Colorado House 2026 Legislative Day 098

Good morning. Please join me in the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Representatives Bacon, Barone, Basinecker, Bottoms, Bradfield, Bradley, Brooks, Brown.

Caldwell. Camacho. Carter. Representative Carter.

Clifford. DeGraff. Duran. English.

Espinosa. Ferre. Flannell. Froelich. Garcia. Representative Garcia.

Garcia-Sander. Gilchrist. Goldstein. Gonzalez. Hamrick. Hartsook. Jackson. Johnson. Joseph.

Kelty. Leader. Representative Leader.

Lindsay.

Luck. Representative Luck.

Lukens. Mabry. Marshall. Martinez. Morrow. McCormick. Wynn. Pascal. Phillips.

Richardson. Ricks.

Routenel.

Ryden. Sirota. Slaw. Smith. Representative Smith. Soper. Stuart K. Stuart R. Story. Representative Story.

Sucla. Taggart. Titone.

Velasco Weinberg Wilford Winter Woodrow Representative Woodrow

Here.

Representative Brown. Representative Brown. Representative Sirota. Thank you for pinch hitting.

Members, you have heard the motion that the journal be approved as corrected by the chief clerk. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. Announcements and introductions. Representative Mabry.

Representative Gonzalez.

Good morning.

Members, welcome.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The Transportation, Housing, and Local Government Committee is not meeting this week.

Madam Majority Leader.

Thank you. Representative Smith.

Members, can I have your attention, please? Please proceed, Representative Smith.

Representative Gilchrist.

Excellent. Madam Majority Leader.

Seeing no objection, we will proceed out of order for consideration of resolutions. Madam Majority Leader.

Seeing no objection, we will proceed out of order for immediate consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 20. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Joint Resolution 20.

Representative Garcia Sander.

Mr. Schiebel.

Representative Garcia-Sander.

Representative Johnson.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of Senate Joint Resolution 20. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes yes. Representative Sirota is excused. Please close the machine. With 60 aye, 2 no, and 3 excused, Senate Joint Resolution 20 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read our reports of committees of reference.

Members, I have an announcement. Representatives Brown, Sirota, and Taggart are excused at such time as necessary for the Joint Budget Committee. Madam Majority Leader.

Seeing no objection, the bills listed by the majority leader will be made Special orders today, April 21st at 9.20 a.m. Representative Camacho. Members, seeing no objection, you have heard the motion. Representative Camacho will take the chair. Thank you. Thank you.

House Bill 1028 by Representatives Garcia and Velasco, also Senator Cutter, concerning second language diploma endorsements for graduating high school students.

That's proper motion. Proceed to the committee report.

Is there any further discussion on the Education Report? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of the Education Report, but we're not doing that just yet. Appropriations Report. Is there any further discussion on the Appropriations Report? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of the Appropriations Report, and I appreciate everyone being quiet for that. So all those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, say no. No. The Appropriations Report passes. To the bill, Representative Garcia.

Representative Velasco. Thank you. Friends, we are here today presenting the law 1028 and it's a pleasure to be here with my friend who represents the Adams County. We are presenting a proposal about the Bilingualism's Selling. But first I want to introduce myself. I am the first representative of Colorado born in Mexico. I arrived to the United States when I was 16 years old and I had to learn English when I was in school. I know that many of us we come from our countries and bring our culture, our traditions, and many times we see that something we need, because we don't speak English. But the reality is that we are enriching our state, we are bringing our language, and it's very important for us que en Colorado celebremos la diversidad, que celebremos a todas las personas que hablan otros idiomas, que no es solamente el inglés, esta es una economía global y estas herramientas son muy importantes para que podamos tener éxito, para que podamos tener buenos trabajos, para que nos puedan pagar bien y es muy importante que no hagamos este trabajo gratis. I worked for 10 years as a interpreter and translator, helping people to access resources and services, such as medical visits, emergency emergency information, information of the state, of the municipalities. And this is literally because I have this ability to speak English and Spanish, And it is very important that it is known and that it is celebrated. So, that's why we have this law proposal. And it is very important for us that Colorado, we continue celebrating all our diversity, not only people who speak Spanish, but all those who speak another language. And we know that in this state we see that our communities are being persecuted and killed by the federal government And at this moment it is more important than ever that we know that we are welcome y da por el gobierno federal Y en este momento es m importante que nunca que sepamos que somos bienvenidos que nosotros hacemos este pa mejor y que estamos avanzando juntos y que todos somos bienvenidos aquí en el estado. Gracias, compañeras.

House Bill 1143 by Representatives Ricks and Joseph, also Senator Weissman, concerning information collected for a background check by entities that provide non-employment-based educational opportunities.

To the Appropriations Report.

Is there any further discussion on the appropriations report? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of the appropriations report. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. The ayes have it. The appropriations report passes. To the bill.

Representative Bottoms. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I still think it's odd that I have to come down here and say, why can't we go by the Constitution? Why can't we go by the rule of law? And why can't we support citizens? I don't understand why we keep doing this stuff. This pushes our citizens into a corner and takes opportunities away from them, and I still don't understand why we have to actually verbalize this, that we just do crazy things like the Constitution. This is why our state, it just continues to spiral. It will change, but that's why we just continue to spiral as a state.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L006 to HB 1143 and ask that it be properly displayed once I grab the amendment back. Sorry. Yes. Yes. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry for the delay. That gives you a chance to have read the amendment. Appreciate the background of this bill and what it's trying to allow, but I think there is such a variety of potential programs out there. I think it makes sense to allow those that are offering these programs to determine what is best suited for their institution, their entity, and essentially would make this a voluntary or permissive bill that you could either choose to take an alternate form or just require a Social Security number. Again, I think there's way too much variety in the programs, non-employment programs that are out there that to be able to dictate or require that we dictate from this building I think is wrong. This provides a permissive nature to the bill, and I would recommend you support this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We ask for a no vote on this particular amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. So not only not constitutional, not statutory, now not choice. This is just a choose. Why would we not let employers choose this? Because we're not about choice in this room. We never have been, never will be. Well, we will be soon. But we're not about choice. Why would we not let employers choose? This makes no sense. This is a great amendment on a horrible bill, and we need to do something to actually let employers run their own businesses, hire their own people, and do what they think is necessary rather than what the people in this building think is necessary. Just another example of why our state continues to spiral.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, we heard this bill in committee. There was a lot of confusion. There was amendments brought forward. Democrats talked about this bill as well. I don't understand why we would not take an amendment for a voluntary commitment by a non-employment-based educational opportunity. Businesses are leaving our state. Every day you open the paper and other businesses leaving our state. We're the sixth most regulated state. I'd say we're probably higher up at this point after this legislative session. Why would we not allow choice? My business, my health care provider, is not going to take someone without a social security number. They should have the choice not to do that This is a choice Why are we not accepting this amendment It a good amendment It a good update to this bill The higher education case and CHA wanted an amendment to clarify They did a little bit of that but we need clarity in this bill This bill is all over the place frankly This amendment would help with clarity and transparency but I begin to wonder if we even want this in this building anymore

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also stand in support of this amendment. As an employer myself, I always require Social Security for a background check. Even if it's just local CBI background check, I require for a background check to make sure that we are employing somebody that can actually receive a W-2 at the end of the year. Because for tax purposes. Now, if we don't require a social security number for employment, then that opens the door for fraud. Fraud, how? Under the table payments of cash salaries. We don't want that. Because now we're just circumventing the tax bracket for employment. So this will close that door from ever being used by having that Social Security ready and ask for it as an employer to run a background check and for tax purposes. You all know here, a lot of us in this chamber enjoy taxes, right? Because we want more tax money, right? That's why we want to get rid of Tabor. Is that not the thing? I urge a yes vote on this amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also rise in support of this amendment. Social security number is used for everything in this state. That's what shocks me. It's the same as when we talk about IDs to vote. You know, you need IDs to buy cigarettes, but there's so many different examples that I could give. But I think using the social security number is huge. Like I said, we use it from college to about everything in our daily lives. And also, I mean, at the end of the day, we're in a state that right now is economically depressed we're losing businesses left and right six most regulated state and I think that we should make sure to put this provision in there as well to make sure that we're taking care of the tax paying citizens of this state and putting them at the front of the line

Representative Richardson. Thank you Mr. Chair not to interrupt that call for a vote, but I just really want to point out how vague the language is in this bill. It applies to essentially every experience or opportunity that could be out there. I mean, it specifically lists a couple, but says it's not limited to that. Unless we know exactly what programs or opportunities or experiences that this would apply to, I just think it would be unconscionable to just open the aperture so broadly that anybody with a piece of paper with a number on it could apply. Until we know exactly what it is we're opening up the opportunities to, it's absolutely unwise to pass this bill in the current form, so I do recommend approval of this amendment.

Is there any for Representative Bottoms? Is there any further discussion on Amendment L6?

The question before us is the passage of Amendment L6. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. No. The no's have it. Amendment L6 fails. To the bill.

