and and costs of compliance for employers. The bill sponsors may have the best intentions to protect Colorado employees from a perceived abdication of commitment to workplace safety by the federal government. The history teaches us that reactionary policies such as this bill often have the unintended consequences worse than the original problem. It is a legitimate policy goal for Colorado to want to regulate workplace safety in a manner that is more stringent than federal law. The exclusive means to achieve that goal are through the state plan approval process. this bill seeks to circumvent that process. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to responding to any questions.
Thank you, sir. Next, name who you represent and start the two minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Parker White. I'm the director of the Colorado Competitive Council, and we are here in opposition today of House Bill 261054. Colorado employers take workplace safety very seriously. Businesses across their state invest heavily in training, hazard prevention, and strong safety cultures because protecting workers is essential for doing what businesses do. Unfortunately, House Bill 26-1054 does not improve safety outcomes. It creates confusion, legal uncertainty, and unnecessary litigation. First, the bill creates a duplicative state enforcement structure on top of an existing federal OSHA requirement. Colorado is not an OSHA state, an OSHA state plan state, meaning employers could face conflicting interpretations, overlapping compliance obligations between federal OSHA and a new state framework. And that's not to say that employers would also face the costs and bear the costs of much of the litigation that would happen to identify where that is, what is preempted, what isn't. And us not being a federal OSHA state plan state means that we don't have, we don't know, or excuse me, all of those things would likely be preempted. Second, the bill allows the state to create additional standards where federal protections are considered less stringent. It's a very vague standard that could lead to constantly changing and inconsistent regulations. Employers need clarity and predictability to effectively comply and keep workers safe. They also need that to run their businesses. And third, House Bill 26-1054 shifts workplace safety away from collaboration and towards lawsuits as we identify what's preempted, what's not. the bill opens the door to litigation stop work orders, statutory damages and instead of focusing on inspections compliance and cooperative hazard mitigation it moves towards private rights of action and identifying and trying to find holes in a federal plan that we have not applied for nor have we been assessed for at the state level We are not a state-planned state under OSHA, and that will be preempted under federal law.
Thank you. Sir, name who you represent and start your two minutes.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Michael Smith, State Director for NFIB, the National Federation of Independent Business. NFIB has approximately 6,000 members throughout the state in all communities operating in all types of industries. On behalf of our members, I'm here in opposition to House Bill 1054. Our members support a worker safety framework that provides a sound structure to ensure an appropriate level of safety standards for the workplace. Today, states choose either to be a federal OSHA state or run their own OSHA-type structure at the state level, not both, which is what this bill essentially proposes. As a federal OSHA state, OSHA currently enforces safety regulations and handles complaints in the state. This bill adds to the existing federal structure, which makes it duplicative, unnecessarily confusing, and adds increased liability for small businesses. Without factoring in the impact of this legislation, Colorado is already one of the most regulated states, among the likes of California, New York, and Illinois. In the eyes of small business, that is not a crowd they want to be associated with. A crowd they don't want this state to be associated with. And the cost to comply with regulations hits small businesses particularly hard as they endure the highest regulatory cost per employee. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, small businesses are the foundation of Colorado's economy and represent 99% of Colorado businesses and about half of all Colorado employees work for small businesses. To succeed, small businesses need policies that instill confidence so they can plan for the future and invest in capital and their employees. With half of all Coloradan employees working for small businesses, when Colorado small businesses succeed, Colorado succeeds. Thank you for allowing me to testify, and I urge your no support.
Thank you, sir. Next, state your name, who you represent, and start at the two minutes.
Mr. Chair, members of the committee, Michael Gifford, Associated General Contractors of Colorado in opposition to House Bill 1054. and we look at this bill as being in two large buckets. The first bucket is additional enforcement by additional parties, and the second is the state getting more into the safety business if OSHA goes away. I want to talk about the first for a moment. You've heard about the problems with duplication, but I want to underscore that today we answer to OSHA, and they tell us what the biggest problems are and how we need to fix it. Now, we also have to answer to the Attorney General, a laborer, which is a union organization, a worker organization, and groups of employees, all of which can be now giving us instructions. And I can tell you in every instance in the construction business where we have multiple bosses, they tell us different and conflicting things to do. So that is a real problem because it's going to take our eye off the ball. And I can give you an example. OSHA's 2024 report says that the top issues are falls to a lower level. That over half of fatalities nationally So fall protection ladders and scaffolding violations are what we need to focus on not heat and cold Let's talk about heat. In May of 2026, OSHA created an updated national emphasis program to focus on 55 high-risk industries, including construction, and it authorizes inspectors to target workplaces when heat index rises above 80 degrees. So there's an example where the state is even saying focus on heat, but the injuries are in other areas. We do a lot with OSHA that I'd love to talk about in training and partnering if I get a question on that. But that's the specific problem for our industry. It's just going to make us more confused, not more focused, and it's not going to make it safer for our employees. Thank you.
Thank you, sir. So it's hanging right there. I've got one more online. Ms. Hahn, state your name, who you represent, and go ahead and start your two minutes.
