Colorado House 2026 Legislative Day 108

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.

Thank you. Rep Brown.

Caldwell. Camacho.

Carter.

Clifford.

DeGraff.

Duran.

English.

Espinosa. Representative Espinoza. Foray. Rep. Foray.

Flanell. Froelich. Garcia. Garcia-Sander. Gilchrist. Representative Gilchrist.

Goldstein. Gonzalez. Hamrick. Hartsook. Jackson. Johnson. Joseph. Representative Joseph.

Kelty.

Leader.

Lindsey. Representative Lindsey.

Luck. Lukens. Mabry.

Marshall.

Martinez.

Morrow. Morrow.

McCormick. Brett McCormick.

Wynn. Pascal. Phillips. Representative Phillips.

Richardson. Ricks. Representative Ricks.

Rootnell. Ryden. Representative Ryden.

Slaw.

Smith. Soper. Rep Soper.

Stuart Kay. Stuart R. Story. Sukla. Taggart. Titone. Valdez A. Velasco. Weinberg. Wilford. Winter. AML Winter.

Woodrow. Woog. Zokai. And Madam Speaker.

With 54 present, 11 excused. We do have a quorum.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, good morning. Good morning, everyone.

Members, I got in a fight with the elevator this morning, you know. I took it to another level. So today's going to be pretty good. I used to be addicted to soap as well, but I'm clean now.

You know, I was thinking yesterday when we were on seconds that, you know, parallel lines have a lot in common. It's too bad they'll never meet. All right. Two more repron. We've got to bring it. Got to bring it. All right.

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. Members, announcements and introductions. Representative Stewart.

leader thank you madam speaker so you know we know in many of our cultures food is where the heart is and that what brings people together so I made it a tradition in the time I been in the legislature One moment Madam Majority Leader

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Let me start over. Members, I know that food is where the heart is, and that's what really bonds our relationships. Every year, once a session, I try to provide a meal for all of us. It's a bipartisan thing, and today we are going to have lunch provided by Legal Pete's. It will be set up in the space back here with Kathy's office down this way around noon. So we would love all of you to partake and enjoy.

And Representative Gonzalez, maybe talk about more food.

Madam Majority Leader.

Thank you. That sounds great. And May 5th is which date?

Tuesday, folks. Announcements and introductions. Representative Velasco.

Thank you. Representative Bradley.

Aw, happy birthday. Any additional announcements? Representative Carter.

Thank you, Rep. Carter. Representative Espinoza.

Thank you, Rep.

say hello. Great. Thank you, Reps. Seeing no further announcements, Madam Majority

resolutions. Members, please take your seats. We are proceeding to business. Seeing no objection, we will proceed out of order for consideration of resolutions. Madam Majority Leader, I still need you. Sorry. You can stay. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Seeing no objection, we will proceed to the immediate consideration of House Joint Resolution 1030. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Joint Resolution 1030.

Representative Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move House Joint Resolution 1030 and ask that it be read at length.

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

Representative Joseph.

Representative Gonzalez, this is your second time to speak. You have eight minutes and eight seconds remaining. Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I just want to make a note to my community.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of House Joint Resolution 1030. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Leader, how do you vote? Representative Leader, we could not hear you. Could you try again? Can't hear you. Could you give me a thumbs up or a thumbs up? Representative Leader votes yes. Representative Lindsey, how do you vote? Representative Lindsey, I can't hear you either. Could you give me a single yes? Thumbs up. Thank you. And Representative Slaw, how do you vote? Representative Slaw votes yes. Please close the machine. With 62 ayes, 0 no, and 3 excused, House Joint Resolution 1030 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Representative Leader, co-sponsors. Representative Lindsey, co-sponsors. Representative Sla, co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Members, we are going to proceed to third reading. Thank you The House will stand in a brief recess The House will stand in a brief recess. Thank you. Members, we are on third reading. Madam Majority Leader.

One moment. The House will come back to order. Thank you. Madam Majority Leader.

Senate Bill 43 will be laid over until Monday, May 4th. Oh, Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 143.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 143 on third reading and final passage.

No. Representative Slaw votes no.

Senate Bill 124 by Senator Wallace, also Representative Stuart R., concerning information related to the automated protection order notification system.

Representative Leader, how do you vote? Yes.

Representative Lindsey, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsey votes yes. Representative Slaw, how do you vote?

Representative Slaw votes no. Please close the machine. With 43 I, 19 no, and 3 excuse, Senate Bill 124 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Representative Lindsay, co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1421.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1421 on third reading and final passage.

Representative Espinoza.

fix this and fix this now, even for a temporary basis, because we haven't gotten a decision from the Supreme Court. Well, there's two reasons we haven't gotten a decision from the Supreme Court. my understanding is that nobody's brought a complaint because there's been no issue raised with regard to the problem that we're trying to solve. And that was the most compelling testimony I heard, and I will just fill out the record a little bit more. I believe that the proponents listened to any bar people that did anybody, lawyers that came forward, and tried to create carve-outs for them. So we heard from nonprofit organizations who run law firms, essentially, or legal practices out of law schools, and the Legal Services Corporation, and they got an exemption out of this bill. We heard from the creditor's bar, and they got an exemption out of this bill. So that's what concerns me is, A, there's no complaint been brought, and we didn't have a full hearing from all the other subcomponents of the bar who might also have gotten exemptions had they been able to hear and fully participate in this process. Because remember, this is also coming to us as a very late time in the session, and so there's an issue. But going back to the exhaustion question, in the legal profession, generally things are not ripe for consideration until you've pursued certain avenues first. And the biggest concern I have here is we did not have any lawyers pursue with the Supreme Court a determination under the rule. And I appreciate that we as a legislature can ask the Supreme Court to do so, and that's the mechanism and amendment that's being proposed to be pursued in the Senate. But I am concerned that we're acting out of line by us as a legislature putting a stamp on a measure right now without that exhaustion happening. And I just want to go a little bit further. in the committee testimony we also heard about well this is like private equity coming in and buying up veterinary hospitals or other businesses which are now creating the fear that we have that it will increase the prices because you have that private equity driving the cost of services We also heard that law firms especially big law firms are profit centers So they already drive up the cost of litigation, which you know, if you've ever had to go to a lawyer and seek help, that that's existing. But the regulation that the court puts around that is this ethical fee sharing that you can't be influenced by outside people when you're creating your profits and your structure. So the concern that I had was, and I asked the last question of the night, was, isn't it true that all of the other equivalent circumstances that you cited are regulated by the state and lawyers are regulated by a separate branch of government? And the simple answer was yes. So we have to tread carefully whenever we infringe into another branch of government's authority. And I don't believe that we've had a sufficient time to get an answer from that branch of government, and so I am encouraged by the opportunity for us to ask for that answer at the court. but that is not on the bill today. That is not what we're passing as legislation and we're not delaying the implementation of this bill subject to a time specific for the Supreme Court to say we don't care, there is a difference between the business regulation which is what big law and the Chamber of Commerce is arguing and the regulation of lawyer practice. They can make that choice. They can say, nope, we're fine with the legislation but we need to give them the opportunity to do that first before we impose this statute, because once we impose this statute, they themselves then are in a different position in terms of answering the question, because then the legislature has told them how to act, and it becomes very difficult in terms of them being able to exercise the true independence that they need to have as a separate branch of government. I do believe this may be a problem in the future. The lack of evidence or the lack of an ability to even bring a complaint to the Supreme Court indicates that it's not a problem right now. So I would encourage a no vote at this time and let the process work itself out, and I will be a no today. Representative Camacho.

So excused. Representative Mabry.

Minority leader Caldwell. Thank you, Madam Speaker. And members, like I said in committee, I know the water that the sergeants put out is not tainted. You are not seeing things. are sitting up here together to present this bill. And some of you, probably including some of my own members, is going, what in the world is Minority Leader Caldwell a non-lawyer doing up there in the well with a bunch of lawyers fighting it out on the floor about a lot of legal stuff? And that's a great question. So what I'm doing on this bill is I'd like to think that I'm representing, because I'm not a lawyer and there's a lot of things that I don't understand, the business side of this, and that's Colorado businesses. There's a reason that the largest organization in the state of Colorado, as far as representing businesses, has made this bill a huge priority for them, as well as trial lawyers here in Colorado. And that's because of the issue that we've seen here and across other states. So there's been a lot of talk about Arizona and Utah with similar legislation and the back and forth that's went on there. But there are other states out there, and some of the states I'm familiar with is Florida, Texas, and Georgia as well, either are addressing these issues or has already addressed these issues. And what it comes down to, and the reason the business community has gotten so involved in this, is because of the perverse incentive structure that we've seen with private equity firms funding law firms here in Colorado, and the perverse incentive structure of bringing forward lawsuits and actions against Colorado businesses that hurts those businesses and the system of, with this incentive structure of filing more lawsuits per year in order to hit quotas, getting certain percentages with settlements, dragging out lawsuits against Colorado businesses. That's the perverse incentive structure we're talking about, and that's why the business community has gotten so involved in this. The example that I gave in committee and I gave here yesterday was when we're talking about the law profession, when someone, when a person or entity, whoever it may be, sues whoever over something, sues a business over an issue, that is to right a wrong. That is to get justice, right? And the example that I keep giving is, would we be okay in this chamber if we said, you know what, law enforcement officers, you get a percentage of the tickets that you write. Do we think that would create a perverse incentive structure? Do we think that would cause injustice? If you told an officer, you know what, you get 40% of the fines that you write, do we think that the fines would go up? Do you think that there would be more tickets written? Do you think the tickets would be larger? Do you think you would get as many warnings? And I think the obvious answer to that is no, right, because there is a perverse incentive structure there in the pursuit of justice. And that's what we're talking about here with law firms. The law firms are pursuing justice. They are writing a wrong. It is about access to justice. And when you have private equities taking a stake in the number of lawsuits being filed, how much they get from those lawsuits, whether they benefit more from dragging out or filing very large lawsuits and then settling very quickly to get a quick payout, that is a perverse incentive structure. And what we heard from the business community when the chamber came and testified, they said they talked about the business climate here in Colorado. And they talked about that it is a very litigious state and that this is just adding a whole new layer to it. That is something that is becoming more and more prevalent across the country which is why you seeing Utah and Arizona and Florida and Georgia and Texas all starting to address this And this is this is a large enough issue that it is getting national attention And my co and I just had an interview with a national news outlet yesterday who saw this bill and are very interested in it because this is a thing we're seeing all over the country. So again, for me, it comes back to the perverse incentive structure. And is this how we should be doing law and lawsuits in the state of Colorado? and do we want to continue putting that burden on our businesses? Because, again, it was businesses that showed up in committee and said that this is hurting us and it's only going to get worse. It is only growing. And that's why I'm on this bill. Thank you very much.

Representative Mabry, this is your second time to speak. You have five minutes, 56 seconds. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm not going to take hardly any time. Again, members, welcome to the Judiciary Committee. I just wanted to respond to my colleague from Delta and say the distinction that's important here is, yes, of course, there's a profit incentive for attorneys who are working on cases, but they have a duty, an ethical duty to their client. The distinction that we're drawing here is when people who do not have an ethical duty that is regulated by the Supreme Court to their clients have a say in how case management is going. That's the important distinction in this bill.

Representative Espinoza this is your second time to speak You have 4 minutes 49 seconds Thank you Madam Speaker I just want to rise again to this last point in terms of why this is an issue that needs to go to the Supreme Court and not be decided by this legislation My good colleague from Madam's County is explaining the exact reason why I believe the Supreme Court is the person to answer the question. Because the question for me is, is that fee sharing? If what she's talking about and what the bill is talking about, private equity, if private equity is engaging in any formula which requires a fee sharing between the lawyer's work and that private equity, that clearly falls under the 5.4 rules of professional conduct, which is precluded. And as an attorney, if I were to engage in that contractual relationship with private equity, I believe my law license could be suspended and or I would be punished because of the professional responsibility rule. That's the question we're asking the Supreme Court or believe that the Supreme Court should have jurisdiction to answer before we as a legislature work because we are unique from other businesses and we are regulated by the Supreme Court. So I just wanted to clarify that because I think my good colleague from Adams County is trying to explain to you the concern from a clear business standpoint. But this is important to understand the distinction between our profession, which our license is on the line if we were to engage in these contracts. I'm not licensed in Arizona, so I don't have the authority to do that in Arizona. and my personal situation is I'm licensed in Utah, Texas, and Colorado, which requires me to meet the obligation of all of those ethical states. And I have to take, in terms of meeting that ethical responsibility and not losing my license, I have to look at which of the licenses have the most restrictive regulations for me. And currently, that is Colorado, which is, even though it's been silent on this question, which is saying there is no fee sharing allowed. If there's no fee sharing allowed and I as a lawyer enter into an agreement with a private equity firm out of Arizona or a law firm that is engaging in and sharing profits with private equity, I believe my license would be on the line, but that is a question the Supreme Court needs to answer. Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Two points that were just raised just now I think are important to respond to. The first is as relates to the idea that private equity shouldn't influence the care for folks, shouldn't speak into these particular conversations because the service that the lawyers provide may be diminished by their voice. I think it stands as a good analogy that we allow that in the healthcare space. We allow that kind of investment when it comes to those determinations, and those interests aren't always aligned with what's in the best interest of the patient. So that's an analogy there. The second thing that I would just point out is, let's say you have two folks who want to start a partnership law firm and need to take out a mortgage in order to purchase the building that they want to purchase where this is housed. I think the question stands as to whether or not that would be prohibited under this bill, whether they would be able to invite a bank into that in this way, because is that then an outside event? Okay. investment interest that their fee sharing would be paying. It is a question that, frankly, I haven't dived into, but I think is worthy of consideration as we have this conversation.