I move amendment L-007 to House Bill 1143 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's an honor to serve with you. It's an honor to serve with you. This is a straightforward amendment that has to do with on page 5 of the original bill, not the amendment section 5A And it reads an entity that does not accept an individual taxpayer identification number in violation of this section is subject to civil penalty The amendment states notwithstanding this subject, subsection 5, the Attorney General shall not seek to enforce this section against a public entity. I stress, we cannot have one department of our state government finding another part of our government. That is not acceptable. It sets a very dangerous precedent, and it needs to come out of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is an interesting amendment insofar as what it communicates is that we are imposing a standard on the associational rights of private actors and not actually enforcing it against ourselves. I dare say that we should just strike the enforcement provisions against all so that there is fair treatment. Again, if we're not interested in leading by example, perhaps this is not the right policy to adopt.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to thank Representative Taggart for the conversation and the discussion. We asked for no vote on this particular amendment. The Attorney General is the attorney for the state, and in this bill, what we're saying is that the Attorney General is authorized to enforce this section. and it's likely to the entity itself, not, for instance, CDE, which is the Colorado Department of Education. That's a very, very different department. Usually it's the schools that are providing these type of trainings. So if there were ever a suit, it would be against the school, and they have their own attorneys. So it's different entities that we are discussing here, and I ask for a no vote on this particular amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure I understand what was just said, but I will try to put it in non-attorney language. I think I just heard it's okay for one department of our government to sue another department because that other department has attorneys. Did I hear that correctly? If I did, I would like to remind everybody in this room that all forms of department, all departments, are funded by Colorado taxpayers. And how in heaven's name can I answer to a taxpayer that says, Rick, how can you justify one department imposing civil fines on another department? Please tell me how I answer that question. I have no idea. Our job, my job, is to be fiscally responsible. Fiscally responsible is not giving an indication that we want to have attorneys from different departments suing one another. Please, this amendment is a very simple amendment. I also acknowledge my colleague that perhaps 5A ought to come out in total, but this amendment was strictly about state public entities. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I think the bill sponsor came up and thought that this amendment was talking about the AG's office suing the CDE, Colorado Department of Education, but really it's worse. The AG would be able to sue an entity, which means, according to their amendment, any state institution of higher education, a local district college, a nonprofit organization that is exempt from taxation, a volunteer organization, a covered school, are the following entities as licensed or certified as described in section 25-1.5-103, a clinic, clinical partnership, urgent care center, retail health clinic, hospital, telemedicine service, or concierge medical provider. So those are the entities that now can be sued by the AG if we don't accept this amendment. I would urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the amendment sponsors. I do just have a clarifying question and a statement on this. The amendment says a public entity. It doesn't necessarily define that, and that is my curiosity. If the concern is around an institution or an agency, I can understand that, particularly because the Attorney General is their attorney if it is a state agency. Public entities also include public schools. And schools can be exposed to liabilities, particularly for violations, for example, of civil rights. And so that's why I'm asking. We have a whole statute particularly to protect, for example, municipalities and state, the CGIA, right, the Government Immunities Act. And so that whole section of law operates with the sense that they can be found liable for certain things, even though it caps damages. And so when I see public entity that feels broader than what it is that you're saying, I do believe that there is a constitutional concern in regards to, yes, I don't know what you mean by public entity. If you mean a state agency or a state agency where the AG is their attorney, that's one thing. But there are many public institutions that are not represented by the AG, including public schools like K-12. And that's why I'm asking for the clarity for the intent for the amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If there is a narrower set of words that help this situation, I am all ears and would help. What I don't want to happen is an attorney general taking up civil fines against our institutions of higher education and K-12. And then there's a third public entity that is also in the bill and I'll find that. But that where in my humble estimation one side of our state government finding another side of our state government is just not acceptable AML Bacon

Rent Bottoms.

Rep. Taggart.

The committee will go in recess.

One second, Rep Taggart. The committee will come back to order. Rep Taggart.

That is a proper motion. Amendment 7 has been withdrawn, and let's hold for a second until Amendment 8 is up, and it is up, so Rep. Taggart is on to you.

Rep Ricks.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Rep Ricks.

Just a reminder, we're speaking to the bill, so please keep your confines there. or to the amendment, sorry. We're speaking to the amendment, so when you having comments please speak to the contents of whatever is before the committee Representative Barone Thank you Mr Chair Yes state agencies can sue state agencies It doesn mean that it will go through but it still time and money spent to try to sue

Amel Winter.

Rep Luck.

Rep. Bradley.

seeing no further discussion on amendment L8 A division has been requested. The House will go into recess. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. The House will come back to order. Rep Taggart. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Members, the question before us is whether A.M.L. Bacon can speak, and yes, she can. Please proceed, A.M.L. Bacon.

The question before us is the adoption of Amendment L-8. A division has been requested. All those in the chamber not entitled to vote. please sit and remain seated. All those in favor of Amendment 8, please stand and remain standing in one place or raise your hand and keep it raised until the count is taken Thank you. You may be seated. All those opposed, please stand and remain standing in one place. So raise your hand and keep it raised until the count is taken. Thank you. be seated amendment L L 8 is lost to the bill is there any further discussion on House bill 1143 seeing none the question before us is the passage of House bill 1143 all those in favor say aye all those opposed say no the eyes have it a House bill 1143 passes mr. Schiebel please read the title to House bill 1283

Representative Ricks.

To the Judiciary Report.

Representative Sopere.

That's proper motion. Amendment 22 has been displayed. To the amendment, Representative Sopair.

Representative Joseph.

the question before us is the passage of Amendment L22. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed to say no. The ayes have it. Amendment L22 passes. Representative Joseph.

Would you please move your amendment first?

As a proper motion, Amendment L13 has been displayed. Is there any further discussion on Amendment L13? Seeing none, the question before us is passage of Amendment L13. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. The ayes have it. L13 passes. Representative Soper.

That is proper motion. L17 has been displayed to the amendment.

Representative Ricks.

Seeing no further discussion on Amendment L-17, the question before is the pass of Amendment L-17. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. The ayes have it. Amendment L-17 passes. Representative Joseph.

Okay, go ahead. Representative Richardson.

As a proper motion, L018 to the committee report has been displayed. Representative Richardson.

Thank you Mr Chair I also agree with my colleague I think that 10 hours is pretty I mean it a ridiculous request There a lot of things that happen and I know this especially as a small business owner And I think that right now I think we need to take a step back and really think about like what are we doing to our businesses because since 2019 there have been a hundred businesses

could happen within one day, so I urge a yes vote. Amel Bacon.

Substitute amendment L21 has been moved and displayed to the amendment. AML Bacon.

Representative Soper.

Amel Bacon.

Okay, thank you. Seeing further notice, seeing no further discussion on Amendment L21 except for Representative Soper.

Amel Bacon.

Representative Richardson.

Is there any further discussion on Amendment L-21? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of Amendment L-21. All those in favor say aye.

All those in favor say no.

The ayes have it. Amendment L-21 passes.

Is there any further discussion on the committee report? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of the committee report. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. The ayes have it. The committee report passes. Is there any further discussion on House Bill 1283? Representative Soper.

I never said that. Because it was taken by Representative Bacon. We'll have the conversation. You don't keep your words. I do.

Proper motion, L-16 has been displayed. Representative Soper.

Representative Joseph.

Is there any further discussion on Amendment L-16? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of Amendment L-16. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. The no's have it. Amendment L-16 fails. Is there any further discussion on House Bill 1283? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of House Bill 1283. All those in favor say aye.

All those opposed say no. The ayes have it. House Bill 1283 passes. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of House Bill 1226.

Representative Froehlich.

To the committee report.

Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of the appropriations report. All those in favor say aye.

All those opposed say no. The appropriations report passes. Representative Froelich.

Is there any further discussion on the Energy and Environment report? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of the Energy and Environment Committee report. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. The ayes have it The Energy and Environment report passes To the bill Representative Wolford Thank you very much Mr Chair and thank you members for tuning in and listening to this bill

and thank you, colleagues. This is actually quite simple. A plan was in place, heavily negotiated, decades, actually, of negotiations, and then a capricious federal action comes in, And who suffers? It's actually the number one people who suffer are the rate payers, because at the moment, coal is the most expensive source of energy. And so all we're saying is let's keep on with the path that was carefully, painfully, difficultly negotiated for the timely phasing out of these resources with appropriate alternate resources generating energy. Let's not throw a wrench in the works.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. What this bill does is a Colorado bill requires the Air Quality Control Commission to adopt emissions limits for nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide from older coal-fired power plants by December 31st, 2029, with compliance required after 2030. Now, the argument that was just said that I heard is that coal is the most expensive. It could be true. There's cheaper natural gas, some of the air and water energies, but coal isn't subsidized like these clean energies. When you subsidize an area, of course it's cheaper. Coal was never subsidized. So that's why it's a little more expensive. I understand that. But we cannot subsidize one area of energy. I'm an all-of-the-above-energy type of source guy. Coming from oil and gas, I agree with solar if it works. I agree with wind if it works. Great Just don subsidize it Why are we subsidizing one area and pushing out the rest when we need all types of energy That's the argument I always have. We should not be subsidizing energy. Let it work the way it's supposed to work, and it'll regulate itself. The pricing will regulate itself. When you start pushing one energy source out and pushing another one in by force, which is the green energy push, that's why it's called the green energy push, because it's pushing green energy. We cannot allow this to keep going. Taxpayers are being used to subsidize clean energy when it's not reliable yet. It works. I understand that. I have solar panels on my house. It works for me. That's why I use it. But we're just pushing it on everybody. I also have natural gas on my house to heat my house. I try to push a bill this session to take out CO2 emissions from residential, from the equation of the green energy push, which is a small amount. Of course, it didn't get past committee. Not a surprise. But when you start pushing for one area of energy and trying to push another one out, that's when it becomes a problem for cost for everybody. What happens when those subsidies run out for clean energy? That energy is going to go up again, the pricing. So let's not push so fast, so hard. great like I said there's some members here that one of the bill sponsors here has a full electric home great I applaud you for that if it works for you, it works for you why are you forcing it on everybody else I urge a no vote on this bill