Thank you, Vice Chair, Madam Chair, and members of the committee. My name is Alenka Hahn, and I serve as Assistant General Counsel for Pinnacle Assurance. Pinnacle is opposed to House Bill 1054. While we share the sponsor's commitment to worker safety, this bill creates unintended consequences that have the opposite effect and will undermine the safety and stability of Colorado's workplaces. Partnering with our members and industry leaders, Pinnacle deploys the state's largest safety investment, which has achieved a remarkable 34% reduction in injury claims since 2017. This legislation risks reversing that progress. Duplicative workplace safety standards force employers and workers to navigate multiple sets of training and compliance standards for the same job site. The resulting compliance confusion creates a hazardous situation, which will lead to errors in judgment and result in more injuries. Further, by placing enforcement in the hands of the Attorney General's office, this bill substantially diminishes the role of the Division of Labor and Employment, the state agency currently responsible for workers' safety, in overseeing hazards in the workplace. Expanding the Attorney General's role in monitoring workplace safety thus comes at the expense of the division neutering the division's ability to use its substantial collective expertise to keep Colorado workers safe from workplace harm. More importantly, this bill fundamentally threatens the grand bargain of our state workers' compensation system. The exclusive remedy doctrine for workers' compensation is designed to ensure that injured workers receive swift medical care and benefits without protracted litigation. But forcing an employer to defend against a civil suit for the same incident that triggered an injury claim under the Act pierces the exclusivity shield codified by the Act more than 100 years ago. Forcing an employer into a dual-track legal battle by potentially defending a claim in both district court and before the division undermines the no-fault nature of the workers' comp system and subjects employers to litigation, which carries a high degree of uncertainty, which is a consequence the workers' comp system was created to prevent in the first place. So in summary, House Bill 1054 complicates the regulatory landscape, invites civil litigation that harms stability for employers, and threatens the safety of our workers. Thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions you have, and we ask for a no vote on 1054.
Thank you, ma'am. Okay. Questions from the committee?
Senator Liston. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Maybe a question to, gosh, there's all of the Michaels. I'll pick Michael Gifford first, I guess. I think it was alluded to that there might be some confusion onto the regulatory issues. environment as pertaining to if this bill should pass versus the OSHA laws. Would you like to elaborate on that a little bit, or could you? Mr. Gifford. Mr. Chair and Senator Liston, thank you for the question. And to answer that, I'd like to go to a live example here in Colorado in 2021. And I believe, Senator Sullivan, you were a sponsor of the state apprenticeship agency bill. So we ran multiple apprenticeship programs through the U.S. Department of Labor, and the state said, no, we don't want to do that anymore, so we're going to do a state apprenticeship council and no longer have the federal. And now we're working with the state apprenticeship council only with them, getting to know them, doing what they want and what we collaboratively say is best for the workers to learn their four-year craft. Now, bring that over to this situation. We are currently working with OSHA, and I'll give you a specific example. OSHA has only 28 OSHA training institutes in the country out of the 50 states. and we operate one of those 28 for the benefit of really the mountain region for safety training for construction. It's located right here in downtown Denver. And that way we're lining up that training with those injuries I talked about earlier in that report, that they're telling us this is what you need to prevent. These are where the fatalities are. These are where the injuries. Now if we have the attorney general saying, well, we think heat is the problem and a labor organization saying something else, some of our employees saying something else, another company's employee saying something else, we're going to kind of have to fracture that, say, put that training institute over here, and now we're going to have to create other training programs. Otherwise, we could suffer lawsuits and potentially stop work orders by a judge. So that's just an example how our focus can be distracted from what OSHA already knows are the exact things that are causing the fatalities and the injuries. Thank you. Okay. Senator Zamora Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This would be for Mr. Michael Cox. are there risks that Congress will revise or revoke the federal general duty clause? Mr. Cox. There we go. Thank you for the question. At this point in time, no. The answer is no. We do not see any indication that Congress is going to file legislation, bills, anything of that kind that's going to revoke or repeal the general duty clause, that particular section of the OSHA action. Senator Jamar Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Continuing, what are the current penalties that OSHA may impose for workplace safety violations? Mr. Cox. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Ms. Wilson, for the question. There's a range of penalties, depending on severity, anywhere for a serious violation, anywhere up towards over $16,000, and then also for a repeated violation or a willful violation, which would be considered even more serious. Those can be up to over $165,000 for a single violation. Anything else Senator Liston Thank you Maybe not just for me but for all of us Would you explain any one of you I not familiar with what the general duty clause is I honestly don know Mr Cox or anybody else Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair, Mr. Liston. Yeah, so the general duty clause is essentially, I hate to use this term, but essentially it is what it is, and it's kind of a catch-all for anything that was not covered under the regulation, the OSHA Act itself, which would have been impossible to do an exhaustive bill that covers every single violation, every single infraction that could possibly happen in a workplace regarding safety and health. So this is designed to catch things that were naturally left out from that process that still would be considered a violation. There just may not be a specific other section of the act that points right to what happened in this particular instance. Certain examples would include workplace violence. COVID was another one as well. Okay, very good. Senator Zamora Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And this is for anyone. Recently, one of the laws that Colorado had, the Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional. And if this bill is passed and signed into law and later declared unconstitutional, wouldn't the state then have to find a mechanism to refund any penalties awarded under this statute? Anybody want to take a shot at that? I'm happy to. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ms. Wilson. So it's unclear how that would work. And that's what adds to the confusion of this bill. And that's why, you know, on our end, we're saying that this is creating more problems than it solves. So it's misguided in that sense. And yeah, possibly there would have to be a mechanism to refund people and companies were this bill, were this law to later on be ruled unconstitutional to make those employers whole again. So it could lead to a lot of litigation, a lot of confusion, and it could be just a big mess, frankly. Okay. Finally, I have a question here for Mr. Smith. During your testimony, and I just want to make sure that I've got this right, you stated that 99% of all businesses in Colorado were small businesses and that 50% of our workers worked for those small businesses. So that would, I'm thinking, conversely mean that 50% of our workers work for the 1%. How many, do you have any idea, how many is that 1% that the rest of our workers work for? Mr. Chairman, thanks for the question. Yeah, I didn't know there would be math involved. You brought it up. I didn't. I understand. Yeah, those statistics I get from the Small Business Administration, that nearly half of all working Coloradans do work for a small business. And yeah, frankly I was surprised that it did say 99% that statistic, but that's the report that they came out with. They