Minority Leader Caldwell, this is your second time to speak. You have 5 minutes 31 seconds remaining.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1421 on third reading final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Leader, how do you vote?

Representative Leader votes yes. Representative Lindsey, how do you vote? Yes Representative Lindsey votes yes Representative Slaw how do you vote No ma Representative Slaw votes no Members, we are on thirds. It's not funny. Please close the machine. With 51 I, 10 no for excused, House Bill 1421 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please. Please. Oh, Representative Lindsay and Leader are co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Majority Leader.

Senate Bill 12 will be laid over until Monday, May 4th. Mr. Schiebel, could you please read our reports of committees of reference?

Thank you. Thank you. A well-deserved woo-hoo. Introduction of bill. the designation of the convening date for the first regular session of the 76th General Assembly and the addition of a joint rule establishing deadlines that apply to the Senate and House of Representatives for the session based on the convening date. House Joint Resolution 1031 will be laid over one day under House rule. Members, we are moving into seconds. Madam Majority Leader.

2026 at 1052 AM. Get ready. House Bill 1222 House Bill 1289 House Bill 1223 House Bill 1221 House Bill 1065 House Bill 1004 Senate Bill 141 House Bill 1111 House Bill 1117 House Bill 1230 Senate Bill 160 Senate Bill 151 House Bill 1328, Senate Bill 142, House Bill 1423, House Bill 1014, House Bill 1059, and House Bill 1255. Seeing no objection, the bills listed by the Majority Leader will be made special orders today, May 1st, at 1052 a.m. Representative Mabry.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to lay over Senate Bill 150 until after House Bill 1054.

House Bill 1222 by Representatives Garcia and McCormick, also Senator Kipp, concerning the modification of tax expenditures and a connection therewith, making additions to the definition of federal taxable income for tax years commencing on or after January 1st, 2027, and creating the family affordability credit.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning and happy Friday. Happy Friday. So in finance, we heard this bill. We have a Great discussion on it. It is Friday morning. We're still in the morning. We are still in the morning.

No, no, to the committee report.

So, got sidetracked here. Oh, so anyway, what I was saying is we had a discussion here, and going through the finance committee report, and to my colleague here from Douglas County, and in view of that it is baseball season, it is Friday, we're going to have a little bit of fun today, we're probably going to extra innings this afternoon. We are, I think everybody's busy, but we're going to have a little bit of fun here, because we're going to get started. I move L011 to 1222 and request that properly be displayed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So in honor of baseball, the Great Babe Ruth, here we go. Call our shot. We are swinging for the bleachers. We are kicking off this season here on Friday with this amendment. And what this amendment is going to drive at is in the deductions here on the committee report, we took out the interest. Now everybody's going to say, what does interest matter? Well, if you're in a business or if you're buying a home, interest matters a lot. When HR1 was passed and it passed down a lot of these direct cuts to the businesses, this took effect immediately. Businesses now have that ability where they can deduct it. Yet what we're trying to do here is reverse that. Now let's ask ourselves, what happens when we reverse interest cuts? What does that do to a business? If a business is allowed to deduct that, what does that usually spur? It usually spurs investment. What are the critical sectors that we're looking at? We have energy, transportation, manufacturing, and real estate. Because businesses, unless they're working virtually, They usually have a brick and mortar. They get out there, they need to buy something, they need to invest, they need to market. We've had a lot of debate over energy. There's huge sectors in that where this comes into play. Yet we are going to, in the committee report, talking about not doing that. This amendment is saying let's strike that. And we want to strike it because we want to give businesses the opportunity to continue to write off that interest immediately. That spurs their growth. It spurs their ability to raise capital and get out there and do more things with that capital. The number one reason businesses fail is because of lack of capital. Capital has to be spent on many things Payroll taxes and interest Interest if you look at your mortgage statement if you own a home is probably the biggest chunk of it If you buy a car, your interest payment is a significant chunk on that. If you have student loans, interest is a significant chunk of that. Business is no different. Businesses, when they buy equipment, when they have things that they need to do their job, to serve the community or build whatever it is they're building, they need to write off that interest. That is what we are trying to achieve here. We have passed so many regulations that are anti-business. 1222 is another one of them. We urge an aye vote on this amendment to strike that, to give the businesses some more breathing room and continue to be able to write off their interests. We urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Rep. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The reason why that amendment was brought in finance in the first place is because we needed to give DOR the ability to calculate for inflation in the future that was based on AGI. And if we were to amend this, it's not actually amending what they're hoping to amend, which is the decoupling entire section. It's really just amending an opportunity for the DOR to be able to be a little bit better and their calculations. I ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Chair. All right. To start, talking about House Bill 26-1221, I'd like to talk about 1222 to the bill. Thank you. We're on the committee report. To the committee report, I would like to start talking about by starting in 1221. And the reason for it is because of the EFAC that we're talking about here. The bill requires the amount of revenue generated from the modifications of the two

I am.

Okay. Absolutely. That's why I said.

Go ahead. Well, this is like the prequel. So in order to understand, and I don't know the full analogy. So in order to understand the actual movie, we have to understand the prequel a little bit here. And that would be 1221, which directly addresses my amendment to the committee report for 1222, because in 1221, and then we also would have 1223, the revenue generated from the modifications of the two current state expenditures and the creation of the new corporate income tax to be reduced by the expanded child income tax credit. So weird. We're talking about the EFAC, this new EFAC in 1222 in the Finance Committee report. But then we're also talking about the same one that happens to be in 1221. And then I think we'll find it again in 1223. And so what it looks like is what we've created, what we, you, have created is a brand new expenditure of the tax revenue that is created in 12, 21, 22, and 23, I think is how that works. And then spending it down through a spending program that's not related to any of those. So you're putting a new business tax on, a new tax, and Mr. Chair, you might be aware that we have a taxpayer bill of rights that requires any new tax to be approved by the taxpayers. Seriously, we have a taxpayer bill of rights that requires any new tax to be approved by the Colorado taxpayer. And here we have in 1221, we have from the creation of a new corporate income tax, so we're introducing a new tax, but in order to keep it secret, the sponsors here in short order, 1221, 1222, 1223, are creating a new tax. spending program in order to hide that revenue. So that doesn't negate the fact that this is a new tax, and this new tax is required to go to the taxpayers, because the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, despite the weeping and gnashing of teeth in the darkness, requires that new taxes be approved by the citizens of Colorado. And then you could take that really good intention and you could explain it to them that what you're doing with this new tax on the business community, what's left of the business community, because they keep leaving. and you keep saying, well, what we want to do is instead of just like, say, lowering taxes, you want to create a new tax, you want to create a new tax structure, and then somehow diverting it into another program to hide it from the taxpayers to keep it from having to go before the taxpayers in the blue book because only the taxpayer bill of rights requires it to go before the taxpayers in the blue book. What you're doing is simultaneously creating a spending program to spend that gain down. So let's look at, I move House Bill, I move L012 to House Bill 26-1222 and ask that it be displayed to the Finance Committee report. Whatever I said, that was what I meant.

because what we have is we have, we really have multiple ideas here. We have multiple concerning the modification of tax expenditures and connection thereof, making additions to the definition of federal taxable income, and, oh, there's that weird word again, and creating the family affordability credit. Now, some of you out there would think that this is actually two bills, that this would be two separate bills because it's concerning the modification of tax expenditures and... And once upon a time, there was this creative process that was required to say, if you have to use an and, it's two separate bills. So when I said it was two separate bills, now I have to correct myself, because concerning the modification of tax expenditures and in connection therewith making additions to the definition of federal income tax for tax years commencing after January 1, 2027, and creating the family affordability credit. So you'll note with two ands, what you're actually doing is you're joining three bills. You're joining three bills into one bill and definitely violating the idea of a single subject bill. And perhaps we'll deal with that at a different point. But we're talking about the committee report, Mr. Chair,

Well the amendment to the committee report But thank you Anything further on the amendment Yeah So let talk about the amendment The amendment description is to strike the new family affordability credit the EFAC completely and allowing any revenue gains to go to the general fund. Right? Because what we have is we have, that's a separate bill. The EFAC, the creation of the EFAC, is a separate bill, should be a separate bill, if we were to be, say, I don't know, following the rules of the chamber in single-subject bills. And, I mean, and again, like I said, this is not two bills, this is three. This is three bills. So strike the new expanded family affordability credit, EFAC, completely, allowing the revenue gains to go to the general fund. If you're going to raise taxes, if the majority party wants to raise taxes, they shouldn't subsequently hide it. Now, I get it. This is an end around to try to create a progressive tax code, the means of getting rid of the middle class. I get that. But the rules of the game that we play by are that this money should go to the general fund and add voter approval because this is a tax increase. This bill is a tax increase. It doesn't matter that you spend all the money cleverly in the bill while simultaneously raising the taxes. This is a tax increase, and per the taxpayer bill of rights, this needs to go before the voter. So a description of the tax code item. The bill creates a new EFAC, a refundable child tax credit layered on top of existing state credit, child tax credit. So we're going to take this EFAC and stack it on top of the CTC, the child tax credit, earned income tax credit, EITC, and the family affordability tax credit. So we're going to put this EFAC and build it on top of the CTC, the EITC, and the Family Affordable Tax Credit, the FATC. And that's what this amendment does?

Okay.

Legislative council staff must set a per child dollar amount each December so that the total EFAC credits in the next tax year are projected exactly equal to the extra revenue raised from the tax increase provisions in the bill. The what?

So the bill creates a spending program, so it creates a tax program, which is a new tax, which needs to have voter approval under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. So hopefully, like the Chamber of Commerce is paying attention to this new tax increase that is just essentially zeroed out by creating a new spending program. And it's a new spending program that definitely does not benefit the businesses that are being taxed. So it can't even be conjured up into being a fee for service. This is a tax to give to a special interest group The bill was engineered to appear revenue neutral specifically to dodge the taxpayer bill of rights specifically to avoid the vote to dodge the vote required by the taxpayer bill of rights. The bill is deliberately designed so that it is total, so that its total cost exactly matches the extra revenue raised from the AMT change, executive payback, pay add back, and tighter NOL rules producing a net general fund impact of zero. So here's, so citizens of Colorado, the reason the majority party wants to get rid of the taxpayer bill of rights is so they no longer have to come up with these creative programs like fees and enterprises and things like spending programs on top of new taxes so that they zero out so that they can say they don't need to go before the voters for their new tax because they already created a new spending program to go with it. You can understand how exhausting that is. the machinations that must go on continuously to extract more dollars from the tax widgets of Colorado. Absolutely incredible. And I feel for the majority party because that does have to be exhausting. Under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, broad tax policy changes that increase revenue are supposed to go to the ballot, And this amendment simply restores that principle by requiring voter approval before these tax hikes take effect. These what? These tax hikes take effect. In a tight budget, new revenue should go to core obligations, not pre-committed to a new entitlement formula. And what is that formula? We add a new tax, and then whatever's there, we spend it down to zero so it doesn't look like we've increased spending. The EFAC will hardwire every dollar of new revenue from the executive compensation addback, the AMT change, and the LOL, the NOL tightening into yet another ongoing credit instead of letting the General Assembly weigh those dollars against other pressing needs of the general fund every year. So this is a tax. Admittedly, this is a tax, but unlike a fee where a fee normally goes to actually say, I don't know, paying for the service, a tax generally goes into the general fund and that general fund. So this is a no-kidding tax that the sponsors are treating as a fee because it has a predetermined destination from the general fund. So again, you can understand why this is so exhausting and why the majority party wants to get rid of the taxpayer bill of rights. Because they are tired of having to come up with these creative mechanisms to tax track more of your money. So Colorado's tax credit stack has already exploded. EFAC is a fourth layer. So again, what happens when the General Assembly wants more money? It's, come on, you can say it with me. It's for the children. It's always for the children.

Since 2020, the state...

I'm still explaining the amendment.

To the bill. To the Finance Committee report, absolutely.

This is a really in and I think the citizens of Colorado deserve a really detailed explanation as to how the General Assembly is so creatively circumventing their Taxpayer Bill of Rights because I think it is truly inspiring level of creativity. I mean, it's completely duplicitous, but it is inspiring in its duplicity. Since 2020, the state child-related tax credits have grown from about $72 million a year to

Can we bring it to the amendment?

the amendment to the Finance Committee report to the bill, because I'm talking about striking the EFAC, and the EFAC is layered on top of three other child tax credits, which have grown from $72 million from just the EITC to as much as $1.24 billion a year under current law. With the EITC, state CTC, FATC, and expanded EITC in all place, certs from the Independence Institute, if HB 26, 1221, 1222, 1223 all pass, which we have every reason to expect that they will because the citizens of Colorado still have money and that really causes consternation, the annual revenue hit from these tax credits alone could reach about $1.833 billion in higher revenue years. This is about $500 per filer in lost refunds. So for the citizens of Colorado, if the General Assembly does not spend your taxpayer bill of rights down to zero, which is their intent...

you will lose another $500 out of your refund. Even in low-income years like 2526 will be, the state still loses about $303 million per year from EITC and CTC. Added expanded FATC pushes that floor to $892.5 million per year as a minimum. Even in deficit years, this is up from $72 million. Now, this is probably why the state is so eager to avert so many births, because that's a lot of money. Stacked refundable credits weaken incentives to move up the income ladder. When families receive multiple income-tested benefits at once, SNAP, Medicaid, CHIP, EITC, CTC, FATC, and now the expanded EFAC, which is created in this bill to zero out any gains from the new taxes, the effective marginal tax rate on each extra dollar earnings can exceed 40 to 50 percent. And that's the purpose of the progressive tax code, so that as you earn money, it's taxed at a higher rate to disincentivize you earning higher wages. And if you read Uncle Carl's manifesto, you'll see the progressive income tax is number two right behind the other goal of the majority party, which is the abolition of private property.