thank you chair coal is most definitely not the most expensive form of energy. Solar and wind is the most expensive because it is so over subsidized by the government. You realize solar and wind, either one, has not made one positive in the black dollar ever in a statewide grid. Maybe some people can justify it for their homes. I still not a fan of that either. I'm definitely not all energy options unless they can be paid for by themselves. The good thing is, and this is what I'm really excited about over the next two or three years, the good thing is, is President Trump, through the big beautiful bill and through another executive order, has now made sure that we can put coal electric generating plants back in Colorado. I know that they've been cut all the way to the ground. Not only did we do away with them, but we cut them to the ground. Why? Because they're scared that somebody that likes coal may actually get in office. And so now we had to cut them all the way down to the ground. The good thing is, is those are nice little spaces, clean pads now that we can put the new coal that Trump will be, has and is, supporting with federal dollars, and we're going to flood the state of Colorado with coal again. This is the primary and best source of energy. Solar and wind are shell games. They are shams upon the people of Colorado, they do not generate electricity in a way that has any kind of positive net. You take the government's subsidization away and they would go away the next day because they cannot support themselves. This is all extremely factual and can be found anywhere. Just a quick Google search will find you that. Not from the solar and the wind industries because they lie, but from actual facts and numbers and not just in the state of colorado but all across the united states and so um this this entire bill needs to go away it's um it's harmful to the people of colorado as long as we keep moving this direction which this bill is another step in this direction we will continue to have blackouts not just in weld county not just on the military bases but But we will have them. I think we've even started having them in Golden now. That the only way we can stop these blackouts is stop the legislation coming out of this building that is causing the blackouts. That's where the blackouts are coming from is this building. And this bill is another one that will continue to cause more blackouts. And as the people of Colorado, and I'm saying this to the people of Colorado, not necessarily this room, but the people of Colorado, when you have another blackout, you can blame the left. because it's exactly this bill. It is this legislation. So people of Colorado, the next time you can't turn your electric furnace on, although you wanted gas, but you can't, the next time you can't turn your electric furnace on, it's the left. The next time you can't use a gas stove and your electricity is turned off and so you have no stove, it's the left. They're doing this. This bill continues to do this. We need to stop playing around with the people of Colorado with this solar and wind stuff. It is costing us too much money. Do you realize how much electricity we could generate if we stopped spending money on pinwheels, trying to get air from pinwheels? This is not healthy for Colorado. This is taking money away from Coloradoans, taking energy away from Coloradoans, forcing them, again, this is just the long list, but making them have electricity and then turn the electricity off. How many times does California have to do this before we learn? We can go all the way back to Grayout Davis, Governor Grayout Davis in California, when they started having these rolling things. And then we added electric cars to it, and now it's even worse. and now buy an electric car but turn it off between 5 and 9. My electric company down in Colorado Springs now is charging a whole lot more money between the hours of 5 and 9. Thank you, Democrats. Thank you. From the depth of my heart, you are costing me money. You're costing Colorado Springs money. You're costing the entire state of Colorado money. Thank you for these bills that destroy our industries, destroy our energy, and make us dependent upon a Marxist concept of government. Thank you yet again for a great bill that is going to hurt every single Coloradoan and hurt our ability to actually have, not just talk about, but actually have electricity in the state of Colorado. Weld County sorry you you part of the you going to be the continuing part of the the the blackouts the rolling blackouts Golden sorry you already had been a part of them you going to continue to be a part of them even even some of the military bases Sorry you going to continue to be the victim of this type of legislation Let's keep it going, and eventually we will have no power and electricity in the state of Colorado. Then we can all just use candles. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't know that I will be quite as good or quite as long as the other Scott, but I'm going to get up here and also voice my opposition to this bill. It is pretty tiring as a person who has studied a lot of this to hear some of the things get said about this. Coal is not destroying, nor is it a significant cause of the ozone along the front range. getting rid of the coal plants is not going to change measurably the ozone along the front range it's just not going to this is going to increase costs for rate payers and it is not a significant environment it is not a significant environmental concern there has been so much regulation so much regulation the coal is expensive as are all other things that aren't subsidized But where the expense comes is not in the actual energy itself. It is in the overregulation. And that overregulation also prevents a lot of the pollution. That is arguably a problem. It's not bad that we've regulated things to an understandably good point to reduce pollution. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about removing a good, strong economic backbone of energy that the state of Colorado has. And it is not the environmental catastrophe that people would like to point it out to be. It just truly is not. This will make things more expensive for people. It already has the subsidies that we throw at renewable energy, although I would love to see a cradle-to-grave holistic picture of what the overall pollution from manufacturing, from mining of all of the materials that are needed to produce all the solar panels, all the wind turbines, all those things, I would love to see that because I would argue that the difference in overall holistic cradle-to-grave pollution from coal plants, all things considered, whether it's air pollution, whether it's the pollution of the ground and everything else from all the mining and all the manufacturing and everything else, that it is negligible, indistinguishable, or even very likely, in my opinion, it is a bigger problem with the renewable energy resources that we claim to be saving our planet. That is not true. It is absolutely not true. This bill should hopefully die on the floor in here. If it doesn't, it's because people are believing a hoax. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate you. And I kind of want to speak to some of the other things that we face when we talk about this. I mean, jobs is a huge issue. We've seen in Craig and in Pueblo now, as they try to transfer from one type of energy to another, that jobs are impacted. We had to pass a bill in this chamber for coal impacted communities. And you know at the end of the day that's literally taken dollars that the state could use and we're having to Infuse into these communities to try to find a new path forward and I'd be remiss if I didn't talk about that I think another thing that is Kind of awkward to me is is I mean coal is a good base load power And I understand as we try to transition out this but in the same breath we always try to have the argument on nuclear energy which we think is a strong base load power It's truly the only way to net zero. We've really seen a surgence in the youth that come in and testify. It really seems like the younger generation is bought and sold on nuclear energy. And I think what makes it hard for myself and I think some of my colleagues is we have this discussion about diverging from coal into other things. You know, first and foremost, you have to look at it from a rural legislator's perspective is it makes the rangeland ugly. Let's be honest. Wind and solar really makes it ugly out where I live. And unfortunately, right now, a lot of our farmers and ranchers, they have to rely on projects coming in. We've talked about what is happening with farming and ranching and trying to survive. So they have to pretty much let these companies on their property to put in wind and solar generation. That way they can keep paying the taxes and make sure they hold on to that piece of ground. To be honest with you, as I drive through my district, it's ugly, and what scares me is what happens when all this stuff wears out? What's the end date on these things, and then how do we recycle windmills and solar panels? I think that that's a huge discussion, and a lot of our ranchers and farmers are worried that if these companies go defunct, they're just going to be left with this stuff on their place. At the end of the day, there will be some regulation that comes out, and they'll have to mitigate the problem and clean it up, and that's a big fear in rural Colorado. I think that what we see Craig and Pueblo going through is unfortunate. I mean, even labor has come into the building, and they chat about it all the time, about losing those good-paying generation jobs out of those two communities and what it's going to do to the communities first and foremost. And then when it comes to being able to provide energy to companies that want to come into the state, right now we're telling companies that want to bring big manufacturing facilities into this state that we might not be able to give them baseload power for up to five years, which stifles the economy. So we're pulling energy jobs out of the economy. We're not able to provide enough energy for companies that want to come in and bring industry. And that makes it tough as well. And then when you figure in the discussion around how it looks out on the eastern plains when they're full of windmills and full of solar panels, I think that that's something that is important to put on the record too. And then finally, you have legislators in this building trying to bring you new technology that is net zero, that can generate the power that we're talking about, can produce enough energy for all the businesses that want to come into this state. Those are the discussions that we should be having. I think at the end of the day, this is a knee-jerk reaction to some federal issues. And then we talk about the, I mean, this would go above and beyond federal standards.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. These investor-supporting bills have really got to stop, and we've got to focus on the citizens of Colorado rather than propping up the investors. I would say this, I'm going to guess that this falls under infrastructure that is going to be authorized, now demanded by the General Assembly. The General Assembly demands this infrastructure like these scrubbers. Now, one thing I think is always funny because I had a, I was on a trip one time, I was flying one time and I was sitting next to a farmer and he was a berry farmer. and that berry farmer had just reluctantly sold his property, his berry farm, which of course sequesters carbon dioxide for us to eat, to some solar field. And I thought, well, wouldn't that be funny if that place went bankrupt because the subsidies were about to dry up? And so we'll get into, maybe I'll talk a little bit more about that later. I've got to find out. But one of the funny things that he said was that his berry farm required him to buy sulfur from the local coal plant in order to spread on his field so that he could lower the pH in the field to about 5.5 to 6, which would allow the plants, the berry plants, to actually uptake the micro access, the micronutrients in the soil, basically by breaking down the minerals that were in the soil. and that without the sulfur that he could get from the coal plants, then he was required to go and buy a bunch of fertilizer. So then the fertilizer has to be manufactured and then has to be shipped in and all that. So you have all of these things that factor into this green energy idea. And then, of course, you have the idea that our green energy, our Colorado green is manufactured in China with coal. Those solar panels that everybody thinks are green are actually, well, they're black for one, and they absorb a lot of heat where the rest of the globe actually reflects it. So the thought of creating a heat-absorbing mechanism in order to help combat global warming because now you're absorbing and you're putting upwards of 90 to 100% of that energy into heat energy in the... as opposed to reflecting it. And of course, if you have like cloud cover or something like that, that reflects upwards of 90% of the visible energy, which is actually something that benefits. So most of this green stuff actually is counterproductive, except for its true purpose, which is green, spelled with dollar signs. And the way this works is the legislature, basically controlled by the governor passes these bills because they feel good. These bills, they demand infrastructure. And then the PUC, which is the four appointees of Jared Polis, so the Polis Utilities Commission, authorizes and directs Excel, or I should say the investor-focused utilities, we'll just call them IFUs for short. So the PUC, the four appointees of the governor, direct the IFUs to invest in more infrastructure. And when they invest in more infrastructure, the PUC authorizes the IFUs and gives them a 9% to 10% return on investment for investing your dollars. Now, those dollars are guaranteed because they are going to come out of the ratepayers' pocket. So who can least afford to pay these increases in utility? Oh, that would be the poor. These green energy programs hurt the poor the most. The lower income, the harder these programs hit. So if you really want to hurt the poor, go green. So the PUC, the Polish Utility Commission, then directs Excel to say, hey, let's accelerate our green goals that were imposed by the legislature. basically as demanded by the governor. And then they direct, and then they seek out the investment, and then you have BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street that owns, say, most of the investor-focused utilities to invest. And then the PUC, again, authorizes them 9% to 10%. 9% to 10% investment is a high rate of return, is a high-risk rate of return on basically a zero-risk investment. It could be done better with a bond, I would say, something because you have a guaranteed payback mechanism which is in the rates of the customers. They're already paying for it. So they are going to pay the principal back, but then the Polish Utility Commission tax on an extra 9% to 10% for BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard. And who does that hurt? It hurts the poor. So that has been done for decades now. And so we have $17 billion. We've invested, the state has extracted $17 billion from the citizens of Colorado. That's roughly $3,000 per occupant. So $15,000 for a family of five. They have paid $15,000 for that family. And what did they get out of it? Well, they got a lot of infrastructure because solar and wind are infrastructure. And then what has to happen to get that solar and wind all that distance? Well, that requires high-voltage power lines. What happens with high-voltage power lines? Well, they need about 25 acres per mile to be raised, R-A-Z-E-D, raised, like basically what a conquering army would do to a country by basically destroying its forest its farmland and all that So for 25 acres for a mile of high line you are going to raise Now I was asked not to describe that as raping their way across Colorado but I think that's more appropriate. So raising their way across Colorado is, we'll call it that. So it is destroying the habitat. It is destroying the ecology of Colorado. It is destroying the farmland of Colorado. It is destroying the property of Colorado. We heard in committee how these IFUs come in and earn their name by telling the people that they have eminent domain authority and they're going to use it. So where they had easements, they opted not. And so now we just say, well, if you're going to, if basically if the president is going to mandate that some of these get built, then the infrastructure is going to get tacked on and ensure that the investors make more money. So this is an investor, this is an IFU bill in my opinion. So, and now what does it support? It supports what we call climate goals. Now I have been asking for four years what these climate goals are. Does anybody know what the climate goals are? Well, that's fine that you don't know because the Colorado Energy Office, charlatans in the Colorado Energy Office also do not know what the climate goals are. They have zero climate goals. Zero. Now, the state of Colorado has paid $3,000 for every man, woman, and child in Colorado to meet these climate goals that don't exist. and their carbon goals are supposed to be cost effective, but nobody knows what that means. When I asked about the ozone things, because, let's see, we're always worried about that, when Suncor was basically shut down for several weeks, you know what the change in emissions was in measured outcomes? It was zero. So you put Suncor out of business, you don't have any of the ozone precursors, The difference in Suncor being 100% and 0% is 0%. But the citizens of Colorado have paid $15,000 per family, and tacking on $125 million per coal plant that goes in is just ensuring that there are going to be more infrastructure for the investors of the investor-focused utilities. so if you want to know why so when you talk about coal and you say well coal is now expensive well coal is expensive one because solar is subsidized and why is and where does that where does all the coal go for solar well the coal is a lot of it is shipped overseas where it's burned into it's burned for energy and it goes i'm pretty sure into the same atmosphere and if you go to There's an app called Wendy.com, and you can go to, and it's free, so I'm not, as far as I know, it's free, at least that version is, and you can look at where the pollutants are, and you look at China where they're burning all of the coal. China has all kinds of pollution in these nitrate oxides and ozone precursors, et cetera. Now, ozone requires to be made. It has to, it breaks apart like the nitrate. That's why it's an ozone precursor. So you actually have to have sunlight in order to do it. When it gets dark, it goes away. But if you look at these and which way do the trade winds go in the north Oh they go to the east So what happens when we ship all of our coal over to be burned not as clean coal as it would be burned over here but it's burned as just dirty coal over there, and what are solar panels made out of? Well, solar panels are made out of coal and quartz. So to get solar panels, you're actually buying coal. You're mining coal. You're mining a boatload of coal. Make sure we keep that PC. So you're mining a boatload of coal to make solar panels. And then those solar panels are all combined, and then there's quartz. And a lot of that quartz comes from, I think, Pennsylvania or something. So all of that material is shipped over to China on boats. And those are all the emissions from those. So now, why is coal expensive? Well, one, because solar creates a demand on coal. And so now you have competing markets for coal. So in order to make the solar, which you need, and also for all the wind, because you need to have that level of power, you need actual power, which is the time availability of energy. You need that power in order to make things like the unrecyclable wind turbines. and you need to make the unrecyclable solar. And what happens also when solar, what does solar do? It absorbs heat. What does heat do when it's out there? It creates thermals. What do thermals create? They create lift. Lift creates thunderstorms, and thunderstorms create hail, which ultimately creates hazmat out of the solar panels that you shipped over from China using the coal, and now you have shards of coal plant, and they're all leaching dangerous chemicals into the ground. So again, that is the green energy which Colorado has been tapped at $3,000 per person to lose 40% of our dispatchable power over that time. Why? To achieve climate goals that are nonexistent to hurt the poor. So China going gleaned. Now, what would you actually achieve? Well, it's pretty easy. If you take Colorado's manufacturing and you just say that carbon dioxide is 100% responsible for the greenhouse gas effect, which it's not. It's closer to maybe 10%. If you look at the convective nature and Boyle's law, it's probably closer. it's a lot less than that. It's probably closer to 0%. Let's just call it 100%, and you say that's 33 degrees Celsius that makes the planet livable. And then you take Colorado's contribution of 0.125 billion tons per year over the atmospheric 3,300 billion tons. You should just take that, divide it by 100, and you get 0.00125 degrees Celsius. That is on the absolute high end of what Colorado could achieve if it went totally net zero. But that would only happen if China went net zero also. Now, for Colorado or the United States dropping one billion tons per year of carbon dioxide, Asia increased 10. So actually, by us decreasing one, we globally increased 10. Now, if you think that an increase in 10 will offset 1, you getting 10 times more carbon dioxide by us decreasing 1 And if you actually believe that carbon dioxide is the culprit for the greenhouse warming anthropogenic climate change, APCC, if you believe that carbon dioxide is responsible for APCC, and you look and you say a decrease in the United States of 1 creates a global increase of 10, and you think that's actually solving something, then that is a level of gullibility that cannot be described or should not be described. But that level of gullibility is costing the citizens of Colorado $3,000 apiece so far. And it's going to cost, and that is on the low end because we're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars in order to do this, hundreds of billions of dollars of this type of infrastructure in order to achieve 0.00125 degrees Celsius. Now, if you blinked in the last minute, during your blink, you passed through more. This room passed through more than 0.00125 degrees Celsius. Guarantee it. If you blinked. During that time of your blinking, you went through that. So Colorado's contribution for the cost of $15,000 for a family of five, and that's only at $17 million. Now we're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars more that it's going to take. So you could multiply that by another, let's say, five. So that's going to cost the citizens of Colorado another $75,000 for a family of five if those children are allowed to live. But that's $75,000. Now, if they're not, then it just goes up because the families are smaller. So I'm going to have to say no on this bill because there are zero climate goals. And this type of demand on investment is only creating more investment opportunities for investor-focused utilities, the IFUs, to go. And if you look at one of the things like coal being expensive, coal is expensive for the same reason that buying a CD-ROM is expensive. It just makes it more hard. If you want to go buy a CD-ROM, a low-grade CD-ROM that you could, you know, if you were trying to operate the space shuttle or something like that, you needed like a low-end CD-ROM, it would cost you a lot of money to buy because they don't make them anymore. So when people say that coal is expensive, it's expensive because it's not subsidized. It's expensive because that subsidized economy is deriving an artificial demand, a demand that would not otherwise exist because mining into the imaginations of the green cult is much more lucrative than actually mining for coal. And then when we get into classifying data centers as essential services, and we don't have that dispatchable power, that's when we're going to find out what our smart meters are for because the smart meters are to shut off your power from a central location so that they don't have to go out and do it in person. So we're going to find out what that means. So Colorado, if you don't want to have blackouts, what we paid for $15,000 per family is to have more blackouts. Why? I don't know why Jared wants blackouts. But when you lose 40% of your dispatchable power, That's what you get. You get power that has to be stretched in from very far out. You get infrastructure that has to be made. You get eminent domain that has to be exercised. The green agenda has been horrible for the ecology of Colorado and has accomplished nothing for the climate. So when we get a hold of that, when we get a hold of this superstition, then Colorado can actually move forward. I don't think we're getting over that superstition anytime soon, so the people of Colorado, just continue to just know that the green agenda is more important than your bottom line, and the General Assembly will continue to reach farther into your pockets to achieve it. And when they can't achieve it directly through taxation out of this body, then the governor will direct the legislature to direct the Excel to direct the PUC to reach farther into it because those $17 billion that came out that are coming out of your pockets are government mandates. Those government mandates to take money from you to achieve something that the government wants that has absolutely no benefit to you is called a tax. That is called taxation without representation. We had words over that a long time ago. We probably should again.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Do you want me to move over? Okay, just in case. Well, thank you all so much for the conversation that we've had on this bill. I didn't expect that we were going to have to fully relitigate why coal is dirty and expensive and why clean energy is, in fact, clean. but here we are. I want to just take a moment to respond to some of the things that we've heard so that we can make sure that the record is correct. First, we heard coal is dirty, or coal isn't dirty, I'm sorry. Coal is, in fact, one of the dirtiest energy sources that we have, full stop. Burning coal releases sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, mercury, and arsenic, and all of these things are linked to asthma, heart disease, and premature death. burning coal is also the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions globally, which is driving climate change. Communities living near coal plants are often working class people and are disproportionately communities of color, meaning that these communities are the ones who are exposed to higher rates of respiratory illness and cancer because of burning coal. If coal isn't dirty, then I need someone to explain to me why the people living next to it keep getting sick. We heard coal isn't expensive. Coal only looks cheap because we've been ignoring the real bill. The fuel itself may be low cost, but coal plants are expensive to operate and maintain, especially given that they are aging. When you factor in health care costs, environmental cleanup, climate damage, and climate damage, coal becomes one of the most expensive energy sources that we have. And in most markets today, wind and solar are cheaper than coal, even without subsidies, and they don't come with the same long-term liabilities. We've heard that closing coal plants will result in job loss or reliability concerns, so let's take both of those head-on. On jobs, yes, coal plant closures impact workers, and we owe those workers real support, pensions protected, job retraining, and pathways into new energy jobs. But the coal industry has been shrinking for decades due to automation and market forces not just policy On reliability the grid is already transitioning Utilities are replacing coal with a mix of renewables storage and dispatchable backup Many coal plants are closing because they're no longer reliable or cost-effective. Keeping outdated coal plants running raises costs for ratepayers and delays investment in modern, resilient infrastructure. If you are aware of or have reviewed Colorado's climate goals, you would know that Colorado is on track to have all of our coal-fired plants retired by 2030. And I think that we need to talk about the impact of these 202C orders because they're forcing ratepayers to continue to prop up aging, expensive coal plants long past their economic life. By keeping these plants online, utilities are passing on higher fuel maintenance and compliance costs directly onto families and small businesses through their bills. And the point is, it's not their choice. They are being forced by the federal government to continue to keep these plants online. Worse, ratepayers are paying twice. Once to keep outdated coal running and again to invest in the cleaner, cheaper energy system we actually need. That is not reliability. that is inefficiency and higher costs baked into policy. If we care about affordability as we say that we do, we should focus on accelerating the transition to lower cost energy, not locking people into paying more for yesterday's technology. I ask for a yes vote.