do those on every state. Okay, I mean, well, if there's another publication that anybody else might know I mean 50 of our people are working for 1 That sounds like a pretty crowded workforce The way the data breaks down there is different right So 99 of the raw number of businesses in the state are small businesses. So the 1% of businesses that are not small businesses is not necessarily reflective of the total workforce that each of those businesses represents, right? So So if you have, say, take the large employers, take the state of Colorado out of it, and you were to take, you know, I'm just going to name larger businesses in Colorado. You would take Kroger. You would take Lockheed. You would take United Airlines. Each one of those, and then you were to look at most small businesses that may have one to three people, you can just look at the numbers, right? Lockheed Martin alone employs 12,000 people. How many businesses, how many small businesses of one to three people would fit into that? So it would be you would end up with numbers like 99 percent of the raw number of businesses in the state are small businesses. And then 50 percent of the workforce are working for those. And then the other 50 percent are working for the one percent of businesses that are not qualifying as small businesses. That isn't necessarily to say that they are working for, you know, the one percent, so to speak. But so in short, yes, that data makes sense when you when you break down how many businesses there are in relation to the size of any given business. Gotcha. OK, super. Thanks so much. I have nobody else on the list here to testify in favor or in opposition. I will ask a final time. Is there anybody else who wishes to testify on this legislation? Seeing none, the testimony stage is over. We will bring back up the sponsor. We are now into the amendment phase. Do you have any amendments? Yes, sir. Does anybody on the committee have any amendments? We are finished with the amendment phase. We are now into the wrap-up phase. Madam Chair, do you have a wrap-up? Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Fascinating conversation today. I appreciate all of the engagement and all of the witnesses for being here. I wanted to clear up just a couple of things. First of all, 28 states and the District of Columbia have put in state statute the general duty clause. So the likelihood, and that ranges from Alabama and Idaho all the way to Illinois and New York. So whether you are conservative or not, lots of folks have said that this is a good idea, and it has likely withstood many different challenges. So the likelihood that we're going to get overturned for ours in particular is pretty small. I also wanted to mention that the general duties clause is not vague. It is a residual gap-filling obligation. And if we want to talk about overregulation, trying to put into statute everything that would make a safe workplace would be a heck of an overregulation, right? Like that would take a lot of our time and a lot of space and too much of our small businesses and other businesses' time and would not actually protect our workers. There should be a general standard in place to say, yes, we can point to this and say this is unsafe and we can ask the employer to fix that. With that, Colorado finds itself having to step up once again as the federal government and the Trump administration leave our most vulnerable workers behind. I will just note as well, to try to predict what Congress is going to do when Congress can't, one, get their bills or their part of government funded or their bills passed is a bold move. And I would also say that the federal administration right now is pushing hard to roll these regulations back whether we actually repeal them in statute or not So again we are stepping up where we are seeing the federal government fall behind Where this administration is abdicating, we will seize the responsibility to stand with our workers. And it is our responsibility to care for our people, to ensure that they have dignity and safety in their workplace, and to protect their health over politics. And with that, I ask for an aye vote, and thank you so much for your consideration. Thank you. Any comments from the committee? Senator Zamora Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Without hearing from the testimony, you know, I was foreseeing with the increase in regulations and increase in litigation, in listening to the testimony was confirming that. We are already over-regulated, as stated. We're the sixth most regulated, and that's climbing to, I don't know, we're trying to be number one. And that brings in costs, costs to Coloradans, and especially when you bring in the litigation, that's going to increase. and so I will be a no vote on this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Others, any comments? Thank you for bringing this forward. All I can say, I mean, and certainly OSHA plays a big part in this, as a shop steward, as an officer of a union, the United States Postal Service, working for the American Postal Workers Union. I dealt with those federal entities quite a bit. We used to come downtown to go to EEO offices and go to the OSHA's office. During the 26, 27 years of being at the post office, several different administrations were occupying the White House during that time. I can't tell you what a difference it makes, who is in the White House, and the response you get from those organizations. It was mind-blowing to see, whereas before, you couldn't get people to answer the phone, to respond to – And this was maybe even before emailing and that kind of stuff when we used to send letters back and forth to one another to see the difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration was just mind numbing. So thank you so much for bringing this forward. And I will ask if you have a motion on your bill. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 261054 to the committee on appropriations with a favorable recommendation, sir. That is a proper motion. Mr. Syed, would you please take a roll? Senators. Winstead. Yes. Liston. No. Or Wilson. No. Wallace. Aye. Mr. Chair. Aye. That bill passes 3-2, and you are on your way to appropriations. And since we have one more bill, we have 1309, and we have the sponsor still seated. If you are ready, we can move right into 1309. Yes, sir. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and committee members, for participating. Your continued consideration, it is my great honor to bring you House Bill 1309. This legislation gives our courts key avenues to intervene in domestic violence, prevents abusers from taking advantage of the court system to further abuse, and bases outcomes for family court in evidence-based interventions. Colorado has already passed important legislation to protect children and victims of domestic violence in family court, including Caden's Law and related reforms. But these statutes are fragmented, inconsistently applied, and structurally disconnected. The result is that well-intentioned protections often fail at the point of judicial decision-making. Courts must navigate multiple disjointed statutory provisions at different stages of a case, creating gaps that lead to inconsistent outcomes for children. The consequences are measurable. In 2025, the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Board reported a record number of domestic violence fatalities. Over 62% of Colorado's child domestic violence fatality victims were killed during child custody litigation. Of the eight child domestic violence fatality victims in 2024, five children were involved in their parents' custody disputes. Studies suggest that one parent using repeated court actions against the other parent is a pervasive, multifaceted, and effective tactic to further coercive control. We also know that the period of initial separation and following court proceedings are an exceptionally dangerous time for those being subjected to domestic violence. Given these stark realities, it is clear that Colorado courts need clearer guidance and standards to address domestic violence. This legislation accomplishes that goal by reorganizing existing statute obligations into a logical, sequential framework that courts can follow consistently. I had one advocate put it to me, a judge might get sworn in one morning and basically half an hour later gets handed a family court case docket. They're thrown into it immediately. To have all these statutes placed into one place will create one clear framework for them. It does not create entirely new legal duties, but rather consolidates and clarifies the duties already enacted by the General Assembly