I haven't left. Okay.

And so this, Mr. Chair, this is how this applies the EFAC. The EFAC ties back into the overall tax code. And the EFAC, if you'll remember, is part of the amendment that I want to strike out from the committee report because the EFAC is calculated to zero out the new taxes that should... should go to the taxpayers for approval, but it's not because of the creativity of whoever drafted this. So, or even worse off, after losing benefits, reducing the incentive to seek higher paying work or longer hours or making it harder to transition off assistance forever. So, citizens of Colorado who think that they're doing you a favor by layering on this, Just know that the entire purpose of the EFAC and the other programs is to trap you into a level of poverty by actively disincentivizing you moving up the corporate ladder. They'll say it's not. It's for the children. I get it. That's the game. EFAC makes an already complicated child tax credit landscape even more confusing. families in DOR have already have to navigate CTC, EITC, FATC, and the expanded EITC, not just the expanded EFAC, each with different income thresholds, phase-outs, and triggers, because that's how you create a progressive tax code when you have a fair tax code, like a straight tax rate. EFAC adds a highly volatile and technical tax credit, whose per child amounts change every year. Why does it change every year because the entire purpose is to zero out the new taxes that are brought in by the bills that were not voted on by the taxpayers per the taxpayer bill of rights based on the legislative council's forecast on how much revenue is raised from three unrelated corporate tax changes so again it's taking three unrelated tax changes making a change putting it in something completely different so you can say it's for the children put a little tear down the side of your face, have some special music in the background, and say how heartless everybody is. But this violates the Taxpayer Bill of Rights.

Got it. But just for clarity, I was commenting on tactics, not motives. Making communication and administration harder for both families and the department. Conditions on voter approval, 329.2 million. So, Mr. Chair,

No, I think we got it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My colleague from El Paso did neglect to make a baseball reference, but he did take us around the bases. He may have spent some time out in left field, but I want to bring us home with a short quote from the late great Yogi Berra it is deja vu all over again It a good amendment Our government rests on the consent of the governed. This amendment allows those that we govern to consent to this. It gets a little awkward, I know, at times when committee reports come up before there's really any discussion of the bill. Our sponsor was kind enough to step up briefly and make the claim that this bill is needed because of a hole that HR1 blew in our budget. We just passed a budget that we've claimed to be balanced, so it really can't be about that. It is, in effect, about raising revenues to the state, whether we spend them immediately or not. this bill clarifies the fact that we wouldn't be spending them immediately we would just be doing plainly what we are doing which is increasing revenue to the state and tax policy changes that increase revenue to the state require a vote of the people that's what this amendment does i would urge a yes vote if we're going to do this let's do it openly transparently honestly and give the people an opportunity to speak on this i urge a yes vote

Thank you Mr. Chair I just want the House to know that in order to make sure

So in order to not run afoul of Tabor four conditions need to be met. The primary purpose of a policy is to not raise revenue. Any revenue increase is unintended or unavoidable. The revenue impact is incidental to the law's main purpose and the state's authority to collect or retain revenue is not expanded, which is what this bill does. This bill is revenue neutral. It is not a tax increase. Therefore, we ask for a no vote on this amendment to the Finance Committee report.

Chair, thank you. Actually, that is exactly the point, that the bill was engineered to appear revenue neutral and specifically to dodge a vote that would be required by the good taxpayers of Colorado under the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights. This is a fourth layer, an unnecessary layer that you can also argue starts to produce some diminishing returns when you start to stack these things up. When families are receiving multiple income-tested benefits at once, SNAP, Medicaid, EITC, CTC, FATC, and now potentially the fourth layer of ETAC, the effective marginal rate on each extra dollar earnings can exceed 40-50% as benefits phase down. That means a modest raise or promotion can leave a family only slightly better off. All of these also mean pretty much families, hardworking families of Colorado can expect when all of this is combined about $500 less each year in taxpayer bill of rights refunds. Now I know that we've already kind of raided from the future to pay for the now, but in a world where we were honoring truly the taxpayers' bill of rights, that's what families could expect This is engineered to appear revenue neutral It is engineered essentially to be deceptive And repealing the ETAAC that this amendment does at least inject some more truth and some clarity into the conversation. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Chair. I think the sponsor made my point as to why we need this amendment. This bill was engineered to circumvent, to circumnavigate the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. So this bill is not just about this bill. This is about the precedent of every subsequent tax increase. Because if we say that this is because we have simultaneously created a spending program with a new tax, a spending program with a new tax, and a tax generally goes to the general fund. And how is it done? Well, because these things are unrelated, there's an and and an and. three bills turned into one to create and make it revenue neutral. So it is raising revenue and it is spending revenue by violating the single subject rule. So citizens of Colorado, tax widgets of Colorado, the taxpaying widgets of Colorado, you can expect this bill, these three bills, in similar fashion until you have no money. So businesses of Colorado, you can expect these three bills over and over until you flee Colorado because it has become the most taxed and most regulatory state because that is clearly the goal. It is clearly the goal. Now, I understand the sponsor has some place to be, but this is the bill they chose to run. This is the three bills they chose to run. And this will continue to violate the citizens of Colorado.

I'm sorry, what?

The reason that we need this amendment is because we need to strip the spending portion from the revenue generation portions, portions the two new taxes, the multiple taxes that are in this bill. We need to strip those from the spending program because it violates the single subject rule. And we need to send the bill to the citizens of Colorado, the taxpaying widgets of Colorado, to ask them if they would like to further punish the business community to the point of driving them out of Colorado. Is that really what the citizens of Colorado want? The General Assembly, the majority party of the General Assembly, clearly wants that. Do the citizens of Colorado want that? We have headquarters leaving. We talked about a couple of them yesterday.

accept the fact that maybe the citizens of Colorado would do better by having some more money in their own pockets. Maybe the businesses of Colorado would do better. do better because again the money that's taken out and the money that's spent through government this is money that is going to be taken out for the children is going to be processed through non-profits. It's going to be processed through all kinds of ways to launder that money. But what it's not going to do is it's not going to benefit the economy and the other purpose of these type of programs is to lock families into poverty. We need to separate these things. We need to separate these things and talk about them and have them approved by the taxpayers per the Taxpayer Bill of Rights and stop insulting the citizens of Colorado by trickery. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The sponsor was kind enough to rattle off a list of items that have to be true in order to meet the requirements of Tabor, one of which was that the revenue generated be incidental to the purpose of the bill. The revenue generated is actually the purpose of the bill. It is in the title of the bill. This is not incidental. Also claim that it would not be required if there was no revenue and then redefined revenue is net zero. This bill starts a new program. it's a program that provides tax credits, refundable tax credits, that costs money. That is an expense to the state. If there is an expense to the state and the net is zero, you need to have revenue to the state increase in order to cover that. This is, in fact, a bill that increases revenue and it is not incidental to the purpose of this bill. It's not de minimis either, but we'll probably talk about that later today. This is a good amendment. pass the amendment. Let's be honest. Let the people decide whether they want to consent

Mr. Chair. House Bill 1222 is being brought before you to make sure that our state tax code is written by us. Last summer, HR 1 made major changes to the federal tax code, and because of the way we are tied to the federal taxes, it made big changes to our own tax code without any of us voting for it or on it. It reduced taxes for businesses in Colorado to the tune of a billion dollars last year, and at the same time blew a billion dollar hole in our budget. And because of that close tie to the federal tax code in Colorado, deductions that businesses make federally can also be used to reduce Colorado's taxable income, even if they are not investments made in Colorado. The bill ensures that our tax base is not reduced from out-of-state investments. Additionally, H.R. 1 caused the Colorado Family Affordability Tax Credit, otherwise known as FATC, to trigger off. Only after one year of impact and in that short year, Colorado had become the lowest state in the country in child poverty. That's a lot to be proud of. We do not want to reverse that progress. This bill only decouples from four brand-new or brand-new expanded tax breaks under H.R. 1, meaning that businesses will still be able to claim most of those provisions at their pre-H.R. 1 levels. And in a bit, we'll go into the four different, or I'll just start. There's four different provisions. The first one is bonus depreciation deduction, otherwise known as 168K. This is the bonus depreciation deduction for qualified property. And this deduction is a tax rule that lets businesses write off the cost of certain equipment or property much faster than normal. For instance, if a business buys something very expensive like a piece of equipment, The IRS usually makes you spread that deduction over several years, which is regular depreciation. Bonus depreciation allows you to take a bigger chunk of that deduction right away. And in H.R. 1, it actually allows you to take 100% of that purchase cost as deduction in the same year you buy it. And after H.R. 1, making that 100% bonus depreciation permanent, that's what it did. It made it permanent. And so that particular one is for things that businesses buy, and our bill would require businesses to add back that deduction for state tax purposes, meaning they can still take the federal tax deduction. Second one is depreciation for qualified property deduction, 168N. This one is the qualified production property deduction aimed at manufacturing facilities. This provision allows businesses to immediately deduct 100% of the cost of certain manufacturing buildings in the year that they're placed in service. H.R. 1 created this new deduction that did not exist before. So our bill would require businesses to add back this deduction for state tax purposes and realize that we're not the only state that is doing this sort of decoupling from the federal tax code. Already 13 other states have decoupled from this particular provision. And I'll turn it over to my glorious co-prime sponsor to continue. Thank you. Rob Garcia.

Thank you, Representative. It is an honor to do this bill with you. The other two pieces that we are adjusting in this bill is the research and experimental expenditures deduction. So this is the Section 174A deduction that lets businesses deduct research and development costs. Under the TCJA, those costs had to be spread out over five years, and what H.R. 1 did was reverse the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act requirement to amortize research costs, allowing immediate expensing for domestic R&A expenditures rather than amortizing over five years. This bill would require businesses to add back this deduction for state tax purposes. The deduction allows businesses to deduct the research and experimental expenses to reduce their tax liability and HR1 allows businesses to now immediately deduct the cost of R expenses So deducting decoupling from this protects Colorado and it protects our tax base And it ensures investments outside of Colorado don't shrink state revenue. Thirteen other states have already decoupled or modified this particular provision. And the last thing that we're adjusting in this is the business expense deduction limitation 163J. This is an important piece that we need to address because business interest expenses are generally deductible, but there is a limit on how much businesses can decrease their tax liability with business interest. The TCJA limited this deduction to the sum of its business interest income, 30% of its adjusted taxable income, and floor plan financing interest. HR1 expanded this limitation. They expanded this limitation by the calculation for allowable deductible interest. So the law says that you have to multiply your adjusted taxable income by the limit of 30%. Basically, your deductible interest cannot be worth more than 30% of your ATI to ensure debt finance companies are incentivized to have a lot of interest. Now, before H.R.1, you calculated your ATI without depreciation expenses. H.R.1 allows companies to add depreciation expenses to their ATI, making it higher, and therefore making your allowed deductible interest, which should be 30% of your ATI, actually higher. 16 other states have decoupled or modified this provision and that's what that is I want to just address really quick I know that my co-prime sponsor talked a little bit about throughout the amendment phase around TABOR compliance in this bill the reality and the fact is that this bill does not increase net revenue It offsets revenue gains from expenditure reductions with the family affordability credit. Besides that, tax policy changes that are incidental and de minimis are still allowed under Tabor case law, both in RTD versus Tabor Foundation and now under Lakewood versus Metro PCS, the new tax issues. Under Tabor, Colorado cannot enact a tax rate increase, new tax or tax policy change that raises net new revenue without voter approval. and this bill is not a net increase or a new tax. It is a tax policy change. The businesses who will no longer be able to take advantage of these HR1 increased or new deductions have not yet even had the opportunity yet. So we are not taking away any savings that these businesses would have already had. Because all revenue is raised, it goes directly to fund the FAC, and it doesn't go to increasing revenue or to the general funds. It goes from one tax policy to another tax policy. And so now I will turn it to my co-prime to talk about specifically the family affordability credit.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, and the reason why this is an important part of this bill is, as I mentioned in my opening, that H 1 turned off the Family Affordability Tax Credit And so in this bill we want to make sure that that great progress that we have made in our state continues And the de minimis changes that this bill will see will go into the family affordability credit. And this is a permanent version of this credit, so it won't have that trigger mechanism that was in the original credit. So this newly created FAC will mirror the FATC in terms of the same eligibility and the same kind of distribution. And the benefits will be based on how much is raised by the changes to the decoupling changes in this bill. this in effect will create a bridge between now and when the FATC turns back on, which is really important for the families and the kids that we have supported with the FATC. I think that's it. We urge an aye vote on the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, colleagues. Sponsors have a very interesting view of their own bill and the basis of it and what preceded it. H.R. 1 did not turn off a state tax credit. That state tax credit was turned off because we passed a law that said it would be paid out of Tabor excess. We didn't have Tabor excess, not solely because of any changes in H.R. 1, but because of a plethora of bills that have damaged the economic engine of this state. A few years back, we were generating $3 to $4 billion in excess. H.R. 1 may have taken $600 million to $800 million off the table, but if we had not been sitting here sowing the seeds of our own destruction, that smaller loss of revenue still wouldn't have made much of an impact. We would have had $24 to $3.5 billion to still work with to still pay that tax credit. To stand here repeatedly and blame a decision of the federal government for our current economic problems is easy, but it is wrong. Sponsor began by lamenting that we didn't even get a chance to vote on H.R. 1. Well, voting on tax change policy is a good thing, and we should have afforded that to our citizens with the amendment that did not pass earlier. But that's not why I'm up here right now to talk. I have a lot of concerns about the bill, but I'm very, very concerned about the changes to the deductions surrounding research and development. As I said earlier, we have continuously passed laws here that damage our economy, that damage our ability to create future revenue in this state. R is incredibly important The social returns of R far exceed the commercial returns on it There is so much that turning off this tax credit harms that I could go on for a long time but I'm not going to. I just want to kind of summarize a little bit here that cutting back R&D incentives is incredibly short-sighted. We pride ourselves in this state as having a high-tech economy. And that wasn't built by accident. It was built by innovators, engineers, manufacturers, energy tech companies, and startups that decided that Colorado was a great place to come and take a risk, to hire talent, to test ideas, to commercialize and profit off their discoveries. When they profit, we tax, we get revenue. We're taking that future revenue away. Research and development isn't a loophole. It's the front end of economic growth. It should be incentivized. It should not be punished. When we punish basic research and development, we do not just reduce a tax credit. We tell high-tech employers that we see them only as a current cash cow. We signal we don't care about their future. And if we don't care about their future, I don't think they need to be caring about the future of this state. Why should they participate in our future? Why don't they leave? We've seen them leaving because of current tax policy. Now we're going to pile on more. In the short term, this means fewer projects, fewer hires, fewer expansions, and more pressure to move investment to states that are actively competing for the jobs that are currently here in Colorado. Oh, I told my aide to. These changes don't just hurt faceless companies. They hurt the workforce in Colorado. They hurt the people in Colorado. In the long term, that's even worse. today's R&D becomes tomorrow's patents tomorrow's products, tomorrow's new spin-off companies it's future payroll, it's future property investment, it's future income tax that those workers earn as well as those companies earn that come back to the state that we can use for programs that we need. This change is very short-sighted and I move L-008 to 1222 and ask that it be displayed.