Sorry, Mr. Chair, I didn't get all of that. But again, I just wanted to tell everybody, and the sponsor demonstrated, climate goals do not exist. Climate goals do not exist. What the sponsor referenced was carbon goals. Now, carbon goals are different than climate goals. because, for instance, in this room, with all the hot air generated, the parts per million in this room are probably upwards of 2,500. So we're at about a 500% increase over normal. So plants would actually do very well in this environment. I mean, if Larry Don could capture this CO2 over his fields, then we would be in good shape. So, again, I just wanted to note that I do appreciate the sponsors confirming that we have no climate goals. And I broke down what those carbon goals actually equate to at the very, very, very high end. And now, in reality, the 00.125 degrees Celsius is probably at least 100 times, if not 1,000 times, too high. But I am willing to just go and say, look, let's compromise. We're friends. Let's compromise and just say, okay, if we amplify the effect of CO2 by 1,000 times, it is still 0.00125 degrees Celsius. That's it. Now, if you look at the logarithmic effect, which is the natural log, 5.35, I think it is, times the natural log of the old CO2, let's say it's 420, over the 415. Now we know from science that it would take probably at least five decades of net zero Five decades of net zero That would eliminate about three of the global population So let me reiterate that. We're talking about net zero, four decades, killing 7 billion people, basically reducing us to a subsistence existence. 7 billion people. Now, at some point, I just think that's the goal. So in order to decrease it by five parts per million, science, we know from science, so that would actually decrease it. It's about 1,000 times less than that. So 5.35 natural log of 420 minus natural log of 415 or something like that. So that is the science of carbon dioxide. Methane is a lot less. methane doesn't even show up the only place it shows up is if you get rid of water vapor and you're never going to get rid of water vapor because while you're breathing out 40,000 parts per million of carbon dioxide you're also breathing out water vapor and that's where the energy if you go to a humid place like Florida and you compare 80 degrees in Florida to 80 degrees in Colorado you know that the energy is maintained and contained in water vapor So again, I appreciate the sponsors confirming that there are no climate goals, that the citizens of Colorado have been bilked for $15,000 per family so far, and will probably be bilked for another $75,000 because it makes some people feel good, especially the investor-focused utilities, the payoffs for the investors of the investor-focused utilities. It's going to make them a lot of money. It's going to cost the citizens of Colorado a lot of money It's going to destroy a lot of the ecology of Colorado and it's going to accomplish Less than 0.00125 degrees Celsius the sponsors confirmed it Plant maintenance is a lot cheaper than solar plant maintenance these these coal plants lasted Some of them lasted basically a hundred years. They just need maintenance just like your car solar panels they're going to last maybe 20 years or until they get walloped by the thunderstorm hail that they generate. So then you have not only that, that has to be replaced because these cover acres and acres of, thousands of acres of land, and they can be wiped out by one single storm that then creates all kinds of shards of toxic hazmat in the ground, making it largely unfit for anything at that point. then if you're not going to clean that up, then you have to just replace it with more solar panels that are also going to be walloped. So, again, citizens of Colorado, you will be continued to be built for this superstition as long as you vote for it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I heard something by the sponsors where they said that all of the coal plants would be done closed by 30-30. And I hope that that doesn't also include coal mines because in Hespers, Colorado, we have an underground coal mine that is not used to generate electricity. It is used to make cement in Mexico, and it's a special coal that has such high BTUs that they said that that coal would burn down a coal plant that generates electricity. Anyway, they mine it, they put it, they haul it to Gallup New Mexico they put it on a train they haul it to Mexico and then they use this special coal to make some of the best concrete in the world and then they ship the cement back to build all of our affordable housing. So I hope that when I heard about the closure of coal plants, that didn't include the closure of coal mines, because I have 70 constituents that have some of the highest paying jobs of where I live that work in that coal mine. Thank you.