into a structure judges can reliably apply. By concentrating on judicial clarity and structural coherence, HB 1309 builds a durable foundation that courts will actually use consistently while offering a training framework for new inexperienced judges. These practical improvements in how judges apply the law produce safer outcomes in every case, not just those that proceed to appeal. I thank you each for your consideration and look forward to the conversation. Thank you, Madam Chair. A question for you? Seeing none, I have, I think, about a dozen people signed up here. I have two against and the rest are in favor. So I'm going to just go I'm going to start with a group in favor and then we'll do the against and then we'll work our ourselves back. Once again, just to remind you, two minutes per person. And we'll try to have a group of four. It looks like we have a, if we're going to have questioning to the panel, we're going to limit the questioning to eight minutes. I know I been in these kinds of cases before They could be very emotional statements that are being said So just trying more so. I think I'm saying this out loud for myself as opposed to letting you all know. You already all know what's coming. But I'm trying to prepare myself for what's coming. And that's fine. Let me start with Christine McKinley, Cecily Araney, Chelsea Augelia, thank you, and Kaylee, is it a Zinman? Thank you. All right, we've got the four of you here. Okay. Over here, two minutes, state your name, who you represent, and start your two minutes. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Cecily Reine. I am a member of the Colorado Women's Bar Association Policy Action Committee, which has registered in support of this bill. I also work in high conflict family law where domestic violence cases are a daily reality. Under current law, domestic violence is one factor within the best interest analysis. There is no defined percentage of weight assigned to any factor within the analysis. That means it is weighed against and at times outweighed by other factors. The statute leans heavily on reports and professional input, but it does not provide a defined structure for how that finding should drive the outcome. This bill gives courts that structure. It requires a finding by preponderance of evidence as to whether domestic violence occurred before the court moves into the best interest analysis. For judges and magistrates, that matters. It creates a clear starting point, a defined legal sequence, and a record that is consistent and reviewable. It reduces ambiguity in how cases are analyzed and brings alignment across courtrooms. And once that finding is made, the bill directs action. There is a presumption against allocating parental responsibilities, and the court must impose conditions that directly address safety, including supervised parenting time, safe exchanges, restricted contact, and treatment requirements. It also creates clarity for families. For a parent who has committed domestic violence, expectations are defined. Compliance, treatment, and behavioral change are tied directly to parenting outcomes without requiring repeated high-cost litigation to demonstrate progress. For parents whose parenting time is restricted, including those who may be improperly found, the court system often offers no clear way forward. This bill allows courts to set conditions and connect those conditions to modification, creating a path that is structured and measurable. This bill does not remove discretion. It structures it. This bill turns the best interest analysis from reactive to proactive. Thank you, and I respectfully urge your support. Thank you. Ma'am, state your name, who you represent, and go ahead and start your two minutes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. My name is Kayla Zillman. I am testifying in my individual capacity today. I am a Denver family law attorney, and I've been practicing for about nine years, but I've lived in family law world since 2011, including as a clerk in Denver District Court. I HERE TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF HOUSE BILL 1309 IN OUR PRACTICE MY BUSINESS PARTNER MS GELE AND I REPRESENT MANY PARENTS WHO ARE SURVIVORS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES WE SEEN COUNSELY In our practice my business partner Miss Segelli and I represent many parents who are survivors of domestic violence in domestic relations cases We seen countless times how domestic violence and coercive control harm survivors families and their children. Divorce and domestic relations cases involving domestic violence are entirely different than cases without domestic violence. The impacts of domestic violence, coercive control, and other interpersonal and family violence permeate every component of a family law case. Most dangerously, they permeate such that children are impacted for the rest of their lives. Parenting cases involving domestic violence and coercive control remain in litigation and perpetuity because perpetrators know how to weaponize the court process to continue their abuse. Judicial officers must be empowered to identify these cases early and effectively. As Senator Wallace mentioned, many judicial officers do not have prior experience with family law. It's vital for the statutory framework to be organized in a way that makes sense and provides judges and magistrates with guidance and tools to create orders to keep children safe. In addition, there are substantial numbers of pro se litigants and domestic relations cases across the state. By reorganizing 1410-124, this is providing support to those pro se litigants who may may otherwise not know where to look in the statute to find the support they need to request orders to keep children safe. Thank you, ma'am. Next, state your name, who you represent, and start your two minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, and thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today. My name is Chelsea Aghelli, and I'm an attorney licensed in the state of Colorado and exclusively practiced in the area of family law. I am a member of the Colorado Bar Association and Colorado Women's Bar Association and have served on policy committees in both organizations, but I am only testifying in an individual capacity today. The family law section of the Colorado Bar Association was unable to take a formal position on this bill given the nature of the timing. And there have been a significant number of amendments that I think have drastically changed and improved the bill from its original introduction. And I do believe that many attorneys and judges would, if they were able to testify today, support this bill. And so I am asking that you vote yes on House Bill 26-1309. As Ms. Stillman mentioned, we work together as shareholders at a family law firm. We've both developed a specialization in cases involving domestic violence, child abuse, substance use, mental health issues, and in cases with children with special needs. These cases are complex and often remain in litigation beyond the initial permanent orders. By way of example, I have a number of cases that have case numbers going back to 2014 and 2015 that are still in active litigation. I've gone from being a paralegal on a case to being an attorney for the same client. That same child went from the age of four to the age of 15. 1410-124 is the guidepost for our judicial officers to determine what's in the best interest of children in allocating parental responsibilities. In current written form, it has ultimately not served the best interests of children, specifically in these complex cases. Our judicial officers are inundated with overloaded dockets. They have very little time to hear evidence, make findings, and issue orders. I'm often given 20 minutes to present a case regarding the safety of a child, and imagine being pro se without a lawyer. A logical flow analysis that this presents helps judges make decisions easily and with findings that will protect the safety of children I request that you vote yes Thank you Thank you Next name who you represent and start two minutes Hi my name is Christine McGinley I represent myself Thank you chair and committee Over 10 years ago, I filed for divorce when my child's father was jailed for domestic violence. I left to keep my child and myself safe. In criminal court, he was treated as a perpetrator. My child and I were treated as survivors. The moment we crossed into family court, his identity changed. He was no longer a perpetrator. He was a dad. And the criminal protection order for my child was immediately removed by the family court. Judges lacked the framework to understand the basic dynamics of