Thank you very much. If you read the amendment and you're not following along in your bill, this amendment doesn't mean much to you. but I will tell you that it strikes the provision in this bill that eliminates the research and development section 174A expenses that HR1 had made changes to. But I just want to repeat at the end here that R&D investments create higher social returns than private returns. The public, on average, realizes more gains from R&D through better projects, better products, higher productivity, and quality of life improvements than the investing firm actually brings in in profit. Firms typically earn around... 10 to 20 percent return on R&D, while the social return is roughly double that or more. That gap is why economists say markets tend to under-invest in R&D and why tax incentives or public support are usually justified to correct that under-investment. Removing this incentive apparently is de minimis. it's a mere 60.8 million dollars and if that's de minimis i'll pick up that check any day de minimis changes in this bill is what we heard so i think it would be wise to waive this de minimis 60.8 million dollars and allow these companies to innovate to improve our quality of life to hire people in this state to expand our tax base and get us back to where we could afford to provide to the people of this state without first tearing money out of the pockets of people that have been working so hard to earn it. Please support this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to just make it clear to all the great research and development companies that are in our state doing wonderful things, that this deduction does not go away. You can keep doing your deduction as you have been. That's what our bill does. It just keeps it the way it is right now. It's not taking it away. It's just you can't do it all in one year. You can do it over the five years like you've always been doing. So it does not have any kind of chilling effect to our research and development communities. Just keep doing your good work. Keep taking the deductions as you have been previous to now.

Chair, thank you. I, naturally, I suppose you probably would assume that I'm going to push back on that a little bit as far as particularly the not having a chilling effect. increasing taxes on R&D punishes the highest return investments. Of course, it's going to have a chilling effect on R&D. It does have an impact. And if anything, if we want more of the higher-end wage jobs in Colorado, we should be, again, I'm going to use the word, providing an incentive, not decentivizing the R&D. We should provide the incentive. If we want more R&D and high-wage jobs in Colorado, we should not be singling out domestic research costs to be treated in a worse manner or a more unfair manner. The chilling effect is indeed that. It's not okay taking away, but there's a vast difference in the scope of whether we're going to take it away, whether or not we're going to increase taxes and make it more difficult, it creates a chilling effect. We can't say that the only chilling effect is to schwack something. What we're doing here is indeed creating a chilling effect. What this amendment does is to try to address that, to try to reverse that, to try to recognize the impact that we having and try to say you know what let not do that Let not shoot ourselves in the foot when it comes to R and what that brings to Colorado I ask for an aye vote

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So let's do a little bit of math here. Yes, it currently sits at, well, right now it's at 12 months, one year. You want to say let's go back to five years, which is 60 months. If you're a business and you're doing research and development, you have to spend the money now. You don't get the luxury of going, you know, I need you to do my R&D work, but I'll pay you five years later when I can deduct this off of my taxes. That's not how businesses operate. So it's absolutely ludicrous to say it doesn't hurt the businesses, because it does. If you're a business and you're doing pouring money into research and development, which is what we want to do to spur growth, which is the whole point of how we get more revenue into the state, you want to do that now. not spread it over a five-year time frame. So if you invest in your R&D right now, then you should be able to deduct it right now, all in that same year versus spreading it out over five years. That costs more to the business because it allows them to deduct less. Therefore, they either need more capital, as I spoke about earlier, or they have to delay things. To sit here and think that you can spread something out over five years versus doing it within one year and think that it doesn't have any kind of negative impact simply doesn't work in the math world. It just, from an accounting perspective, you have to do it now. If you're spending the money, be allowed to deduct it. That was the whole point of writing the deductions to be able to do the R&D in that year. Businesses need the capital. So if they're going to spend it on R&D, they need to be able to write it off when they spend it versus waiting over five years to spend it and then recouping it. The point of doing that is so they can not only get it back in that year as a tax deduction, but also look at what's going to go later on for the growth. Because then the state wins. If all we cared about was the revenue, we'd still want to support this amendment and do it right now because then the business is out there making more money. And that brings in more tax revenue. And then its employees have more payroll taxes. It's a win-win.

Thank you, Chair. The idea that these new taxes, this new tax revenue program, which is, of course, handled by the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, completely separate from new spending programs. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights only deals with the revenue generation side, The spending part is part of the cap. But these businesses, when you say that they have not realized these, these businesses have already planned on these. These businesses have planned their R&D budgets, and their R&D budgets are based on this. So they might have put more money into research and development, and research and development is where you get all of the benefits that create new businesses, create business growth in Colorado, and then along come the sponsors and say, we're going to take that away for the children. Not necessarily for the children of Coloradans, but for the children. So it is disingenuous to say that they have not realized these tax things these tax provisions because they have been budgeting on these tax provisions So linking a program increase, Colorado linking its program tax increases to every federal tax increase, that was pretty convenient. Then it was out of their hands, we have to raise taxes, the feds raise taxes, we get more taxes. that was going to go on forever. Then it changed. And now the majority party is upset because the tax widgets of Colorado still have money. The businesses of Colorado still have money. The businesses have not been regulated into oblivion, I mean into other states yet. I'm not questioning motive. I'm just presenting facts. Thanks for that clarification. Thank you. I thought you would appreciate that. So they have budgeted for these. So I ask for an aye vote on this amendment and stop trying to destroy the business community in Colorado.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We can't have it every way we want to have it. Every time we come to the podium, we have a different story on why something is not what it is, or something is nothing, or nothing has become something. This is something. We are essentially, by amortizing over the four years, removing that ability to expense in the first year, removing cash flow that so many small startups need when they are innovating, and stretching it out over that four-year period, pretty much demanding that these businesses give the state a tax-free loan so we can embark on some other new process, new tax credit that we want to do. This is, frankly, a little frustrating. We argue that things are de minimis. We argue that they're only incidental to what we're doing. But then we have to have it now. It's de minimis, but we've got to have that de minimis amount right now. You can't have it. You can't use it to build your business. You can't use it to innovate. You can't use it to create things for the good of our society, actually creating things, not just taking things and giving them back and claiming it's good for society. this amendment at least preserves a little bit of seed corn for the future rather than the state eating it now. Let our companies build their future. We depend on them to employ people, except for the vast number of people that now work for government, but we depend on them to employ the majority of Coloradans. In order to do that, they need to thrive and grow. So this R&D money is incredibly important to small, innovating startup companies. That cash flow that it provides is so much more important to them and the future of this state than establishing another new tax credit that we likely won't be able to afford. Please vote yes on this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move amendment L10 and ask that it properly be displayed.

This amendment strikes the provisions requiring equipment 168K expenses to be expensed over a longer timeline than federal tax policy allows. Let's just state what this bill actually does. It punishes businesses for investing in Colorado. When a manufacturer buys new equipment, they're not just making a purchase. They're making a commitment. They're expanding capacity. They're preparing to hire workers. They're betting on a state's future. Instead, this bill forces businesses to pay Colorado taxes on money they've already spent, money invested in equipment, facilities, and growing the benefits of Colorado, money that won't be recovered for probably 10, 20, maybe even 30 years. A small manufacturer invests $500,000 in new machinery. Under this bill, they pay Colorado taxes on the full amount immediately, then recover the deduction at $50,000 per year for the next 10 years. You know what that is? It's a penalty for investing here. This bill kills innovation. Colorado has spent years recruiting biotech companies, aerospace firms, and technology startups. These industries invest millions in research and development. This bill taxes companies for doing that research. The biotech firm spends $2 million developing a new treatment. Under this bill, they'll owe Colorado tax on a big share of that investment in year one. Income they never actually put in the bank. They're literally punishing companies for innovating in Colorado. Why would they stay? Why would they choose over 29 other states that don't impose this burden? This bill also creates a compliance nightmare. Every business that invests in equipment or conducts research must now maintain two separate depreciation schedules, one for federal taxes and one for Colorado. For some assets, that means 38 years of separate record keeping, more accountants, software, time, and a higher risk of being penalized. A lot of businesses don't have armies of tax lawyers. They have one accountant trying to keep up with regulations that change every session. Why make the system more complex? Businesses are leaving Colorado, and we have the data to prove that. The Colorado Chamber Foundation just released a report showing that since 2019, 98 companies have left Colorado or choose to expand elsewhere. 27 of those left just this year 27 of those just left this year alone those relocations cost Colorado over 13,600 jobs this bill is just another reason for companies to leave why must we pass another bill that screams Colorado doesn't value the business that creates jobs and invests in our communities the The bill's own language admits that it goes after, quote, large and capital intense businesses, manufacturers, builders, major employers who invest billions and provide thousands of good-paying jobs here in Colorado. These are the companies our communities depend on. These are the employers our workers need, and we're driving them away. You don't help families by taxing away the jobs they depend on. You don't make Colorado more affordable by making it more expensive to do business here. When companies leave, families lose their paychecks, their health insurance, and their stability. This bill tells every business in America, don't invest in Colorado, don't expand here, don't innovate here, we'll make you pay for it. When a company is deciding where to build their next facility, where to locate their research operations, where to create their next hundred jobs, this bill prices Colorado out of consideration. Our workers deserve better. Our communities deserve better. For this, I ask for a no vote, or I'm sorry, because of this, I ask for a no vote on this bill and ask that you adopt this amendment. Thank you.

Representative Brooks Chair thank you I also rise to support this amendment and just a brief recap this will strike the provision that requires expenses business expenses would be expensed over a longer timeline than what federal tax policy allows. I was chatting with my colleague over here about equipment. I remember reading something very recently that a 250 or 350 level truck actually is not a regular vehicle at that point. I don't know if you realize this, but actually that is in a luxury class. That is one of the most popular luxury vehicles in the country. It's a work vehicle. But it's a luxury vehicle by classification virtue of the price of that vehicle. It's expensive. News reports, you can blame whoever you want to blame. Whatever is what it is, but the news reports that I've seen show that vehicle costs are probably going to increase even more. So why would we force that deduction spread over a number of years when a lot of these vehicles, and I'm just talking about one vehicle specifically, but just equipment in general has to be spread over such a long period of time. Full expensing for equipment, widely described as a major cash flow and competitiveness boost for manufacturers, contractors, logistical firms, farmers, small businesses that regularly buy machinery, that equipment, those vehicles. It's important for them to be able to have that expense. It's important for them to be able to take that deduction immediately, not amortized over an agonizingly long period of time, especially with the cost of what everything is running these days. Replacing immediate expensing with a 10-year, 10-year over an immediate amortization program at the state level raises that effective Colorado tax cost of investing in equipment, which, again, I ask repeatedly, and I'll continue to do so, that we look at the long-term impacts, that we consider the long-term effects of the policy that we are considering most likely passing. I ask for a consideration of that because what we're doing is pushing marginal projects towards states that will mirror the federal tax code There is no obligation for these companies to either come to Colorado there no obligation for these companies to stay and continue to operate their businesses in Colorado Folks, we are going to continue to lose businesses. Through these deaths by a thousand tax cuts, may seem simple, but these add up. Even this alone is something that I believe is impactful in a very negative way. When the businesses go, so do the jobs. Can't have it both ways. You have to look at the long-term impacts of what we're considering. This, very likely, and I'm not being hyperbolic, this can very likely push businesses from the state, and when the businesses leave the state, so do the jobs. So does the ability, so goes the ability for the hardworking families of Colorado to be able to put food on the table. I ask for a yes on this amendment.