House Bill 1343 by Representatives Morrow and Clifford concerning expanding the use of electronic processes and proceedings involving administrative determinations and in connection therewith, expanding the use of electronic filing related to the competency of criminal defendants and in state administrative procedure act proceedings.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1343 in the committee report.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We have a zero fiscal note, and we ask for an aye vote on the Appropriations Committee Report.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This bill is making sure that we have ease of access for electronic filing for different administrative processes in the state court system. And this was a very meticulous bill that has been stake-held and stake-held, and we urge an aye vote.

House Bill 1342 by Representatives Stuart Cain-Lukins, also Senator Marchman, concerning negligent behavior that lures bears.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is definitely a pleasure to serve with you.

I move House Bill 1342 and the committee report.

Representative Lukens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before we get into the committee report, I would actually like to amend the committee report. So I move Amendment L4 to the Agriculture Committee report and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment is being brought forward in response to continued stakeholding who worry that criminal negligence is too low of a bar for this violation and wish to raise the culpable mental state too knowingly. While this is a higher bar than originally contemplated under the bill and will result in fewer prosecutions, it is still a significant improvement over current statute, and we ask for your yes vote on this amendment.

Representative Lukens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In the Agriculture Committee, we brought forward a few amendments that were developed in collaboration during stakeholder regarding ambiguity in regards to prosecution. And so we fixed that to make it more clear. The purpose was to ensure that there's a clear understanding of how to prosecute the law, and we asked for your yes vote on the Agriculture Committee report as amended.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This bill is very important in my neck of the woods. You like that, neck of the woods? Bears are a thing. We have many, many interactions with them in rural Colorado. Plata County, one of the counties I represent, is responsible for 12% of human-bear conflict in the state. So this gives CPW and responding law enforcement officers more tools in the toolbox to address this human-bear conflict issue because, as I have said before and I'll say it again, we've done all we can to educate the bears. Now we need to do more to educate the humans. Representative Lukens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This bill is in relation to the immense strain on CPW when it regards to human-bear conflict. We have a high volume of tourism, especially on the Western Slope, and are seeing increased development, which is exacerbating human-bear conflicts. So we ask for your yes vote on House Bill 1342.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I do want to say thanks to the sponsors because they do represent their districts very well. And I understand that in bear country, this is a very needed bill. We heard a lot of testimony. Some of the questions I asked in committee because this bill does strike the shall, that they're no longer requiring the warning aspect in this. I did pose, well, in some areas that are not bear country but might see bears. I know in House District 63, we see about one to two bears annually. And so moving that striking the shell does add confusion for the boots on the ground, the officers, both in CPW and the sheriffs and the police departments, on whether they can still write a warning or not. I've heard from boots on the ground often that they've sometimes been in trouble because of writing a warning when they were supposed to write a citation or writing a citation when they should have written a warning because these laws are happening and changing so much. And it's all dependent on sometimes how leadership decides that they want to acknowledge it and understand that different counties might read legislation differently. So what's happening in one county and how it's read is going to be different in another county. And so very much did work with the department and tried to talk about how maybe in a statue can we put in May that we're giving the authority back to law enforcement so this is not a one size fits all solution, but it really is benefiting the counties and the districts who have bears, but it also not hurting or adding confusion to the counties that don have bears I was told this might conflict with some statues already in place but I still want to make sure that we are giving the boots on the ground officers who do this work all the time the clarity they need so they can perform their jobs with confidence. And with that, I move L-005 to House Bill 1342 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I said when I was doing the ongoing stakeholding, they said that changing something in statute might add confusion to other statutes. But that's why I decided to move to a ledge deck. This amendment adds into the legislative deck, not the statutory provisions, that nothing in this act is intended to prevent peace officers, including Colorado wildlife officers, from exercising discretion to issue a warning in a place of a citation when appropriate. This is adding it so that way if someone had a question, especially those in non-Bear countries, like in the Eastern Plains, that they can go and look at this bill and say, oh, here's the clarity. I am still allowed to do a warning because we're not aware of how to handle Bears like on the Western Slope. But it does not change anything in statute. It does not offer any conflicting in statutes. Avoids that. And I would ask for clarity for those who are boots on the ground in all aspects of the state. Let's give it to them by saying that they still have that power based on local control and discretion over law enforcement, I urge a yes vote.

Thank you, Chair. So bear with me because I can barely contain my excitement for this bill. Anyway, this is a good amendment, and this is the reason why it's a good amendment. The bill was brought forth by the Colorado Department of Wildlife, which I think should be illegal in the first place. Why they need a warning. Do you realize that if you put a hummingbird feeder up, you're not going to get a warning, you're going to get a $5,000 fine if that wildlife officer decides so. If you feed your cats and you have that cat food, which bears love, you could get a $5,000 fine with this. And that's why, again, that this is a good amendment. it. Where I live, one of the biggest problems that we have in our landfills is methane. And one of the solutions to have less methane in your landfills which actually gets a lot of bears is less food waste Because food waste is what called something called lychee and lychee is what creates methane in your landfills So with this here, what we have been directing our constituents to do, where I live, is to use the food waste for your gardens for a compost. Now you could be fined up to $5,000 for that. And then we need to get back to why are the bears coming into town in the first place? Drought has a big influence on that. If their native food is not available in the mountains, then they're going to come to where there is food. The other reason that they're coming to town, because we banned where you could hunt the bears with bait, or that you could hunt the bears with dogs. And when that happened, and I asked the Division of Wildlife, well, how many bears do we have now than when we had before that law was enacted? He couldn't answer, but I can answer it for you because I see bears where I live every year. Every year, we have got bears everywhere. And to be able now to say that we're going to have a bill that you can find one of my constituents $5,000 because they put a hummingbird feeder up that they want to feed the hummingbirds, which bears love, hummingbird feeders, the nectar out of them, by the way, is going to hurt my constituents. That's why I think this is a bad bill. Let us keep our landfills, the leach out of them, by using our food waste for compost instead of putting it in our landfills. This doesn't make any sense. This is a bad bill, and we should vote no. And this is a good amendment, and we should vote yes.

Merci, Mr. Chair.

Oh, thank you.

Profound, Representative Silver. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Representative Bradley.

Representative Garcia-Sander. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So part of my district is represented in Larimer County, which does have a lot of mountainous area and bears. And I sent this bill to the sheriff, and I just said, tell me what you think about this proposed law. So he came back with this scenario. Current law, you purposely put food products out to intentionally draw on the bear. And that's what our current law says. But the proposed law, here's, picture this. You're at your cabin in Redfeather Lakes. You stand next to your outdoor grill and open a package of chicken breasts to grill. There's an open trash can next to you where you throw away the packaging and the extra chicken fat you cut from the chicken breast. You forget to bring the trash in with you or put it in the garage after your meal, and a bear later finds it. You can be charged with negligently luring the bear because everyone in Colorado should know that leaving chicken smelling garbage in the open is not wise. Even though it wasn't your intent to lure the bear, you just committed a misdemeanor. leaving chicken out accidentally just became the same level of crime and penalty as DUI and some assaults. That seems like not quite equivalent, I guess. So this amendment, I think, is really important because it allows that law enforcement to give some discretion so that if it was not intentional, you accidentally just left some chicken fat that you cut away from your chicken breasts from the grill, you forgot to bring it in at night because you were having a good time with friends, it was a late night, you roasted your marshmallows and weenies, you came in, fell asleep, and if a bear gets into it, you just committed a crime that's equivalent to a DUI or an assault. that doesn't seem like it should be the same level of consequence. So this amendment, I think, would prevent that. So good amendment vote yes.

the amendment? Representative Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I fully acknowledge the law

Representative Slaw. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the representatives for bringing this, and thanks to my other representative from Weld County and a bunch of other counties that I will not list. but yesterday there was some confusion for which counties I represented And I have Weld County as most of my district but I do have a small piece of my district that is in Larimer County And that piece of my district has been increasingly over the last 10 years or so having bears in the town of Berthoud and in the country around the town. And so I also urge an I vote on the amendment because I do think it is important just for the clarity, knowing that this would be new territory of having these bear problems. in some of the western sides of my district and that there would be some confusion or some concerns, and I would hate for myself even to have a problem where, and we've talked about people have beehives. Sometimes that draws in bears, and then the next thing, we have somebody who left things out and negligently brought some bears in closer. So I think this just adds some clarity.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just thought that it might be fun to add a bit of joy to this particular conversation. And so I move Amendment L006 and ask that it be displayed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I can tell by your face that you are delighted by this amendment.