domestic violence and how coercive control plays out in post-separation abuse and its impact on child safety. Despite court findings of domestic violence, endangerment and neglect in a PRE recommendation of supervised parenting, and despite the father's admission on the stand of child sex assault of a four-year-old child, unsupervised parenting was ordered. The harm continued. My child came home with black eyes and head injuries and further medical neglect. A second PRE reported emotional and physical harm and recommended supervised parenting. The court increased father's parenting. Then 30 child welfare reports from National Jewish Children's Hospital therapists in school. When evidence of harm continues to be dismissed and children are not protected, this empowers abusers and fuels years of chaotic litigation, clogged courts, and overworked judges. And children pay the price. In February, another hearing took place in the seventh judicial, and the court again heard the evidence that has been found for the last 10 years. A fourth PRE found my child has suffered and will continue to suffer emotional and physical harm and neglect in father's care and recommended the child be returned to my full-time care. That was 73 days ago, and the judge has taken no action. The child has no avenue for relief. We cannot accept that a crowded docket or the time it takes to write an order outweighs documented, confirmed harm to a child that has now spanned over 10 years. This bill gives judges and first-day magistrates who walk into family court with no training a framework to understand what domestic violence actually is. Please support 1309. Thank you, ma'am. Questions for this panel? I will ask the two lawyers, and I know you talk in a lot of acronyms there, and without turning this into an L.A. Law episode for us, pro-gala and pro-se, just a capsulized as, I know pro bono. I picked that up, but what are those? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So pro-se is unrepresented. So a party that is self-represented in front of a court does not have a lawyer. Okay. And did I get the other one was a pro-gala? I think Ms. Did you say something? I think I also was referring to pro se and self-representative. That was both the same. Okay. All right. Super. All right. Seeing no other questions, thank you so much for being here. We have a panel of those against. I have a Nathan Fisher, who seems to be here in person, and online, Brittany Vesely. If you could bring her up. Anybody else in the room or online in opposition to this who wants to come up now? Okay, Mr. Fisher, when you are ready, go ahead, state your name, who you represent, and start the two minutes. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair, or Mr. Vice Chair, members of the committee. My name is Nathan Fisher, and I'm the Associate Director of the Colorado Catholic Conference, which is the united voice of the bishops of Colorado, testifying in opposition to 1309 today. 1309 is intended to address domestic violence in family court proceedings, particularly in cases involving child custody and parental responsibility. Yet parts of Section 2 present grave violations of sanctity of life and parental rights. 1309 considers it to be coercive control for a parent to monitor their child's access to services and defines coercive control as pattern of behavior that takes away individual's liberty or freedom and strips away the individual's sense of self, including the individual's bodily integrity and human rights. A parent who does not affirm their child's trans identity under this section could have parental rights stripped away. This could also include a male partner attempting to save the life of his pre-born child or even grandparents attempting to save the life of their preborn grandchild. If a man was accused of health-related abuse for attempting to save his preborn child's life from abortion, he would be required to participate in individualistic therapeutic treatment with a mental health professional who holds a master's or doctoral degree in a certain mental health license type, has specialized training and expertise in treating survivors of domestic violence and its effects, and has completed a 52-week domestic violence abuser intervention program. We've already dealt with this in House Bill 25, 13, 12, and Senate Bill 26, 18. Both bills have the same parental custody questions stripped from the text because of hundreds of Coloradans' public outcry. This bill is another attempt to remove parental rights if the parent disagrees with their minor child on gender ideology, except it is more deceptive because it doesn't directly address the concerns parents have with their child's gender ideology. We should be concerned whenever government policies to remove children from their family, not for abuse or neglect, but because parents disagree on personally held beliefs. Removing Section 2 would be good policy, consistent with already opposed bills. On behalf of the bishops, we ask you to vote no unless amended. Thank you. Thank you. Let's see. And online, Ms. Vestley, state your name, who you represent, and start your two minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Brittany Vestley. I'm the Executive Director of the Colorado Catholic Conference, and I'm testifying in opposition to HB 1309. Last year, over 700 Coloradans came to the Capitol in opposition of HB 251312 concerning the same language that we see in HB 1309 regarding coercive control and parental custody decisions. In February, Senator Wallace's Senate Bill 18 was again stripped of the language following public outcry. The Catholic Church supports policy that addresses domestic violence. Much of this bill would support the common good. But HB 1309 goes far beyond the scope into normal parenting decisions. HB 1309 prohibits parents from stopping their children from hanging out with bad influences, monitoring their child's bank account to ensure good financial habits, using Find My Phone to ensure that they know where their child is located to ensure safety, using the Screen Time app to protect their child from negative Internet exposure, and even throwing away their child's old unused toys could be considered abuse under this bill. HB 1309 violates the First Amendment and constitutional precedent protecting parental rights from state overreach, including Troxell v. Granville, which held that parents have a fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. In the recent Childs v. Salazar case, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Colorado's ban on genuine care for minors by their parents and counselors who offer compassionate care for gender dysphoria. Preventing this option to parents and practitioners by calling it coercive control, as HB 1309 would do, puts ideology before health care of children and it is unconstitutional Parental rights can even be stripped from a before their child is born Under section two if a male partner is accused of interfering or controlling pregnancy outcomes of their child he could be subject to state sanction penalties We should be concerned whenever government policy is to remove a child from their family, not for abuse or neglect, but because parents and children disagree about deeply personal beliefs and everyday life decisions where parents have an obligation to protect and guide their children. By removing the sections in Section 2 of this bill, that would be good policy, consistent with the will of Coloradans that have already opposed two very similar bills. On behalf of the Colorado bishops, we ask this committee to vote no unless they make these amendments possible. Thank you for that. Any questions for these two? Okay, yeah. Seeing none, thank you. And I would just say to the two of you, as a lifelong Catholic who grew up in a Catholic family, I am just so ashamed to have to sit here and listen to this. It's just I can't imagine what my family thinks of this. But you have the right to speak. I have my right to speak. Are we allowed to respond to that? There was no there are no more further questions. That was a pretty negative statement to not be able to issue a response on behalf of the Catholic bishops. Yeah, you can go ahead and contact the president of the Senate if you'd like. I'll do that. Thank you, sir. Moving on next, I have a Angela Arkin, Maggie Van Denberg, Kat Klimica, Tricia Krob, a K-R-O-B. Does that look? Oh, okay. Yeah, everybody else I've got here is remote. I'm starting to go down. You're in person? Step on up. Is there anybody else here in person who wishes? Come on up. Okay, we will start over here. You each have two minutes. State your name, who you represent, and start your testimony.