Rep. Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just, you know, we talked about why this was necessary in the opening, and I just asked for a no vote. Thank you.

Representative Graff. Thank you, Chair. Just to avoid belaboring the point here, there's a lot to unpack. about these three bills, if not three bills, two bills, because concerning the modification of tax expenditures and in connection therewith. I would just like to look at what we're talking about. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights, Article 10, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution, something that we've all taken an oath to support, directly addresses new tax programs. This is a new tax program and a new spending program. It requires advance voter approval for any new tax, tax rate increase, or a tax policy change directly causing a net revenue gain to any district. Now, we've already talked about the creativity of the sponsors or whoever drafted this bill. whoever brought it to the sponsors probably has a logo that looks like a bell this cover new taxes or new tax related programs initiatives that would increase net tax revenue introducing a new tax broadening the tax base closing loopholes that result in higher collections tax cuts, credits or policies that reduce net revenue do not trigger this requirement. Tax cuts, credits, or policies that reduce net revenue do not trigger this requirement. The provision is designed to give voters a direct say. Crazy. That whole taxation with representation, I know, anathema, weeping and gnashing of teeth. The provision is designed to give voters a direct say before governor expands its taxing authority Weird Weird Because this expands the government taxing authority What about a tax, if a tax program won of net revenue gain is offset by spending increase, that does not remove the voter approval requirement. the voter approval rule in the Taxpayer Bill of Rights subsection 4A looks only, only, at the revenue impact of the tax policy change itself. It is independent of how the money is later spent or subsequently spent. And in this case, it is later spent. You create, or, well, you have 1221, you have that bill, you have 1223, you have that bill, and then you have 1222, those three bills, these three bills before us right now. It is independent of how the money is later spent on whether overall spending rises, spending increases are governed by the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, separate fiscal year spending limits, inflation plus population over local growth with adjustments. If new tax revenue pushes total collections above the spending limit, then the excess must normally be refunded to the taxpayers as the following year unless voters separately approve retaining it as an offset. But you still need voter approval first to enact the new tax or revenue-gaining policy change. Spending the new revenue or pairing it with higher spending does not create an exemption or a net-zero workaround in the tax approval side. In short, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, the bane of the majority party in tax-tracting citizens into poverty, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights treats the tax revenue side of the spending side as distinct hurdles. A new revenue-raising tax program still needs its own voter referendum, regardless of spending plans. Local governments and the state have used this process for decades on measures ranging from sales taxes to marijuana taxes. The exact wording of the tax policy change and its projected net revenue impact would determine whether a ballot measure is required. but let's go to the beginning. This covers new tax programs, initiatives that would increase revenue. New tax, broadening the tax base, or closing loopholes that result in higher collections. This bill does that. What about the spending? And that requires taxpayer approval. What about the spending? The voter approval in the Taxpayer Bill of Rights Section 4A looks only at the revenue impact itself. Doesn't really address the spending. It is independent of how the money is later spent and whether overall spending rises. Spending increase, of course, if the General Assembly increases taxes, it's going to spend that money. Duh. That's what the General Assembly does. Spending increases are governed by taxpayer bill of rights, separate fiscal gear spending limits. This is two bills. This is really three bills. This is really more like four bills because you have 221, 223. You also have 1289. 1289. that are all designed to circumvent the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, to circumvent the tax widgets of Colorado, to try to get, and if you say, well, it's coming out of businesses that have budgeted for these, what you're saying is you're taking it out of the wages of Coloradans. You're taking it out of the bonuses of Coloradans. You're taking it out of the jobs of Coloradans. Because eventually these jobs leave. One, because they can't afford to be here. And two, they can't afford to keep jumping through hoops as the rules of the tax program change halfway through the tax year. So I ask for a ruling of the chair. This is multiple bills, and it should go back. Well, it should be set on fire and returned from whence it came. But I ask for a ruling of the chair on this being multiple bills. We'll take a brief recess.

Representative DeGraff. Okay, citizens of Colorado, your tax policy has just been majorly changed by these bills. by this multiple bills. So in order to explain that to the citizens of Colorado, because we're talking about 1222, it has been ruled that whatever is said on this title is in fact a single subject. And the only way to challenge a single subject, whether this is a single subject or not, is to take it to court. So the ruling of the circumvention of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights to negate your taxpayer bill of rights, which in itself is a significant tax policy change, has been decided today. So what you've created for the children is the death of the taxpayer bill of rights because I can guarantee you that every single bill coming forward, it will be a tax increase with a commensurate spending increase to make sure that you do not get a say in the tax policy of Colorado per the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. So this is a historic day for the Bell Policy Center. So citizens of Colorado that clanging bell that ringing bell is not liberty That bell tolls for thee Oh, okay. It's a big day for them anyways. So the government taketh, and then the government giveth away. That is the rule now of the Colorado General Assembly of the gold-domed cesspool. Okay, so Colorado, what else did you sign up for today? What else did you vote for today? Because the sponsors said people didn't vote for those tax decreases. They didn't vote for that $300 million to be re-infused into the economy of Colorado. So they took it away.

They didn't vote on the taxes, So they took away those taxes, overtime tips, and had them reimposed. Now they're taking the taxes that were changed.

Absolutely, Madam Chair. I understand why that would be a personal subject for you.

policy tax changes. And once upon a time we took these major policy tax changes to the citizens of Colorado because we have something called Title 10, Article 20, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. Today you saw the death. from the people who swore an oath to support that. Linking the tax program to a tax increase was convenient when it was a federal tax increase. And now so what we've done is the sponsors of this bill have said, because those definitions changed at the federal level, those tax levels changed, then they're going to change the definitions here in Colorado, decoupling them from the federal tax definitions, which is in itself a significant tax change. But because they came up with a special spending program for the children, so you can say that with music and tears, because they have a special program for spending that down to zero. So once again, the purpose of spending is taxation. I often say that a little bit cynically, but here it's proof. The purpose of spending is taxation. The purpose of increasing the spending for ESFAC is to justify more taxation. The purpose of this spending is taxation Proof positive Multiple states have modified these provisions Yeah multiple states are also unable to constrain their spending Absolutely unable to constrain their spending. And where do they take it out on? Do they rein in their spending? Do they find that $285 million worth of fraud, the $40 million, the other $40 million? Nope. They take it out of the pockets of the citizens of Colorado or their own respective states. and tax them more with celebration. It's de minimis. I guarantee you the next one won't be. It's a tax policy change. As the sponsor said, it's one tax policy offset by another tax policy. Both of them require going before the taxpayer to taxpayers, and yet suddenly, with a wave of the magic wand, they don't.

Is there any further discussion?

Representative DeGraff.

The amendment is before us. Please proceed.

Representative Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair. I ask for a no vote. Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the passage of Amendment L14. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The no's have it. L14 is lost. To the bill, Representative Brooks.

Representative Richardson.

Representative Luck.

That is a proper motion. the motion before this body is to adjourn all those in favor say aye all those opposed no the noes have it the motion fails to the bill is there any further discussion Seeing none the question before us is the passage of House Bill 1222 All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. House Bill 1222 passes.

Madam Majority Leader. We're good. Hold on. She's laying it over. Okay. Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to lay over Senate Bill 150 to after 1230.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1289. House Bill 1289 by Representatives Garcia and Brown, also Senator Weissman, concerning modification of certain tax expenditures.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to give a quick thank you to the bill sponsors for their work on this bill, specifically that last amendment that was mentioned where they are expanding the earned income tax credit to make sure that we're covering folks over the age of 65. Right now, if you're over the age of 65, both at the federal level and at the state level, You don't qualify for the earned income tax credit, even though you're a working senior trying to make ends meet. And as we've seen with previous bills that we've passed, the earned income tax credit, the family affordability tax credit, these are tax credits that have proven something very clearly, and that is that poverty is a policy choice. When we passed and expanded those bills in the past, childhood poverty got cut by nearly 40% overnight. That is something we should be extremely proud of. Unfortunately, too many of our seniors are barely able to make ends meet. They have to work. They should qualify for the same tax credits. And so I want to thank the bill sponsors. I want to thank Representative Zocay, who was my co-prime sponsor on our effort this year to try to bring that bill. Just grateful overall for the work that we're doing. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to also take a moment and thank the sponsors for including this key provision that was added this morning in Appropriations Committee to remove the maximum age limit for the earned income tax credit. More and more older Americans are working later in life, and it is not because they want to. It's because they have to. Nearly one in five Americans age 65 and older are still in the workforce, and they cite rising costs, stagnant wages, and growing wealth inequality, which has left far too many older Americans without the retirement security that they were promised. In fact, today nearly half of older Americans have no retirement savings at all. So what this addition did is allow the earned income tax credit to be eligible to more people. Currently for the EITC, you must be a resident who is working, earning a low to moderate income, and otherwise meet the federal EITC eligibility rules. It is a credit designed specifically to support people who are working but still struggling to make ends meet, and it is one of the most effective anti-poverty policies that we have. And I am very grateful that it is included in this wonderful bill that is before all of us today, because older Americans are facing an economy that no longer works for them. And it is because wealth has concentrated at the top while the cost of living rises for everyone else. And I urge a yes vote on the Appropriations Committee report and to this bill, because it will make a tangible impact on Coloradans' lives.

Okay, just based on the comments, I'm glad that we have a point of agreement in that, And I look back to my previous bills, my efforts to expand the senior and disabled veterans tax credits, property tax credits, and making sure that they were portable and at least partially adjusted for inflation. And those were denied a couple years ago when we did not have the full-up deficit that we have. So I'm going to be interested to see what was done here to do that. But I do agree that we need to provide the citizens of Colorado because they have suffered because of rising costs. And as I pointed out, that under the Biden regime, there was a 22.5% inflation. That meant everybody's buying power degraded, was deflated by about 25%.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I was talking about what you were talking about, that the citizens, I think they said that right, because they were rising costs. Costs rose because of the inflation.

Okay. So you don't want me to talk about 1222 chasing business and jobs out, So I'll move on and I'll let my colleagues speak.

Aye. All those opposed, no. No. The ayes have it. The Appropriations Committee Report passes. To the Finance Committee Report, Representative Garcia.

Is there any further discussion on the Finance Committee report? Rep. Hartsook.

That is a proper motion. One moment. And that amendment is before us. Please proceed.

Rhett Brooks.

Representative Barone.

Representative Brown

Representative DeGraff.

seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the passage of amendment L-59 all those in favor say aye all those opposed no The no's have it. L59 is lost. To the finance committee report, Representative Marshall.

That is a proper motion. and given that this is more than a page i will note that it was received timely

Is there any further discussion on L44?

The question before us is the passage of Amendment L-44 to the Finance Commuter Report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. No. The ayes have it. L-44 passes. To the Finance Commuter Report, is there any further discussion? Rep. Marshall.

That is a proper motion. Please proceed.

Representative DeGraff.

Representative Bradley.

Representative Luck

Representative Soper.

Colorado, because we should really be saying, if we're making other people cut their budgets, we will do the same as a General Assembly. So I appreciate where this amendment is coming from. I think that members should get behind this and say that as we're facing tough economic times, we shouldn't then be accepting a massive pay raise for doing the work. Thank you. Representative Kelty.

Rep DeGraff.

Representative Garcia.

Is there any further representatives of Graff?

Is there any further discussion? Representative Luck.

Rep Soper.

Rep. Marshall.

support. Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is Amendment L-65. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The no's have it. L65 fails To the Finance Commuter Report Is there any further discussion Rep to graph Hey Madam Chair I move L049 to House Bill 26 Are you moving it to the bill or to the Finance Committee Report? To this green paper, the Finance Committee Report. Can I have you restate that motion?

That is a proper motion and the amendment is before us. Please proceed.

Representative Brown.

Rep de Graff.

Representative Luck.

Representative DeGraff.

Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the passage of amendment L49 to the Finance Committee report. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The no's have it. L49 failed. To the Finance Committee report, Representative DeGraff. Thank you, Chair.

The amendment is before us Please proceed I feel like I missing out here in the front row

Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the passage of Amendment L-51. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. No. The noes have it. L-51 is lost. To the Finance Commuter Report Representative DeGraff welcome back Welcome back Madam Chair

That is a proper motion. Please proceed.

All those opposed, no. No. The no's have it. L-53 is lost. To the Finance Committee report, is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of the Finance Committee report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed, say no. The ayes have it. The Finance Committee report passes. To the bill, Representative Garcia.

Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate this And I just want to say what a pleasure it is to be on this bill with my good co-prime, who I think has distinguished herself as one of the great tax experts in this building. And this has been truly a labor of love, and so I just appreciate all of the work that she has put into this bill. You know, this bill is really about making important updates to a range of tax expenditures. We're expanding some, we're limiting others, and we're eliminating certain provisions. And a lot of these are based on recommendations by the Office of the State Auditor and Program Administrators. We're really trying to implement best practices in state taxation policy. Some of our provisions remove rarely used state expenditures. Other provisions implement things related to fuel tax reductions, or they make important changes to certain economic development tax incentives to be more targeted and efficient. We spend a lot of time on federal opportunity zone program and the tax treatment are related to that, and we make some significant changes to this program that are to the benefit of Colorado. So for that, I will turn it over back to my co-prime sponsor and just say that we appreciate your support. Back to you, Rep. Garcia.