Good. Good to see that. So this amendment just simply names the act the Winnie and Yogi Act, right? Winnie the Pooh, up, down, turn around, in the mood for food because he loves honey. and Yogi Bear, right? And his pick-a-nick-a-basket. I don't do, I'm sorry. Somebody else can talk about boo-boo. But anyways, I just thought that it would be, this is the best time for us to add a bit of levity to this conversation, bring some joy and laughter to the chamber, which has been accomplished. And so unless the bill sponsors wanted to speak to this, I will withdraw it.

Representative Luck.

Thank you for clawing it back. L-006 is withdrawn. Any further discussion on House Bill 1342? Seeing none, members, the question before us is the passage of House Bill 1342. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. The ayes have it. 1342 is passed. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of House Bill 1344.

I move House Bill 1344 in the appropriation...

No committee report? Oh, okay. All right, well, shoot, let's just start off on the right foot here. Huh? Huh? Oh! Okay. Oh, thank you. This is the podiatry sunset. We did not take one of Dora's recommendations at the request of all the stakeholders, except for Dora. Sorry, Dora. So I will pass it over to Brett Bradfield. She's amazing.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The podiatry profession requested that they keep the same organization structure that they have had for quite a few years, and that would be they have their own board, that they not take Dora's suggestion of becoming a part of the Colorado Medical Board. And that was what we agreed to. But Dora also said now to the Podiatry Association, you need to work on one thing, and that is to develop a written plan to ensure the security of your patient records. The Podiatry Board approved that, said yes, we can do that. Hence, we are here today to bring this bill out of sunset and into the light. so that your feet can walk a mile or more. Yes. And so we ask for an aye vote on House Bill 1344.

House Bill 1052 by Representatives Woog and Stewart R. Concerning changes to the Victim Rights Act.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1052 and the Appropriations Committee report.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Judiciary Committee report.

Sorry, that's what I was speaking to also. In the Appropriations Committee, we amended the bill to eliminate the right to retesting, which eliminated the fiscal note, and I had asked for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We would ask for a yes vote on the Judiciary Committee report. That was a very, very long time ago, but we did offer some technical amendments around the restitution records and a couple of clarifying amendments around preferred name, and we would ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair or Pro Tem Speaker, whatever title is proper. So this House Bill 1052, it is a victim's rights cleanup bill. And just to give a little background, Colorado passed the Victim Rights Act as a constitutional amendment in 1992 with an overwhelming 80% of the vote. The Constitutional Amendment's legislative declaration makes clear the intent is to ensure all victims of and witnesses to crimes are honored and protected by law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and judges in a manner no less vigorous than the protection afforded criminal defendants. The VRA amendment and accompanying statutes sets the expectations for engaging and supporting victims of crime throughout the criminal justice process. When victims' rights are prioritized and upheld, it sends a powerful message that victims are valuable members of society who deserve to be heard. It increases the likelihood of reporting crimes, breaks the cycle of silence, and ensures we have a fair legal system that acknowledges the harm caused and promotes healing. Colorado's Victim Rights Act is upheld by law enforcement agencies, district attorney offices, the courts, probation, Department of Corrections, the parole board, the Department of Human Services, and the state hospital. We thank these departments and the many advocates in these agencies for upholding victim rights and working diligently to support victims and survivors of crime. We also thank the many system-based and community-based victim advocates who work tirelessly to provide services and support to victims of crime and survivors. We continue to uplift victim rights and policy changes like the one before you today. These policy changes address necessary changes to the Victim Rights Act to uphold victim rights and comply with the spirit of our 1992 constitutional amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our bill makes the following updates and changes to the VRA. Last year, the legislature passed House Bill 25-1275, which created a new notification to victims of crime and court hearings to address crime lab employee misconduct. However, the notifications required by HB 1275 were not aligned with the VRA notification process, and so we correct those issues in this bill. The bill also aligns notifications outlined in 1275 with the usual process for VRA notifications by removing the requirement that notification be done via certified mail or personal service to notifying victims through phone or email communications. Additionally, the bill makes the determination that forensic misconduct by a lab employee is a critical stage so that a victim or survivor will be notified in the wrongful action. It provides the right to be heard in any evidentiary hearing on post-conviction relief if there was wrongful action, provides the right to be heard in restitution assessment hearings, and allows victims to request the use of a victim's preferred name, abbreviation, pseudonym, or initials. And we would ask for an aye vote.

Madam Majority Leader. Thank you Mr Speaker Pro Tem I move the committee rise and report Members you heard the motion Seeing no objection the committee will rise and report

The House will come back to order. Mr. Schiebel, please read the report of the Committee of the Whole.

Speaker Pro Tem Basinecker. Members, you have heard the motion. We have one amendment at the desk. Mr. Schiebel, please read the Taggart amendment to the Committee of the Whole report.

Representative Taggart. Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's an honor to serve with you. It is an honor to serve with you. This amendment focuses on two phrases or two components. One having to do with the Appropriations Committee Report and the second one having to do with the actual bill. So let me touch on the first component.

Oh, I'm sorry. I move amendment 001 to the committee of the...

I move the Taggart amendment to the committee of the whole report.

I apologize. No problem. So if you read, if you start with reading the committee report on appropriations, on page 2, line 3, it defines entity. And I'll read the component of that that's concerning. Entity means a state institution of higher education. Then if we go over to the bill itself, if you go to line 18, section 5A, it starts with an entity that does not accept an individual taxpayer identification number and then finishes is subject to a civil penalty of $2,000 for the first violation and $5,000 thereafter. We do not want to be in a situation where one of our departments is in fact inflicting fines on another agency of the state. That is a dangerous precedent. It is not necessary. A phone call, an email, a text could solve it. but putting over the top of it a civil penalty is not correct and it is not good business And how do we explain that to our taxpayers We going to say to our taxpayers we have dollars going between departments having to do with fines. Those are their dollars, not our dollars. A very simple conversation could suffice without a penalty. I'm not asking it to go away on other entities because they're not entities or agencies of the state. But our institutions of higher education are, and they're already scrapped, scrapping for every dollar they can have given our situation right now, and this certainly is not going to help. Thank you. I would ask you to vote yes on this amendment. Representative Ricks?

Thank you. Thank you Thank you The House will come back to order

Representative Taggart. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I withdraw Amendment 001, and I move 002, the Taggart Amendment, to the report of the Committee of the Whole. Thank you. That will suffice. And please, let's not be in the habit of fining one another from different departments. That is not a good practice. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, this amendment is unnecessary. We have spoken with the universities for the past six weeks, working on every amendment to ensure that the language was perfect and just how they wanted it. So we have an agreement there with our coalition and the university. Also, we've talked with the AG. AG says there is no problem. They know how to deal with all of these issues if they were to arise. So we ask that you follow the sponsors and vote no on this amendment.

Bacon. And Zocci excused.

Madam Majority Leader Madam Speaker, I move to proceed out of order for third reading

Madam Majority Leader

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1196 on third reading and final passage.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 144. Senate Bill 144 by Senators Frizzell and Lindstedt, also Representatives Winter and Camacho, concerning the collection of delinquent property taxes by tax lien sale and in connection therewith, modifying the structure and authority for treasurers to charge certain fees, amending the process for the sale of tax liens and recreating and reenacting with amendments the process of obtaining a treasurer's deed after public auction of a property subject to tax lien.

Representative Camacho. Madam Speaker, I move for permission to run a third reading amendment.

Despite our very thorough stakeholding, we found a few issues that we've had with the bill, mainly as it relates to when you can purchase back a tax lien. In the bill we had a five, it was supposed to be seven, so this amendment would fix that. It would also clarify that, which was left out, that if you have a tax lien prior to the implementation of this bill, you'd be grandfathered in and would not fall under the new requirements. So for that, we ask for a yes vote. Seeing no further discussion, the question before the body

Representative Camacho Thank you Madam Speaker I move

L-009 to Senate Bill 144 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, colleagues. As discussed in the previous request, this moves the time from five years to seven, which was intended to be in the original bill, and also adds the section in lines three through seven that you'd be grandfathered in despite the passage of this bill. We ask for a yes vote.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move for the passage of Senate Bill 144 as amended.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 109. Senate Bill 109 by Senators Exum and Cutter, also Representatives Joseph and Rex, concerning building code standards for accessible housing supported by public money.

The motion before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 109 on third reading final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Lindsay votes yes. Representative Ricks, please close the machine with 41 I, 22 no and 2 excused. Senate Bill 109 is adopted. Co Please close the machine

Madam Majority Leader Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1290 on third reading and final passage

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1312. House Bill 1312 by Representative Clifford, also Senator Molica, concerning measures related to peace officer participation in matters related to peace officer performance and in connection therewith, requiring the Attorney General to submit a proposal to update law enforcement academic academy training programs, changing the composition of the post board, requiring a person to be 21 years or older to pass post board examinations for certification. and authorizing a Peace Officer Academy staff person to be eligible to receive training or grants for training offered by any state or local entity.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1312 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Lindsay votes yes. Please close the machine. With 54I-9-No, 2 excused, House Bill 1312 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1321 on third reading and final passage.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1317. House Bill 1317 by Representatives McCluskey and Taggart, also Senators Bridges and Frizzell, concerning creating a unified system of post-secondary talent development and in connection therewith, creating a committee to develop a plan to transition oversight of workforce development programs to the Department of Higher Education.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1317 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Lindsay votes yes. Please close the machine. With 51 aye, 12 no, and 2 excused, House Bill 1317 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 85 on third reading and final passage.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move to lay over Senate Bill 95 until tomorrow.

Senate Bill 60 by Senators Pelton, Aaron Doherty, also representatives of Winter and Hamrick, concerning information about youth athlete mental health training and a connection therewith requiring mental health training for youth sports coaches and requiring the coaches to notify parents of possible mental health risks associated with concussions.