Hi, my name is Angela Arkin. I'm a retired, well, semi-retired district court judge I sat in domestic relations for approximately 15 and a half years when I was on the bench. And I'm speaking here for myself, but I am a member of the family law section, and I've been doing judicial training in the state of Colorado for 26 years. And I will tell you from my perspective, I'm in favor of this bill primarily because just about all of it, is currently law. The problem is that there's a lot that is currently law that is problematic from the perspective of being a judge and implementing the law as it is intended. There is language currently in the statute that says that if a judge has a reason to know that there's domestic violence. The only way a judge ever has a reason to know anything is when evidence is presented This bill solves that problem It puts in language that is correct and appropriate for a jurist to follow In addition, there are many areas of the existing statute that do not state the standard to apply. The standard in this version of the statute that cleans up existing law says the preponderance of the evidence is the standard. That's important for baby judges, baby magistrates who are coming in and are not getting necessarily training before they take the bench. This statute helps order what a judge is supposed to do. and options for what they need to do to protect children. I urge you, adopt this. Thank you.
Ma'am, name who you represent and start your two minutes.
My name is Maggie Vandenberg, and I represent myself. For the past 15 years, I've been working as a marriage and family therapist and with at-risk families and children for the past 22 years. I specialize in complex family dynamics in which domestic violence has often occurred. The frequent dynamic I witness within these family systems is ongoing and complex litigation. It's especially prominent when there's domestic violence, and it has not been taken into account in determining parenting time and responsibilities. I have spent a considerable amount of time studying different personality profiles, profiles. A consistent trait of this, somebody who commits domestic abuse, is their fight for power and control over their victim. Often starts as physical violence and often with the introduction of custody, the litigation, the abuse becomes more coercive and challenging to identify. The primary way offenders try to gain control over their victims is by what is most important to them, their children. If these factors aren't taken into account, parents are often given shared parenting responsibilities and this places the child in unsupervised care with the offending parent and requires ongoing intensive litigation and communication. In one particular role I worked as a family therapist providing in-home intensive family therapy where the adolescent was involved in the juvenile justice system and at risk of long-term incarceration and institutionalization. Many of the parents I worked with had experienced domestic violence and after separation, ongoing parenting time with the abusive parent was established. What I saw was consistent with the research. Kids raised under these circumstances are more likely to exhibit aggression, violence, substance use, and delinquency. These behaviors are a strong predictor of adult criminality. This includes repeating the cycle of abuse they grew up with as an offender or victim in their adult lives. This bill puts in place a protective factor for children. We want all kids to be happy contributing. This is, I am for this bill. Thank you, ma'am.
State your name, who you represent. Start your two minutes.
My name is Lauren May. I represent myself. I'm a domestic violence survivor who spent the last five years navigating both family court and frivolous civil litigation brought by my abuser to drain me and our child financially. What I continue to experience reveals not only unchecked harm to survivors, but a system that also fails the very professionals tasked with protecting families. In my case an adjudicated DV perpetrator with findings across two marriages in 13 years retained multiple providers from the Domestic Violence Offender Management Board a criminal board at 10 times the standard of their pay Not one of them provided treatment, accountability, or any assessment. Instead, they were hired to prolong litigation and confuse an already overburdened court system on a limited two-hour hearing. One provider even refused to conduct the court-ordered domestic violence treatment because there was no criminal conviction standing at the time. per DVOMB standards, despite judicial findings of abuse. That same provider then offered costly rebuttal services and challenged legitimate domestic violence experts in a longstanding district court judge's rulings. The result was devastating, not only for my family, but for the integrity of this process itself. Without treatment, accountability, or proper investigation into the abuser's fitness, the court was left navigating contradictory testimony from professionals operating outside of the role of the DVOMB was actually created to serve. This bill addresses a problem many judges, magistrates, evaluators, therapists, and attorneys are already struggling with, a lack of clear standards and properly qualified rules in high-conflict domestic violence cases. HB 26-1309 brings clarity back into the courtroom. It removes a reliance on a system that itself was acknowledged that it was not designed for civil family court to work, the DVOMB. It ensures that professionals involved in these cases are specifically trained in domestic violence, coercive control, trauma, and child safety. It restores focus to evidence-based assessment and accountability rather than litigation tactics that increase conflict, delay resolution, financially devastate families. I urge you to support 1309. Thank you, ma'am.
Thank you. Next, name who you represent. Two minutes.
Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Dr. Jenny Johnson, and I'm the founder of Survivor Resource Group, which is an organization that supports survivors navigating family court. Through my work with survivors, I've become deeply alarmed by our judiciary's inability to effectuate the legislative intent of family court bills passed since 2021. Four children were murdered in 2021, six in 2022, eight in 2023, eight in 2024, eight in 2025, with five of those being murders involving active family court cases. This legislature previously recognized that in cases of domestic violence, joint decision making was inappropriate. The obvious reason being that a person who engages in harm through power and control dynamics shouldn't have more power and control to harm a survivor and a child. Instead of limiting an abuser's power, Colorado courts have repeatedly awarded sole decision-making to perpetrators of domestic violence. Repeatedly awarded to perpetrators of domestic violence. Our judiciary needs clear directions. Decision-making must be allocated to the survivor to limit an abuser's ability to cause harm to the child. This bill does that. The law must be explicit, and 1309 provides this clarity. I urge this legislature to restore common sense to decision-making in cases of domestic violence. Thank you.