Industrial facilities credits. This bill expands the industrial facility tax credit so nonprofits and other non-tax entities can also qualify. The bill also creates a new geothermal energy tax credit, which we almost could have possibly gotten rid of in the amendment, but thank you for holding strong. We also have a heat pump tax credit, which removes the triggers that currently exist, which would cut the credit in half in future low budget years. Heat pumps are major money savers for households, and if we risk this tax credit, we risk the ability for people to be saving up to $18,000 on a heat pump for their home. The electric bicycle tax credit, this bill removes the triggers, which would cut the credits in half in future low-budget years. It's the same concept that folks that need to get around town, can't afford a car, can still get the credit for the e-bike that allows them to get around town. The sustainable aviation fuel. This tax credit we changed from being a tax credit dedicated to establishing refineries or the systems that will create the cleaner air for aviation to a simple tax credit for the purchase of cleaner aviation fuel. Again, thank you for holding strong and not letting this one get repealed either. The beetle kill sales tax exemption. is the provision extends the beetle sales tax exemption to 2031. And the property for use in space sales tax flight exemption, we were going to repeal it. We were going to say see ya because it's not being used at all. However, we heard that it could possibly be used in the future, so we are just putting it on hold for three years, at which point it will turn back on. The fuel tax deduction, this reduces the allowance from 2% to 1% and repeals the 0.5% allowance for special fuel. We already talked at length about the vendor fee alignment, so I'll go ahead and skip that one. The Enterprise Zone Research and Development Credit, this bill limits this again we also talked about it I just repeat it to businesses who spend at least on research and development each year limiting it to the most impactful research and development spending in the Enterprise Zones And our Enterprise Zone vacant building credits. This bill clarifies that buildings that are not rented out for at least 135 of the previous 180 days are eligible, and the maximum credit amount is increased from $50,000 to $200,000 to keep up with construction and labor costs. If you care about how vacant buildings are being used, you would like this. We also removed Liechtenstein from the state's tax haven list. Yay. We cheered. For you. Well, for them, yes. And we also require DOR to conduct a study every few years to revisit our tax haven list and make recommendations. Do you want anything to add? Representative Brown. Thank you. And I just want to add that I just want to appreciate the work of the staff on this particular bill. Mr. Sobetsky and his team in LCS have done an amazing amount of work analyzing the 30 sections of this bill, and there are five different fiscal analysts that are listed on the fiscal note. So I think it goes without saying that our LCS staff is phenomenal, and on this bill they have really distinguished themselves. Representative Garcia. Thank you so much for saying that, Representative. And I want to just second that even to the dedication that the fiscal analyst staff did in preparing the amendment from appropriations or preparing a new fiscal note of the amendments that we passed in appropriations this morning and being able to get us an updated fiscal note within the same day. So props to them. And I also want to thank the lead organization on this bill with the initials FCI, not in that order, for all of their work in analyzing these tax credits and tax expenditures as well and making sure that we stay on track. With that, we ask for an aye vote. Representative Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, sponsors, for the thorough explanation for House Bill 26-1289. it seems like a bill where you just want to say, but there's more, and you keep going and explaining. But I appreciate the thorough explanation. A lot of it seems like deja vu. We saw a bill in Act Committee this year already addressing the pine beetle issue. We saw in 2023 already addressing, you know, why we led into the electric lawnmowers and everything else. And the list can go on of everything that we've had, whether it's coming in to modify or duplicate. but one of the things that really hit me that I was listening to was the special fuel loss in transit allowance and cutting that what it was claimed was to put money back into the state budget but what it really is going to do is take money out of the people's wallet I move L057 to House Bill 1289 and ask that it be properly displayed that is a proper motion And the amendment is before us. Please proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair. So what this bill currently does before this amendment is move the special fuel loss in transit allowance cut from 2% to 1%. What my amendment is doing is striking the motor in special fuel loss in transit allowance cut to leave it at 2%. Why is this important? Well Colorado motor and special fuel exercise tax allow distributors a 2 loss in transit and unloading deduction from taxable gallons to account for unavoidable evaporation and handling losses This happens when you move liquids around They going to evaporate. What House Bill 26-1289 does by reducing this allowance from 2% to 1% is going to put a lot of cost onto those who are selling these gallons of gas, and that's going to be moved into the people. Right now we're seeing it, gas has hit over four dollars. In some areas it's getting close to five. If more cost is put on to the people going to fill their vehicles so they could get to work and get to their children's events or to hospital visits, we could easily see our gas prices skyrocket to six or seven dollars a gallon. That is going to be expensive for Colorado. The two percent was designed to match real, unavoidable fuel costs. The state auditor's evaluation notes that the loss in transit allowance was set to reflect typical evaporation and handling losses and is meeting its purpose. Lowering it to 1% assumes that distributors can eliminate physical losses that are largely inherent to transporting liquid fuel. This is beyond their ability to stop it. We are accounting for natural things of occurrence. While this is a tiny revenue bump, it effectively will be a backdoor fuel tax increase on distributors. Again, another attack on oil and gas industry. while we heard of everything else promoting renewable energy. If we are all for all energy, why are we picking one over the other? And why are we putting it at the expense of the people of Colorado? I urge a yes vote. Representative Brooks. Sure, thank you. I want to make sure to be able to get in my comments before you all are asked for a no vote. Just in case it might change the outcome of whether or not asking for a no or a yes. Look, my colleague covered it, that if we go, this is just, I mean, it's nickel. First of all, Lichtenstein. Lichtenstein. All right. Look, if we're nickel and diming to this extent, we know we're going to push up the cost. You can't sell something you don't have. Right? This is an evaporative margin that was allowed for the transport. Things happen during transport. This is something that can now not be sold because that product has been lost. It has been lost in transport. Office of State Auditor understood that there was a reason for an in-transit loss allowance to reflect typical evaporation and handling losses. that was set at 2%. Now we're cutting that by 1%. What does that mean? That we just eat the 1%? Oh, it's gone. It's okay. No. You know that it's going to result in the increase of cost. You know that it's going to increase in that being passed along straight to consumers because they have to make up that margin somewhere. We're stealing the nickel and dime margin from them on what the Office of the State Auditor has already recognized recognized as a very reasonable allowance for transit loss, that needs to be made up somewhere. These little cuts, little nickel and diming, they don't happen in a vacuum. They don't happen in some place to where we can just do it and move money from one place to another and think that that's the end of the story. What is the downside? What is the downstream impact? What is the unintentional, perhaps intentional, but what is the unintentional consequence of the $6 million that we're moving around for environmental programs? Gets passed on to consumers. Office of the State Auditor set this as a typical allowance for evaporative transit loss. I believe this is a very reasonable amendment to keep that in place to try to defray yet another cost that will be eventually passed on to consumers. I ask for an aye vote. Seeing no further, Representative Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just real quickly, we ask for a no vote on this amendment. This particular section of the bill actually comes from the state auditor themself because the 1% is actually what was determined to be the actual amount of fuel that is lost based on research. 2% was too high, 1% is the actual, so that's what we're going to give folks credit for. Representative Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. and I would question what was said 2% was designed to match real unavoidable fuel costs and fuel losses from the state auditor's evaluation notes. This is confusing when looking at it and why is it set right now in current statute at 2%? Because that's what was determined to be due to these losses. And now we're saying something else. when that is, there is a question of when we have two contending pieces of information, and we are in the last 13 days of session. Maybe this is something we need to slow down, pump on the brakes, and come back next year if we're going to have data from 2%, 1%, 1% to 2% being questioned. This should be concerning to Coloradans as we're playing with what the effect of this will be is higher gas prices when you fill your vehicles up, when you're already struggling to pay for your groceries, your medications, and your students to be involved in school activities. This right here, what we're hearing in this well, with the difference of statistics and information is why we need to pump the brakes. I urge a yes on this amendment. Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the passage of L57. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. No. The no's have it. L57 fails. to the bill. Representative Garcia Sander. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I have a I guess a question about the Colorado Enterprise Zone vacant building, Section 31. I was getting ready to sing and then you could come up so section 31 that addresses Colorado's enterprise zone vacant building rehabilitation credit and that section gives owners or tenants of long vacant commercial buildings and enterprise zones a state income tax credit equal to 25% of rehab costs capped at $50,000 per building if the building at least 20 years old and has been completely Oh I sorry The been completely unoccupied for at least two years and I'm concerned because Section 31 of HB 26-1289 will weaken that standard by letting a building qualify after only 183 days, or any 135 days in 180 in the fiscal note. and it's 183 days in the bill's summary of the vacancy and quadrupling the cap to $200,000 per building. If that sounds confusing, it's because it is. The credit, to me, seems like it's no longer focused on truly long-term vacant buildings. The current law requires a building to be unoccupied for at least two years to qualify, ensuring the credit targets genuinely stuck properties that private markets have not been able to bring back into use. And so by shortening that time frame, it means that your building is not really stuck as vacant, and that blurs the line between long-term blight and short-term turnover, and it dilutes the credit's original purpose. Also concerning is quadrupling the cap to $200,000 per building. When we're talking about a year when we're facing the structural deficit, when we're trying to trim costs from everywhere we can, we're expanding the cap from $50,000 to $200,000 per building and shortening the time that a building has to be vacant. That just doesn't seem like it's meeting the original policy intent, and so with that, I move L054. That is a proper motion. And ask that it be displayed properly. Amendment is before us. Please proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment will bring the easy enterprise zone vacant building rehabilitation credit back to current status quo, meaning two years, which is a perfect time period, and the $50,000 cap, which is not expanding the cost to government. So with that, I urge an aye vote. Is there any further discussion on Amendment L54? Representative Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I would also urge a yes vote on this. This amendment would bring it back to the original policy intent when we were looking at vacant building credit. The purpose was to tackle long, idle properties in distressed enterprise zone areas, not to help owners of buildings that happen to be between tenants for a single leasing cycle. I know in rural Colorado we have a lot of their towns, many that don't have post offices, so their villages. We have a lot of areas, communities on the cusp of becoming ghost towns because they are struggling economically. This is where the original intent was for, to help these communities get back on their feet and thrive when there are so many other burdens pushing down on them against small businesses in the state. for the areas that have many vacant buildings that have been vacant for years because no one could afford to build that back. Not to help between, just because of a cycle, because someone left to expand or they left out of Colorado because they couldn afford anymore And then we had it vacant six months a year This bill takes away from that intent to help the communities who are truly struggling This amendment puts it back into the intent of helping Coloradans. And I would urge you yes vote. Representative Barone. Thank you, Madam Chair. I also come in support of this amendment, and I want to speak to the door this is opening. As somebody that buys homes, refurbishes them, and rents them out, or I even have the option to sell them now, given the prices of homes right now, under this bill, I can buy a home that's totally messed up, walls are falling, everything like that. it'll take me about eight months to rebuild that home to a place where I can either rent it or sell it. I'm seeing that loophole right now. Do you think if I see that, other people are going to see that? It's going against what the intent of the bill sponsors are actually wanting to do to help the people that really need this. I see that loophole opening, that door opening to where Now I can buy a home right away, qualify for this tax credit, and resell that home at a higher price or rent that home at whatever price I want to rent it to. So I strongly urge a yes vote on this amendment. So it goes back to the intent of this tax refund or the bill and help the people that actually need it and not opening that loophole up for people that are going to be prying and taking advantage of this for their own gain. I urge an aye vote. Representative Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for bringing the amendment. It allows us to have a conversation about what exactly enterprise zone vacant building credits do. So what this credit particularly does, it actually helps owners of vacant buildings in these enterprise zones that are at least 20 years old rehabilitate their property. This requires, though, that the building has to be vacant for two years with even a couple days of renting it out or in between, like, for example, a haunted house. We've seen a lot of times haunted houses are used in some of these vacant buildings to make a building ineligible for the credit. That means that then, like, if you use it for, like, a week for Halloween, even if it's been vacant the entire year, you're screwed. You can't access this credit. So what we are doing is we are actually trying to just clarify that the buildings that are not rented out for at least 135 days of the previous 100 days, that they are eligible for the maximum credit amount and that it's increased. The credit amount is actually increased from $50,000 to $200,000 to keep up with the construction and the labor. So this is actually a really good update. What we doing here is we are saying look you can have your haunted house you can have your spring fling you can have your festival for Valentine Day and that not going to impact you because you are not renting the space for the duration of 120 days So I think that if you pass this amendment you actually reverting this update to what currently exists meaning sorry you can have your haunted house you can have your little festival you can have your fair your spring fling otherwise you lose the opportunity for the credit So I kindly ask for a no vote Representative Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I've heard some great things from the sponsor that sparked questions and our colleague before that who sparked questions. When looking at the market, specifically the private market, which sometimes gets lost in this building as we think government should come in and swoop in and save everything, but when looking at the market and looking at the communities who are truly struggling, it's not because there aren't businesses wanting to come in and take these buildings when something leaves. It's truly because the market that this state has created is driving business out and we are leaving deserts behind of communities that are struggling to survive. That's why we have that two-year cycle to see if naturally the private market, the free market, can bring it back and if the community has the aspirations or the resources to do so. That was the original intent to help those who direly need it. In communities where we see buildings vacant for whatever reason in more thriving, successful areas, we're not seeing these buildings get left empty that long. But due to the way this is amending, it's 183 days of vacancy as opposed to two years, it almost looks like this is a benefit to those who are richer, and this will discredit those who are truly struggling in the areas that need the help, is what I was hearing, and I just want to make sure I hear it right, because communities who are truly struggling aren't the ones that are putting these haunted houses in place. Rural Colorado, we don't have the resources. We're struggling to put it out in the corn mazes to bring up what revenue we have for the area. So it really is the areas that direly need this that I feel like are going to be left out because of this change. Rep Garcia. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is particularly keeping in mind the lower income businesses, rural communities, that this cleanup is necessary because we are increasing the credit from $50,000 to $200,000. They are getting $150,000 more than originally because we understand that there is a lot, there's a huge cost to renovating buildings. So this is actually a positive credit for rural Colorado, for industry or for businesses, small businesses that own a building but they can't afford to do anything. that is what this credit is intended to do. It's supposed to help them update. It's supposed to help them be able to renovate their buildings if they're within the enterprise zone. Rep. Garcia-Sander. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate that explanation, but really the purpose of this originally sounds like it was to be a blight reduction tool, not a general purpose renovation subsidy. And so, you know, this is not for renovating your Airbnb or, you know, your event center. This really is supposed to be a blight reduction tool. So I urge an aye vote on this. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of L54. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. The amendment fails. To the bill. Rep Bradley. Rep Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's an honor to serve with you. It's an honor to serve with you. I ask to move Amendment L045 to House Bill 25. and ask for it to be displayed. All right, that is properly displayed. To the amendment, Rep. Marshall. Colleagues, this is a random sample pick, but this is a serious one. when the bill was brought forward that has 30 plus sections sometimes it's difficult to plow through every section but there is one that did in two, three, maybe four or five that caught my attention but this one, there's very good evidence for why it should not be in there When it was brought... Rep. Marshall, hang on a second. Members, it's too loud in here. We cannot hear the conversation happening in the well. Rep. Marshall. To the amendment. This is not meant to cast any aspersions, but when it was brought, I thought I asked what was a simple question for the electric vehicle credit. Do we have any evidence of its effectiveness? The purpose of the electric vehicle tax credit is to increase the number of electric vehicles that will be bought. We have several years of the credit being in place. Is there any data? The Colorado Energy Office said, no, they don't know, and there's no good studies. But that's not true. The Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan, very professional Congressional Research Service, has produced studies on the effectiveness of electric vehicle credits. And I tried to explain those studies, but since it was tax and tax law, I probably wasn't very good at explaining it. So I'll read straight from the Congressional Research Service report. Marginal versus inframarginal tax credit recipients. The efficiency of electric vehicle tax incentives depends in part on the degree in which they induce marginal electric vehicle buyers or accrue to infra-marginal EV buyers. Marginal EV customers are those whose decisions to purchase or not purchase an electric vehicle are directly impacted by the existence of a tax incentive. Put differently, they are on the fence or the margin with regards to their decision. In contrast, inframarginal buyers are those who have decided to purchase an EV regardless of the tax credit. The tax credit may cause inframarginal buyers to purchase a more expensive EV, but it does not motivate a decision to purchase an electric vehicle. It goes on and then says, while the precise estimates differ, the literature on electric vehicle tax credits suggests that most tax credit recipients would have purchased an EV without the credit For such individuals the credit represents a financial windfall a windfall meaning just handing them tax money from the taxpayers Studies of the reformed credits suggest that roughly 7 out of 10 electric vehicle tax credit recipients are inframarginal Multiple studies have an estimate of the inframarginal share of being 67 to 77 percent, and the CBO estimates a share of 68 percent. These estimates align with studies of other EV tax credit programs, international ones, estimates that for the previous versions which predated the IRA, the tax incentives, 70% respectively of tax credit recipients were inframarginal. 74% of consumers receiving a rebate for a hybrid vehicle would have bought the hybrid without the rebate. Finally, when the German government abruptly and unexpectedly eliminated its $4,900 EV subsidy, sales fell 26.6% consistent with roughly three quarters of subsidy recipients being inframarginal. Meaning 75 to 80% of the money we send out for these EV tax credits goes right into the pockets of people without doing what is intended to induce further purchases. And who are these people? Well, the Congressional Research Service also has the distributional effects. Again, since I'm not very well versed in tax policy, I'll probably just have to read it directly. Economic theory suggests that the people benefiting from tax credits are not always the people who receive them. For example, if the government creates a new $1,000 tax credit for buying electric vehicles, And if this credit increases demand for electric vehicles such that car dealers are able to raise prices by $700, then consumers are only $300 better off. On paper, it appears that consumers receive a $1,000 EV tax credit, but economists would note that consumers receive 30% of the credit's incidence, whereas car dealers receive 70%. Drawing upon such findings, we'll get to just the basic conclusion. On the distributional effects, 50% of all the money for tax credits go to the top 5% of the income levels. only 3% to the bottom 60%. And 70% to 80% is wasted money of not inducing any further electric vehicle sales. There are better ways to achieve climate goals. This one is a fantasy if you think it's doing what you think it is. Some people faced with evidence change their opinions. Others hold on to opinions throughout. The evidence is pretty clear. This is a tax credit that would definitely benefit my district It one of the few things in the entire tax code here that benefits my district But my district doesn want this Those numbers, too, of saying 70% are inframarginal, that's based on the federal $7,500 tax credit. This bill is increasing it from $1,000 to $2,000. Well, we can continue to lull in mediocrity, or we can actually look at some studies and understand what's going on. Further discussion on L45? Brett Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I appreciate my good colleague from Douglas County's passion for this particular issue. I will say that my community very much values electric vehicles, and especially since as I was driving here this morning and I passed our local gas station and saw that gas was now at $4.59, there's never been a better time to have an electric vehicle where you're paying significantly less than that on a per-mile basis. But I will just say that I honestly think that my colleague and I are looking at similar data, but we're coming to very different conclusions about what's going on. Since the repeal in particular of some of the federal tax incentives, sales of EVs have plummeted, which indicates to me the exact opposite, that the incentives that we have in the market are helping people to afford these vehicles, that people want to buy these vehicles if only they were at parity in terms of cost with other vehicles. In fact, in the first quarter of this year, EV sales are down 64%, and plug-in hybrid sales are down 73%, and they're dragging down all overall vehicle sales in Colorado by nearly 20%. There are many low- and moderate-income households who are purchasing EVs. Almost a third of EV buyers have household incomes less than $100,000, and for a family of four that would easily qualify you for the kinds of assistance that people would need to afford their health insurance if you purchase it for yourself on Connect for Health Colorado. So what we are doing in this bill and what this amendment repeals is an increase to our EV sales tax credit, which will help to mitigate some of the harm that the federal government has done to not only the EV market, but to consumers' pocketbooks and ultimately to our environment. Because we know that the EV sales are helping not only our climate, but our communities as well. So we ask for a no vote on this amendment. I just think it is wrong and that increasing the EV tax credit here in this bill is the right policy.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of L-45.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of L45. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. The amendment fails.