The motion before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 60 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Lindsay votes yes. Richardson. Please close the machine. With 51 a.m., 12 no, and 2 excused, Senate Bill 60 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Representative Lindsay co-sponsors. Please close the machine.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1075 on third reading and final passage.

Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes yes.

Please close the machine. With 59 a.m. for no and 2 excused, House Bill 1075 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Representative Lindsay, co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 153.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 153 on third reading and final

Senate Bill 83 by Senators Weissman and Frizzell, also Representatives Soper and Camacho, concerning implementation of the Committee on Legal Services, recommendations, and connection with legislative review of state agencies' rules.

Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 83 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

Senate Bill 19 by Senators Ball and Bright, also Representatives Sirota and Gonzales, concerning changes to local early childhood infrastructure and in connection therewith, expanding the responsibilities and functions of early childhood councils to include certain responsibilities and functions formally performed by local coordinating organizations and imposing new accountability requirements.

Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 19 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

House Bill 1338 by Representatives McCormick and Winter, also Senators Robertson-Simpson, concerning the Colorado Water Conservation Board operations and in connection therewith, funding projects and making an appropriation.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1338 on third reading and final passage. Representative Luck.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1338 on third reading final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes yes. Please close the machine. With 54 aye, 9 no, and 2 excused House Bill 1338 is adopted Co-sponsors Representative Lindsay, co-sponsors Please close the machine. Mr Schiebel please read the title to House Bill 1078 House Bill 1078 by Representatives Smith and Hamrick also Senators Marchman and Kirkmeyer concerning increasing the number of off courses offered by institutions of higher education

Madam Majority Leader.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1078 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes yes. Please close the machine. With 53 I, 10 no and 2 excused, House Bill 1078 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Representative Lindsay, co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1227.

Madam Majority Leader.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1227 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes yes. Garcia Sander Weinberg Woodrow Please close the machine with 45 I 18 no and two excused House Bill 1227 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Representative Lindsay, co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1298.

Madam Majority Leader.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1298. and third reading final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes yes. Representative DeGraff. Please close the machine. With 63 ayes, 0 no and 2 excused, House Bill 1298 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Representative Lindsay, co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1245.

Madam Majority Leader.

Representative Marshall.

Representative Mabry.

Representative Espinoza. Representative Zocay.

Representative Camacho.

I just, as a non-lawyer, I feel obligated to come and just share things in a non-lawyerly way

Representative Kelty? Representative Kelty.

Good gosh.

Representative Kelly. Representative Kelty.

Members. Everyone.

Thank you for clarifying.

Do you believe that she would tell you wrong?

We heard from Club Q victims. We heard from new homeowners, we heard from neighbors, we heard from every possible individual that has been scanned by these fly-by-night door knockers that only mean to come around and take advantage of people. It is a law, theft is a law, but it's not just the theft that this bill covers. It covers the ability to find the theft, to find the fraud. I believe that you can trust both of us up here today and you can trust your AML. As she stood behind this bill, please don't allow people to conflate something that this bill is not. What I find incredible about this bill is I don't own this bill. coming after the bill unjustly doesn't affect me. But you know who owns this bill? The entire population of Colorado. Every senior citizen, every new young homeowner, every immigrant, every person who needs any type of home repair, even renters, they own it. This is their bill. This is for them. You say that people can just go to court. People don't know how to do that, especially if it's a civil matter. It's very difficult. It's very expensive. All this bill does, y'all, all this bill does is allow for the finding of that theft, for the finding of the fraud, or maybe not. It gives the industry of construction and home construction trust and honor again by weeding out the bad guys. I am asking for the people of Colorado for your yes vote today.

but it doesn't mean that I'm not going to say what I need to say. But at the end of the day, I really haven't heard so many different things about a policy that did not get any opposition in committee, not even from the construction industry. so all the narratives and opinions that are being pushed i'm not even going to say that i'm shocked but it's just kind of taking me back that it's going this far when this was a bill with no opposition and if it's about transparency and accountability let it be what it is um but i know when, you know, there are a room full of attorneys, which is cool. It's going to be a lot of legal stuff. We're not attorneys. But at the end of the day, we talked, we spoke with a few different attorneys. And I know all attorneys aren't going to agree, but I just want to be clear on this one thing, because it's pretty offensive to even think that me as a black caucus member would bring something that's going to create penalties or felonies for someone. Like, I'm really offended because I wouldn't get on a policy that's going to create felonies for someone unless it's harming kids. So let me just be clear about that. But I digress. But this bill is protecting our most vulnerable, which is our seniors. Because, number one, if you're a contractor and you provide the services that you were paid to do, would this or would this not be an issue? So it's not like we're coming at one population of contractors, or this is going to harm the immigrant contractors, or this is going to harm the black contractors. I don't care what kind of contractor you are or what color you are. If someone pays you to do a job, then do the dang job. If someone gave you their money. And if you are senior and you drain your bank account and you give $30,000 and expect work to be done, the work should be done. It should be a no-brainer. I just don't understand a lot of things that happen in here. I just really don't. I don't know. Either we protect people when it's convenient or we protect people when it's certain people want to be. I don't know. I just don't understand this, again, where there was no opposition whatsoever. And I thank my colleague, Assistant Majority Leader Bacon, for listening and going through this policy line for line, line by line, to help work through some of the issues that were brought up by colleagues, not by the industry. I don't think I've ever been on a bill that had no opposition. But the very one I get on that for my community that had no opposition now has so much opposition that it just mind But I just want to leave with saying this is for the people of Colorado This is for our constituents. I believe everybody in this chamber, well I know everybody in this chamber, has elderly constituents. people that are most vulnerable, people that are taking advantage of most. When it comes to projects like these, construction projects, this bill ain't going to put nobody out of business at all. But what it's going to do is provide a level of transparency and accountability that's needed and necessary in this space. I mean, but do what you do. But my people are going to know that I was up here and I fought to the end and that I spoke what was right to protect the most vulnerable people because if this wasn't an issue, this would not have been brought to us. And just like everyone in here, I stand up and I fight and I listen to the needs of my community. And this happened to be one of them. Sorry we may not all agree, we're not going to always agree on everything in here, but this is one issue that came from my community. in El Paso County that directly impact my constituents. And this was the right thing to do, and this was the fair thing to do with no opposition. And with that, I ask for a yes vote for people, those of us that want to protect the most vulnerable, those of us that see that transparency and accountability in this bill is important. And guess what, y'all? There is no criminality in this bill. This is not creating a new crime. Y'all can look like that if you want to. I don't do that. I don't create new crimes. That's not what I'm doing, and that's not what this is about. And I'm going to leave it at that, but I ask for a yes vote. Thank you.

Okay, so having been with experience in this realm, having had a project stolen, that was with the complicity of the bank. Yeah, I've got a lot of experience and a lot of research done into things like lien laws and all this. And at the outset, man, I know the intent is good. Here's my concern. Certainly not with the intent of the bill's sponsors, because this is a problem. This is definitely a problem. So I'm looking at this, but this is just part of the discussions that we're having here. So without these steps here in part two, I'm wondering how this is going to be reinforced. For failure of a contractor to provide or adhere to the advanced payment usage, disclosure required pursuant to this section may be considered evidence of use transfer diversion. So in construction, I know at least in my former city in Michigan, and the builders the contractors were required to keep all money in a separate account So you couldn commingle your funds so the example that was given And now I understand that a little bit that certainly unrealistic in most cases They've got $5,000 in their pocket, and they've got to get this cost, that cost, and they're not. So I guess my concern here is that, I mean, Grandma Ethel keeps coming up as an example, but failure of a contractor to adhere to the advanced payment usage disclosure required pursuant to this section may be considered evidence of use. So on the other side, the absence of this contract. So my concern is here the absence of the contract here that they have before accepting advanced payment exceeding $300 for a specific. A contractor shall provide the customer with written disclosure that covers the intended use. These are all good things, the anticipated timing, the projected date, and then the contractor using how they're going to use the funds, all good things and all things that they should do. But if they don't have that contract, and most likely a scammer is not going to have that contract, and it's just going to be, you know, so somebody that doesn't know, a concern that I have with this, because this is a problem, that this could actually work against the individual with that contract. So say that individual does not get all this disclosure, does not get all this contract language from somebody that shows up to do their roof, right, because you just want your roof replaced. how much, I mean, that's pretty clear. I have a roof. It's right there. You're going to do it. I give you money, and therefore it's done. You know, this is, you know, so we're dealing with the ramifications of going from a high-trust society into one where, you know, where we no longer have the basis of that trust anymore. So my concern with this, I think it's definitely a problem. It's definitely something that needs to be addressed. My concern is that without that language, the bill itself could end up working against the individuals who were defrauded. So, yeah, but it's a problem. It needs to be dealt with. This is all great. Again, I'm just concerned that it could actually work against the individuals because if they don't have that contract, then they don't have, you know, then what do they have? that they gave somebody money and they were dealing in a high trust capacity with low trust individuals and that's just a characteristic of the society in which we find ourselves. I'm not really sure yet where I am but that's a question that I have is how does that not end up working against the individuals?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. To those in the room, I apologize. I was excused for most of the debate. I would like to explain in my own words what it is that was done on this bill so I can speak for myself here. So for those of you, and I understand the arguments against this bill, and when I say I understand it, I do. What this bill does is it adds, while it does not create necessarily a new criminal category, it adds an additional way someone could be charged with theft. If you look at the bill, which I'm sure some of you have. The bill adds under, there's already A through F, the ways you can charge for theft. What this bill does is create sub G that's saying now you can charge a contractor for theft if the court can demonstrate a criminal negligence in not only the taking of the money, but also their negligence in executing on the contract. Now in real life, most contractual violations are dealt with in civil court. The most common contractual violations are you didn't complete the job, right? And so when I hear the argument that says if this is breached, we have made it into a crime, I would say that the way that we address that is by, one, calling for a criminal negligence, and quite frankly, we struck the term or for a material breach, and what's left is unreasonable delay in the contract, and reasonableness is anchored to what we would think is normal, which the contract can also speak for, or unreasonable abandonment or cessation of the job. And so at the end of the day, the bill does create a new way to charge for theft. And that's functionally what it does. It did not change any of the sentencing or penalties for what exists in theft. But it did create a new way to charge for it. So the conversation is kind of 50-50. We did not create a whole new category of crime. but this is a new way to charge for theft, which is what I understand the argument to be by creating a new crime. And so for me, what I was concerned about was the way that the bill was written. I did think that it was way too much of criminalizing contractual concerns. And so I do hope that the vote here could be about, do we want to add a new way to charge for theft or not? And that is my take on it. And so I want to be able to own my own words and whatever my vote will be. And so, again, if anyone's looking at the paperwork, we restructured the elements to add unreasonableness and criminal negligence so that it wasn't, to my colleague's point, if someone felt like the contract was abandoned and it could have been three days, you don't charge people for a crime for that. I agree. And so it needed to have stronger words for liberty and trust. So thank you all for listening.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you, Amal, for coming here and clarifying that. That's basically what we were trying to get across. For the state of Colorado, for the people in it, they're crying out for help, and that's what this bill does. Being able to basically say, look, you definitely did, in which this bill allows for the actual investigation to see whether any crime has even been, you know, any theft has actually taken place. Possibly not. But without it there is no look into anything and our senior citizens our citizens of Colorado are going to suffer So I very much appreciate coming up here and explaining that further As it was amended with criminal negligence was added in the amendment Unreasonable delay, and we strike material non-performance. There is no extra criminality to this whatsoever. So I'm asking everyone, please think about the people in your community. Think about your grandmother. Think about your neighbor. Think about the young homeowner or the individual who doesn't speak the language well. What would they want? Do they want to be protected from having their money stolen from them? I think that they would. I'm asking for a yes vote today.

Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes no. Please close the machine.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1346. House Bill 1346 by Representatives Titone and Woodrow, also Senator Kipp, concerning allowing the Department of the Treasury to sell unsold insurance premium tax credits to entities that are not insurance companies.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's an honor to serve with you. Honored to serve with you. This debate yesterday on seconds got shut down before I was able to get down to the well, but I just wanted to bring up the point. It was very difficult to get to a yes in special session and it only got to a yes myself after it came back from the Senate revised. We're selling these tax credits at an 18% discount right now. 82 cents on the dollar, which means a 22% interest rate on just one annual. If we wind up going down to the minimum of 80 cents, and that was the minimum, and that's how it was sold. we would be very upset doing payday loans at 22 to 25 percent but that's what this essentially is it's not very fiscally responsible pulling the revenue from future legislators 50 million dollars almost a loss it's not the way we should be running this train so we need to stop and sometimes think of what we're doing because if any of us called into a finance show and explained how we were doing our finances we'd be taken to task we would so for that reason I'm going to have to be a no on this because again we are basically doing payday loans and taking money that really we shouldn be taking from other places So thank you Representative DeGruff

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1346 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote.

Yes.

With 41 a.m., 23 no, and one excused, House Bill 1346 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 40 on third reading and final passage.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. We have a technical fix for some changes that we made on seconds yesterday,

Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes yes.

Brown Hartzik please close the machine

adopted representative Stewart

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

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of L-20 to Senate Bill 40. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote.

Yes.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move for the passage of Senate Bill 40 as amended. The motion before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 40 as amended on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote.

Yes.

Gonzalez and Luck.

Senate Bill 40, as amended, is adopted. Co-sponsors.

Co-sponsors. Please close the machine.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1314 on third reading and final passage. The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1314 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote.

Yes.

With 46I18 no and one excused, House Bill 1314 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move to lay over Senate Bill 59 until tomorrow. House Bill, sorry. Seeing no objections, Senate Bill 59 will be laid over until tomorrow.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1336 on third reading and final passage. The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1336 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote.

Yes.

Richardson and Smith.

With 54 I, 10 no, and one excused, House Bill 1336 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine

Yes.

With 40 I, 24 no, and one excused, House Bill 1263 is adopted. Co-sponsors.

Please close the machine. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move to proceed out of order for consideration of Senate amendments to House bills. Seeing no objection, we will proceed out of order for consideration of Senate amendments to House bills.

Members, to the well, to the well.

Please proceed.

Representative Goldstein.

because of a comma, yes, a comma, not a dragon, not a scandal, not a late-night tweet, a comma. We are here. It comes and goes, and it comes and goes, like that neighbor who swears they're definitely going to clean up that yard the weekend for the last three years. We're talking about trash, real trash, not your ex, not your inbox. It means the couch on the lawn. that the four seasons than that Netflix show the refrigerator outside oh it not broken it vintage decor And those weeds Not weeds Apparently a native plant experiment Sorry, I don't have my glasses. I lost them. Red, gold, and green. Oh, that's not a vibe. That's code for we stop trying. This bill says, hey, maybe don't. Maybe don't let your property turn in before a picture for a reality show calls you. Extreme county condition. So we ask for your yes vote. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1239. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes yes. There we go. Please close the machine. With 62 I to no one excused, the motion to concur is adopted. Madam Majority Leader.

The motion before us is the repassage of House Bill 1239 as amended. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes yes. Flannell. Please close the machine. With 54 I, 10 no, one excused. House Bill 1239, as amended, is repassed. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1084.

Representative Espinoza.

Thank you, members. Please proceed.

Thank you. Any additional explanation?

Representative Camacho Thank you Madam Speaker and for those of you who don remember one of the entire purposes behind this bill is to make sure when you had those conversations about the Blue Book you had all the information not to put it in the Blue Book

Yes.

House Bill 1262 by Representative Stuart Kay and Stuart R., also Senators Ball and Roberts,

Representative Stewart Kay Thank you Madam Speaker The House of Stewart moves to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1262 Creative

So this amendment that was added in the Senate provides clarity on the Board of Pharmacies authority for compounding pharmacies and this is a friendly amendment that we drafted in collaboration with Dora and the AG's office.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1262. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes yes Please close the machine With 63 aye, 1 no and 1 excuse The motion to concur is adopted Madam Majority Leader

The motion before us is the repassage of House Bill 1262 as amended. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes yes. Please close the machine. With 64 ayes, zero no and one excused, House Bill 1262, as amended, is repassed. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Okay. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1110.

Representative Camacho.

Please proceed.

Representative Jackson. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just wanted the record to reflect that my colleague and I, we did keep our promise and our commitment to continue working on this. We had a lot of robust discussion on seconds and again on thirds, and so we have got everyone to a good place, partnered with trial attorneys, and we ask for a yes vote.

Representative Mabry. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I also wanted to thank the bill sponsors and the advocates, everybody who worked on this bill to get us to a better place. We had a long debate on second reading when it was in the House, and the issues were worked through. So thank you.

Yes.

Madam Speaker, I move for the repassage of House Bill 1110 as amended

Yes

Madam Speaker I move that the House proceed out of order for consideration of conference committee reports.

House Bill 1038 by Representatives Paschal and Clifford, also Senator Snyder, concerning County Commissioner redistricting.

Madam Speaker, I move for the adoption of the first report of the first conference committee on HB 26-1038.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So in our conference committee, we spoke about the amendments that were put on in the Senate, and we chose to accept those. They were amendments that came from the El Paso County Clerk and Recorder. They're sort of crisping up the definitions, especially around the word staff. What does that mean? Is it Clerk and Recorder staff? Is it County Commission staff? That sort of thing. And we also crisped up the language around the ability to bring a lawsuit on redistricting and made it clear that the county clerk and recorder is not necessary for a party to that kind of action. Then we further proceeded to add some additional changes. We added some changes around the independent redistricting committee. we made it such that there has to be an open application process that is posted on the website and that there has to be 30 days notice we also added language to assure that the folks that are on the independent redistricting committee have been affiliated with their respective parties or unaffiliated for at least three years immediately preceding their application for the independent redistricting committee. And I urge an aye vote.

Yes. Representative Lindsay votes yes.

Madam Speaker, I move for the repassage of House Bill 1038

This is just another example of us going against, going after local control. This type of policy should fall on the counties to decide and I also want to remind you that there is bipartisan opposition to this. We shouldn't be mandating these to the local counties and municipalities. That's something that I believe that they should be deciding. it should not be the business of the state government and so for those reasons I will be a no vote

Yes

Madam Speaker, I move to lay over the balance of the calendar until Wednesday, April 22, 2026.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House stand in recess until later today.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Judiciary Committee members, let's meet in 10 minutes in room 107. 10 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I move to withdraw my motion.

Committee on Agriculture, Water, and Natural Resources. After consideration on the Meritza, committee recommends the following, Senate Bill 62 be postponed indefinitely, and Senate Bill 136 be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation. Committee on Finance, after consideration on the Meritza, committee recommends the following, House Bill 1341 be referred favorably to the Committee of the Whole. Senate Bill 141 be referred to the Committee on Appropriations with favorable recommendation. Committee on State, Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs, after consideration on the Meritza, committee recommends the following. House Resolutions 1006 and 1007 as amended be referred to the House for final action House Concurrent Resolution 1006 and Senate Bill 143 be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation House Concurrent Resolutions 1004 and 1005 and House Resolution 1008 be postponed indefinitely

The Chief Clerk reports the following. Printing report will be printed in the journal. Signing of bills, resolutions, memorials. The Speaker has signed. Signing of bills, resolutions, memorials will be printed in the journal. Message from the Senate. Madam Speaker, the Senate has. Message from the Senate will be printed in the journal. Message from the Revisor. We hear with Transmit. Message from the Revisor will be printed in the journal. Message from the Governor. Honorable members of the Colorado House. Message from the Governor will be printed in the journal. Introduction of bills. House Bill 1419 by Representatives Sirota and Brown, also Senators Mable and Bridges, concerning the over-refund amount for state fiscal year 2024-25 of state revenues in excess of the state fiscal year spending limit under Section 20 of Article 10 of the state constitution.

House Bill 1420 by Representatives Paschal and Richardson, also Senators Colker and Pelton R. Concerning changes to the approval process for light mitigating technology that is required to be installed at certain wind-powered energy generation facilities

House Bill 1421 by Representatives Mabry and Caldwell, also Senators Doherty and Frizzell, concerning prohibiting certain compensation agreements in the legal profession and in connection therewith, creating the Colorado Legal Practice, Integrity, and Fee Sharing Prohibition Act.

Senate Bill 90 by Senators Carson and Snyder, also Representatives Hartsook and Clifford, concerning exempting critical infrastructure from the Consumer Repair Bill of Rights Act.

Senate Bill 140 by Senators Frazell and Marchman, also Representatives Gilchrist and Johnson, concerning exempting certain drugs from the scope of affordability reviews conducted by the Colorado Prescription Drug Affordability Review Board.

Senate Bill 150 by Senators Ball and Judah, also Representatives Froelich and Jackson, concerning reforms to the Regional Transportation District to increase accountability.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House stand in adjournment until Wednesday, April 22nd at 9 a.m.