Thank you, Mamet. We've got one more on line. Kat, can you go ahead and state your name, pronounce your last name for me properly, and who you represent, and start your two minutes.
Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity. Opportunity to speak. My name is Kat Clamaco and I represent myself. I'm a protective parent and a victim survivor of domestic violence. I'm here today in support of this bill because my son and I have been afforded significant protection by the courts as a result of findings of domestic violence in our custody case. I have spent six and a half years in the family court system trying to protect my son from ongoing abuse. Two years ago, after a six-month parental responsibilities evaluation and a three-day evidentiary hearing, a Denver Family Court judge reviewed extensive evidence of domestic violence, child endangerment, and neglect, supported by testimony from my son's providers. When orders were finally issued five months later, I was granted primary custody and sole decision-making in all areas due to findings of domestic violence and child endangerment. Those orders changed the trajectory of my son's life. His teachers and professionals in his life have described his progress as a miracle. The judge who issued the orders that changed our lives drastically for the better was very experienced in family law, as she was a family law attorney for 25 years prior to becoming a judicial officer. She understood how domestic violence impacts children and abused parents. This bill would ensure that all judicial officers, regardless of their experience with domestic relations cases or domestic violence, have the tools they need to carry out the primary focus of their job, which is to protect children and abuse parents. When domestic violence is minimized or ignored, those are the cases that never end, and the results are devastating for children trapped in abusive homes. Abusers continue to use the family court system as a tool of control, filing motion after motion, forcing families back into court again and again. My abuser is dragging me and my son back to court again right now, And at this point, I've spent over $400,000 and counting on legal fees just trying to protect us from our abuser. This bill provides the court with clear guidance and clear process when domestic violence is present and prioritizes the safety in children of abused parents. Judges making clear findings about domestic violence is not an administrative burden. It is essential to protecting children and reducing long-term harm. I strongly urge you to support this bill. Thank you for your time.
Thank you. any questions for this panel? Seeing none, thank you so much for your time today. I have several more that are listed online. They are all remote. This is Tricia Cobb, K-R-O-B. I have a Rachel Pickle Hawkins. Stephanie Abar. okay and david karns okay anybody again anybody else in the room or online that i'm missing on this okay we'll wait until they start popping in i see rachel first rachel if you're ready to go State your name, who you represent, and you have two minutes.
Thank you, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Rachel Pickrell-Hawkins. I am a mother and a parent failed by the Colorado's family court system and the founder of the Lydia Philippi House of Justice. I have submitted supporting exhibits for your review. I support this bill because child safety must be the standard in family court not an afterthought 1309 requires what should already exist Judges and magistrates determine whether domestic violence occurred and consider evidence of abuse and child safety before allocating parental responsibilities. Too often, that does not happen unless the law requires it. I fled for our safety with my children four years ago. My former spouse, a retired Aurora police officer, is now facing seven felony counts of sexual assault on a child by a person in a position of trust along with child abuse. His trial is set to finally begin on June 30th, yet in family court the narrative was flipped I was called a liar, my evidence was disregarded, and I went to jail while he remained free on bond. Coercive control was not recognized for what it is. The evidence brought forward, including experts, police reports, mandatory reporters, eyewitnesses, and findings from the Department of Child Protective Services was outweighed by alienation claims and by a preference for parenting time and decision-making over my children's welfare and safety. My children were not heard. Instead, they were subjected to further harm, including court-ordered harmful therapy that became another vehicle for coercion and control. Had this bill been in place, reunification, joint decision-making, and parenting time would not have been ordered while this abuse evidence and these safety concerns were present. Please pass 1309 and make clear that in Colorado, child safety must be the foundation for every family court decision. Thank you.
Thank you, ma'am. Let's see, Mr. Carnes, state your name, who you represent, and start your two minutes.
Chair and members of the committee, my name is David Carnes, I'm the Public Policy Director at Violence Free Colorado, the State Anti-Domestic Violence Coalition, here today in support of House Bill 26-1309. I want to start by beginning, excuse me, I want to begin by thanking the survivors who have shared their stories today. Your experiences matter and I commend your courage. Family court policy is complex and domestic violence cases require careful attention to both survivor safety and child well-being. We appreciate the continued effort to improve this bill as it's moved forward. This session, we've seen several bills focused on child custody, parenting time, and family court. This reflects an important reality. Colorado is continuing to wrestle with how these systems respond when violence, coercive control, and child safety concerns are present. This current version of this bill includes several changes that are important to our support. It strengthens how the bill defines and recognizes abuse, including coercive control. It also clarifies that domestic violence may include conduct, whether or not it constitutes a criminal offense, and that protective actions taken by a survivor are not domestic violence. Those clarifications matter because family courts need to be able to see the full context of abuse. A single incident rarely tells the whole story. In many cases, the danger is reflected in a broader pattern of power and control that shapes a survivor's choices, safety, and ability to parent freely. The bill also improves how courts handle evidence by allowing courts to consider testimony from people who may understand the family's circumstances, including parties, professionals, school personnel, and other lay witnesses. We also appreciate the strength in language around mutual decision-making. The bill now requires specific findings that mutual decision can occur without coercion intimidation retaliation or risk of harm to the abuse party or child Forced cooperation can become another pathway for abuse after separation, and this language better recognizes that safety must come before contact or shared control. I want to make sure to mention that in my direct experience working with survivors, the concerns I heard most often were clear. They wanted the abuse to stop. They wanted their children to be safe. Revenge and efforts to lead mislead courts were not what I heard. I heard fear, exhaustion, and a desire for stability. We urge a yes vote. Thank you.