Thanks, Mr. Chair, colleagues.

That is displayed to the amendment. Rep. Richardson.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of L-47. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. No. The amendment bails. The question before us is the adoption of House Bill 1289. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. The bill passes.

Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's an honor to serve with you. It's an honor to serve with you. I move House Bill 1223 and the Finance Committee Report.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In the Finance Committee, we ran through a couple of amendments working on clarifying the eligibility thresholds for the FAC, clarifying that this is a state level exemption only and then also clarifying a state link to the sales tax base of special districts like RTD and other districts we also ran a decoupling amendment and that was about it, we asked for a yes vote we don't actually thank you, before we ask for a yes vote I move L007 and ask that it be displayed in the manner the front desk deems appropriate.

Rep. Woodrow. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's an honor to serve with you, sir. It's an honor to serve with you. So, folks, we ran a decoupling amendment, as my good co-prime said, in the Finance Committee. It turned out after further Stakeholding with our local government Partners we needed to tweak The language a bit that's what 007 Does is it makes The decoupling clear So we don't get tripped up down the road We ask for an aye vote on L007

Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll keep the description brief because I'm sure we'll have plenty of chance to discuss, but House Bill 1223 repeals the downloadable software sales and use tax exemption that the legislature created in 2011. Right now, someone buying software online will not pay sales tax on that software, while someone buying the same software in a store pays it. The tax code shouldn't treat the same product differently based solely on whether it is downloaded or delivered on a disk. And at the same time, Colorado families have benefited from the Family Affordability Tax Credit, which helped offset rising costs for household. This bill ensures that the revenue gained from updating the sales tax treatment of digital software supports a permanent family affordability credit helping families without raising net taxes It a simple fair and balanced way to make our tax code more equitable while protecting Colorado families Representative Woodrow. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is an honor to serve with you. It is an honor to serve with you. So, colleagues, the downloadable software exemption exempts software downloaded from the Internet from sales tax while keeping the same software purchased at a physical store subject to sales tax. No matter how a good is delivered, taxpayers should be treated the same. Most other states treat software like a tangible good subject to sales tax. Colorado should align with this standard. Only seven states still exempt electronically delivered software. California, Florida, Kansas, Nevada, South Carolina, Virginia among them. Custom software for a specific user remains exempt, preserving software tailored for individual businesses or users. We've also identified that certain home rule cities, Aurora, Denver, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, and Lakewood, all impose a sales tax on software regardless of its delivery method. Before we turn the discussion over, I move L012 and ask that it be displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. What Amendment L012 does is it ensures that the amount allocated to the Housing Development Grant Fund stays constant despite sales tax revenue increases. it's largely technical. It's what we intended to do from the get-go. Appreciate the bill draft for catching it and making sure that we are effectuating the intent of the legislation. We ask for an aye vote.

Representative Woodrow. Thank you, Madam Chair. Before we turn the debate over and leave the well, I just want to thank my co-prime sponsor for his dedication and work on this policy and for being such a great colleague the last almost seven years now. It has been an honor to serve with you, sir. I'm going to miss you terribly. We ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I hate to rain on the happy farewell parade here, but thanks to the sponsors. We had a great discussion about this bill in finance. What I would like to point out, we've been debating, I don't know, half the day now, tax issues, tax bills. There's been tax credits, tax vendor fees. There's been all kinds of things we've debated. I have personally lost count of the number of fees, taxes, and things that we have added to small businesses, and this is another one. It was just stated we're coming in compliance. Most states do this. Not all of them, but most. Some places do it. Some places don't. But here's the bottom line. Here's what matters if you have the small business that's out there. This will impact you, and this will impact your bottom line. And that means you either have to raise your cost to the consumers or you have to reduce your expenditures or cut back. There is no net zero on these things. When there are taxes levied, no matter how small and how much everyone seems to think it's insignificant, it is very significant when you are that small business owner that is looking at their profit margin and meeting what their customers need and what consumers want and figuring out how to do it. Every little penny makes a difference. And this is one more, not of a thousand cuts, but at this point a million cuts that is impacting small businesses. I urge a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It is my recollection that this particular one of the tax credits in here, let's just get ordered for a second. that some of these tax credits are refundable. Refundable tax credits are interesting things. It means that you get an amount of dollars that you didn't actually contribute in. so let's say your tax liability is zero dollars but you're eligible for a refundable tax credit to the amount of a thousand dollars when you file that tax return you get a thousand dollars back and so I move amendment L11 and ask for it to be displayed please hold

Please proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair. This just says that the tax credit that are impacted by this would not be refundable. It would be non-refundable. meaning that if you paid in zero dollars and there was a tax credit that otherwise would apply had you paid in enough that you're not going to get that thousand dollars. If it's such that you did pay in enough then you could see some extra dollars back. Pretty simple. Don't pay in. Don't get out. Seems fair. I ask for an aye vote.

You're not Mr. Schiebold.

Please read the title to House Bill 1221. House Bill 26 by Representative Zocay and Sirota also Senators Amabile and Wallace concerning the adjustment of certain tax expenditures

To the Committee Report.

L9 is properly displayed. Please proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair. These are just some conforming

is adopted. To the bill. To the committee report. We ask for a yes vote on the finance committee report. Any further discussion on the committee report? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of the Finance Committee Report to House Bill 1221. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed no. The ayes have it. The committee report is adopted. To the bill.

Representative Sirota.

It adjusts the executive compensation limit so that corporations can't reduce Colorado taxes through excessive executive pay and aligns our net operating loss deduction for C-Corps with national and international norms. These are responsible, targeted changes that ensure profitable businesses contribute their fair share, while families continue to benefit from the resources that they need. And by creating a permanent family affordability credit, we are protecting families, strengthening our economy, and ensuring Colorado remains a national leader in child well-being. I ask for your yes vote. Representative Johnson.

Representative Johnson, can I ask you to stick to this one particular bill, please?

Representative Johnson, excuse me. This bill has nothing to do with renewable energy.

Thank you. Any further discussion on 12? Representative Taggart.

It is an honor to serve with you, sir.