Thank you, sir. Ms. Abar, unmute yourself there and state your name, who you represent. Start
your two minutes. Hi, my name is Stephanie Abar, and I'm representing myself. I'm a Colorado parent, a domestic violence survivor and I'm completing my Master of Health Administration with a focus in systems and process improvement. I speak today not only from personal experience but through the lens of operational management. You're hearing contrasting sides today but when you look at the structure underneath what you are hearing are symptoms of a systematic issue. Family courts lack a consistent logical framework to guide high-stakes safety decision. This bill recognizes a documented pattern where abusive behavior is often minimized while safety concerns raised by protective parents are heavily scrutinized. I know how dangerous it is when safety is treated as just one factor among many rather than the first fundamental question the system must answer. In high-stakes environments, whether in healthcare triage or military operations, you assess risk first. Every decision that follows depends on that initial safety assessment. In any high-risk system, we rely on standard operating procedures. You must complete step one before moving to step two. Family courts currently lack that standard operating procedure. Domestic violence is weighed alongside competing factors without a requirement to assess it first. Without that structured sequence, decisions rely heavily on subjective interpretation. In these cases, that variability means danger to children and victims. HB 26-1309 introduces a clear procedural structure. It ensures that safety is assessed before other decisions are made, addressing domestic violence and coercive control within a structured framework. It does not take judgment away from judges. It gives them a clear safety framework to make those judgments. HB 261309 prioritizes safety before contact. I respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.
And thank you. Committee, any questions for this panel? Seeing none, thank you so much for coming. I show no one else on my list. We have asked several times. The testimony paves is over. If we can have the sponsor come and rejoin us. And we will enter into the amendment phase.
Madam Chair, do you have any amendments?
Yes, sir. I move L9 to 1309.
That is a proper motion. Would you like to describe or explain your amendment?
Yes, sir. On pages 20, lines 6 through 10, this bill references individual therapy and individual therapeutic treatment. The bill should not specify this level of modality as that should be determined by the domestic violence evaluation This is important because most domestic violence offender treatment in the criminal setting is done through group sessions So this would create challenges between civil and criminal courts for those ordered into treatment having to do both or when individual therapy is not appropriate. And so this is a simple fix. And I ask for your aye vote.
Okay. Any questions on the amendment? Any problems with the amendment? Okay. Mr. Syed, would you please take a vote?
Senators.
Winstead. Yes.
Liston. Excuse. DeMorrelson. No. Wallace. Yes.
Mr. Chair. Yes. That passes three to one. Are there any other amendments? Yes, sir. Committee, do you have any amendments? seeing them the committee phase is over. Amendment phase. Amendment phase.
Any wrap-up, Madam Chair?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will say this bill is in other states traditionally carried by Republican members because I think that we can all agree that we should be standing up and protecting and ensuring that our courts protect women and children and that we are prioritizing safety over exposure. That's why this bill was bipartisan in the House. It got five Republican votes. It is about making sure that the protections Colorado has already promised our families actually work in practice. Right now, gaps and inconsistencies in the system leave families vulnerable at the most dangerous moments, especially during separation and custody disputes, as we heard from families who shared here and as we see from our statistics. Five children were lost during these disputes because the courts decided it was more important to put them with their abusive parent than to protect their lives. Do their lives matter to us? Are you going to take a vote today that says their lives matter to us? This bill gives courts clear guidance so that they can act decisively and consistently. Ultimately, this legislation is about preventing further harm and ensuring safer outcomes for families and children across our state. Thank you for your consideration, and I ask for an aye vote.
Committee, any comments? Senator Zamora Wilson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Earlier in the session, I had a bill that dealt with the complexity of when parents go through divorce, and it brought up testimony. People that we had, so many people provide testimony, and many of the familiar faces and the stories are heartbreaking when it comes to domestic violence. and what I had learned in listening to those that gave testimony is that there is a problem in our courts and that it does need to be fixed. And how we fix it, I'm not sure. I don't believe this bill is going to do it. There's verbiage in this bill that I ha, that causes me a lot of concern as far as definitions of what coercive control and those that had given opposition statements We talked about that, and that's very real. And also, when it comes to being a parent, and when I was raising my daughter, you know, I love my daughter, and I want to make sure that she is protected. And when we talk about the monitoring, I'm looking in the verbiage of this bill and monitoring, I don't agree with it. That's part of my job as a mother is to protect my child. And I can see where if I wanted to check her phone or her iPad, that would put me in the crosshairs. And that's not right. And we can start talking about the transgender, and especially the comments that were made. and the response was inappropriate. There's more I can say. Bottom line is, yes, we'd love to be able to protect our children and our families from domestic violence. This bill, in my belief, is not how we go through that avenue. Again, I have concerns with the verbiage, and I will be a respectful no on it. Thank you.
Yeah, I mean, my comment, I was, as I stated at the very beginning, preparing myself for the stories that I would be hearing from the victims and the survivors and instead I allowed myself to be overcome with my frustration of my faith And I should be better at that. And it's not right to share that, the problems I have with my faith with everybody else. But having, again, been a lifetime Catholic and grown up with Catholics, I know that on my way home, I can stop at a confessional. I can talk to my Lord and he will forgive me for what this is all just happened. And I would expect that to be help done as well with the others who profess the same faith. So that is my plan moving forward. And if Madam Chair has a motion, it's going to the Committee of the Whole. Yes, sir. Thank you.
I move House Bill 26-1309 as amended to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.
That is a proper motion. Mr. Syed.
Sanders.
Linstead. Yes.
Our list is excused. Amor Wilson. Respectfully, no.
Wallace. Aye.
Mr. Chair. Aye. That bill passes 3-1 on your way to the Committee of the Whole. that does what we have on our list for today not sure if we're coming back again the rest of this year but stay ready with that I adjourn