Representative Richardson. Thank you, Madam Chair. This bill, like several of the others we've heard today, has a lot of concerning pieces in it, but I do think there's one truly fatal flaw, and that is assuming that we make these changes and everything else remains neutral, that we cap net operating losses, we cap the amount of time that they can be taken, we impose all sorts of other revenue restrictions on businesses and we think they're just going to sit there and absorb them, not change how they operate, change tax strategies, not change where they're going to locate their executives. And that's not true. Nothing is neutral. There's going to be a reaction to every action that we take. And if we think that we can just squeeze a little harder and get a little bit more, eventually you get to the point where you've just strangled it completely and we stop getting any revenue. That's really what we've been seeing over this last nearly a decade where we continue to pass bills like this year after year that put more pressure, more stress, more strain on our businesses, and they react. They move away from that pressure. They move away from this state. We are killing our revenue streams slowly and steadily, but more and more apparently, And bills like this are going to lead to the demise of anything other than panic and short-sighted decisions that we have to make just to balance a budget year after year. We've watched it. We've sat in this room and we've watched desperate attempts to balance a budget very short-sightedly, knowingly, and understanding that we're creating a bigger problem in the future we have to address. This just continues that trend in a way that will eventually catch up with us. It's caught up with us already, clearly, in many ways. But at some point, we're going to hit the spot where you just can't do any more. I'd urge a no vote on this bill.

Representative DeGraff. Hey, Chair, whenever we did, you know, these squeezing out the last dollar, I always think, you know, the story of the golden goose was not about farm animals. It was about human nature. The farmer had a golden goose, laid golden eggs, get a golden egg every day. Sell the golden egg. Everything is good. But then wanted more golden eggs.

Stay tuned. Stay tuned. So then what the farmer did was it just cut off the head of the golden goose to reach into it and get all the golden eggs out at one time and then found nothing. and we have the golden goose in the free market and then the do-gooders, the Karens the endless machinators the ones that Bastiat warned us about in 1850 with some really good contemporary political analysis same people, same issues, same agenda always trying to figure out how to eke out more for the same good intentions. And if you look at when we had things like the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, RIP, the economy was booming. I mean, the economy was booming before we needed the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. And then things like the flat tax you can plan you can schedule you could come to Colorado you could be part of that rugged individualism instead of the smothered of the nanny state the Karens of the nanny state, I care more than you do. And what did we have? We had a thriving economy. And now what do we have? We have bills like that that are trying to choke out the last remaining vestiges of life of an economy because it has been destroyed by just the continual machinations, eking out a little more here, a little more there. But it's all for good intentions. It's wafer thin. Businesses are leaving. Families are not safe in this state. Education has plummeted. All by the same people, the same good intentions, driving the economy under, driving the education under, and driving the productive citizens of Colorado out. So I don't know what, I don't think there's any, there is no solution other than voting. and I'm not sure, but I ask for a no vote.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1065. House Bill 1065 by Representatives McCluskey and Woodrow, also Senators Roberts and Exum, concerning transit and housing investment zones.

Nice use of bodacious.

Okay, members, we had a really good conversation in Appropriations from what I'm told.

Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of the Appropriations Report. Everyone all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. The ayes have it. The Appropriations Report is adopted. To the Finance Report.

Any further discussion on the finance report? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of the finance report to House Bill 1065. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. The finance report is adopted. To the bill. Speaker McCluskey.

It is an honor to serve with you.

Representative Woodrow. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, colleagues. Before I begin, I would like to thank my esteemed co-prime, Madam Speaker. It has truly been an honor to serve with you these last seven years and to finally run a bill together. And thank you for coming into my wheelhouse. Colleagues, for the past several sessions, my work has largely focused on the intersection of intersections. Housing and transit are truly linked at the hip when it comes to solving our state's climate issues, our transportation and traffic issues, our affordability crisis. We need to build more housing, and we need to do so in a smart, strategic way by transit. With a new financing tool using state resources 1065 gives us an opportunity to make convenient reliable multimodal transit options the norm rather than the exception in Colorado This bill makes it easier for local and regional partners to provide needed infrastructure for transit stations and mobility hubs that supports new housing and ridership without overburdening local budgets. It does this in two ways. It creates transit investment areas using TIF financing. Zones will be up to two miles around current and future mobility hubs, transfer stations, park and rides, transit stations and rail stations across the state. Local governments can partner with a transit agency in their zone to submit applications to create these transit investment areas to fund transit-related infrastructure like first and last mile connections, safety improvements, wayfinding, and placemaking amenities. The TIF will use only the 2.9% state sales tax within the designated transit investment area for a period of no more than 30 years. It also provides for a new state income tax credit, the Transit and Housing Investment Zone Tax Credit with awards beginning in 2027, administered by CHAFA for entities who develop housing within certain affordability ranges in a transit and housing investment zone. These credits are modeled after the State Affordable Housing Tax Credit, which is Colorado's version of the Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit, also known as LIHTC. However, affordability requirements can be more flexible than LIHTC since housing around transit station tends to be more expensive. Before we turn things over, I do believe that we have two amendments which my co-prime will move and explain. All right. Speaker McCluskey. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Speaker, tell us about the amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair.

All right, seeing now the question before us is passage of L017 to House Bill 1065. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. L017 passes to the bill.

All right, to the amendment, Speaker. Thank you, Madam Chair.

So any further discussion on the amendment? All right, seeing now the question before is this passage of L018 to House Bill 1065. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. L018 passes to the bill.

All right, for their discussion on the bill. All right, seeing none, the question before us is the passage of, where am I in my notes? House Bill 1061, five. House Bill 1065. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. All right, the ayes have it. House Bill 1065, as amended, passes.

To the bill.

All right.

Okay.

Madam Speaker. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is an honor to serve with you Ditto Thank you I am very pleased to stand here alongside Minority Leader Caldwell and present to you House Bill 1004 There is a desperate need for more support in early childhood care and education. The CCTC, the Child Care Contribution Tax Credit, helps providers raise critical funds, whether that's to open new centers or expand their current center. It helps recruit and retain high-quality teachers and staff. It improves the quality of programs by being able to fund additional needs within a center or a learning facility. And it helps our hard-working families by ensuring that we are doing everything we can to help keep child care affordable and accessible. This child care tax credit provides a 50% tax credit when a cash donation is made up to $100,000 for child care programs and after school providers. The eligible recipients include licensed child care centers and home-based programs, foster care homes, residential child care facilities, and homeless youth shelters. I am so delighted to bring the continuation of this child care contribution tax credit, a lot of C's in all of that, because it matters to all of us, Republican and Democrats alike, rural and urban, suburban. We all need to do what we can to invest in our child care centers. I urge an aye vote.

Mr. Scheebo, please read the title of Senate Bill 141. Senate Bill 141 by Senators Robertson, Simpson, also Representatives McCluskey and Taggart, concerning optional fees during motor vehicle registration that primarily support wildlife projects and in connection therewith using the proceeds of a newly created optional fee to construct wildlife crossings and other transportation improvements and making an appropriation.

All right, moved. Continue.

All right. Further discussion on the bill? Representative Taggart.

Chair, thank you. I understand that this is a volunteer, that it's an opt-in. I did hear this in committee. And my angle on this might surprise some folks. It might surprise some folks because I have a personal connection to a story, a sad story about Victor Rodriguez. this was so my son growing up my oldest my oldest kid his baseball coach buddy of mine I worked with in radio for 20 years and then very coincidentally kind of reconnected and he was the baseball coach his father Victor Cuban immigrant was driving down Santa Fe when a truck coming the opposite direction hit an elk through the elk into the vehicle through the windshield and instantly

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to move House Bill 1328 before House Bill 1111.

Mr. Schiebel, could you read the title of that? House Bill 1328 by Representatives Stuart Kay and Winter, also Senators Mullica and Kirkmeyer, concerning non-emergency medical transportation for Medicaid members.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1328 in the HHS and Appropriations Report.

Representative Stewart, continue about the Appropriations Report. Okay, Appropriations first. Yes. So in Appropriations, we added a word, and we brought that fiscal note down, yay us.

Representative Kay Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. In HHS, we ran a number of amendments after a lot of stakeholder work and conversations with HICPF to get us to a much better place. And I'll go into depth, as will my co-prime, when we get to the bill.

Okay, go for it. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to move. I will move L7 to 1328 and ask that it be properly displayed.

To the committee report, sorry.

I'm out of practice. I move L7 to the committee report.

Assistant Minority Leader Winter. Thank you, Madam Chair. L007 addresses a handful of changes, and we felt it best to bring as one large amendment and walk through it rather than bring numerous. Overall cleanup, it changes State Department to Transportation Broker to, in Section 2 of the bill, which places the Advisory Board under the purview of the broker rather than HICPAF. very small language tweak around the ambulance providers and a very small language tweak around the reclassification language. It changes the definition of transportation provider. We wanted to ensure we encompass all forms of NEMT providers, including non-profit entities that adjust the makeup of the advisory board. It always been our goal to ensure that the advisory board is made up of a diverse group of folks in the NEMT space. And so through stakeholder engagement, we are adding a seat to be filled by a non-profit or public transportation provider that services both rural and urban areas. It requires that when appointing the members of the board, there's equitable representation of nonprofit, for-profit, and public transportation providers, including local gov or public transit agencies. It touches on record keeping. It cleans up language around policies for utilizing a dispatch system for recording important metrics, such as pickup and drop-off locations, miles driven, driver and vehicle details, and other things. Stakeholder feedback from other providers. This is an additional parameters to mitigate fraud, waste, and abuse and ensure that providers are kept to transparent standards. In section two of the bill, we are adding in an additional language around credentialing and reimbursement. Clarifies that HICPUF is responsible for determining if providers, drivers, and vehicles are credentialed and that they address member safety and privacy. HICPUF is responsible for determining credentialing requirements and the manner in which the broker is responsible for verifying. We also add clarifying language that vehicle drivers that are determined to be non-credentialed are not eligible for reimbursement. Video recording systems. We are adding the requirement for video recording systems, specifically two-way video dash camera systems and provider vehicles for verification and safety, stakeholder feedback from other providers. This is an additional parameters to mitigate fraud, waste, and abuse and ensure that providers are kept to transparent standards. We also include language that ensures member privacy remains a top priority when equipping and utilizing these camera systems. Additionally, these systems must not be required for billing purposes. However, it can be required to be provided should a provider be audited. This requirement does not apply to small providers operating five or fewer vehicles. And finally, in section 3 of the bill, we are clarifying language around the transportation broker, including specifying that transportation broker may not also operate an NEMT transportation provider. We are clarifying NEMT. We do not want to inhibit any current partnership between the broker and RTD, and therefore we are specifying NEMT. We also clarify that prohibiting a broker from operator owning an EMT provider is contingent on the broker signing a contract with the state after January 1-26. This is, again, to not inhibit any functions of the current broker while transitioning to the new broker. We clarify that broker may only direct a member away from a pervert provider if that provider is subject to certain restrictions due to a corrective action plan outlined within the bill. We added language that makes it clear that the broker is responsible to determining Medicaid eligibility of patients, not the transportation provider. And finally, we clarify that when or if a TNC enters the provider market, they must meet all credentialing requirements established like HICPAF. And with that, I urge an aye vote.

Any, all right, Kay Stewart, Representative Stewart. We ask for an aye vote.

Representative Kay Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. So why this bill? Non-emergency medical transportation is a Medicaid-covered benefit that provides transportation to medically necessary appointments. It's essential for ensuring access to care, particularly for seniors, individuals with disabilities, and rural populations without reliable transportation. Effective NEMT services help reduce missed appointments, prevent avoidable emergency room visits, and improve overall health outcomes while helping to control long-term health care costs. At a high level, we're working to lay down framework for implementing a statewide broker, ensuring that provider groups across our state receive equitable support from the broker, hold providers accountable, and allow ethical businesses in this space an opportunity to grow while rooting out providers engaging inappropriately. What we're trying to accomplish is mitigate access to care challenges in rural Colorado where distances are longer, provider networks are more limited, and transportation reliability is critical to maintaining care continuity. to support a phased-in broker implementation to ensure stability in all regions as this transition takes place, including in rural areas, ensure network adequacy so rural members are not underserved or left without options, promote flexible scheduling policies that accommodate both routine and time-sensitive care needs, highlight the importance of maintaining continuity of care during transitions and program structure, and maintain patient choice in the new statewide broker model by maximizing patient preference whenever possible. So we ask for your aye vote.

Assistant Minority Leader Winter. Thank you. With the explanation of the amendments and what my colleague got to say, I do want to say that not many times we get to come down here in the well and talk about it, but we're going to be able to draw down some funds for this. We figured out, what, $40 million? Yeah. With the reclassification of the NEMT, we're going to be able to draw down about $40 million in federal funds to help with this program, I think, in the fiscal crisis that we're in right now. You should say it again. $40 million. one more time for those of you aren't listening $40 million and we're going to be able to draw those down to help with the program there's not many times especially nowadays that we can get up and talk about money that we're going to draw down we've been working on this bill for quite some time we've talked to many providers and we know that there's still a lot of work done to be done in this space but with all the fraud that we saw and all the abuse that we saw this gives us a really good opportunity hammer down on that bring some federal funds in and make sure that not just people in rural Colorado that all people able to get to their important appointments but most of all for two rural legislators this is ultra important because you see these vehicles on the road all the time trying to get clients that are trying to get to specialists that are in more centralized or metro areas and this is a real help for those people so we urge an aye vote representative johnson

And I urge a yes vote. Any further discussion on the bill? Seeing none, the question before us is adoption of House Bill 1328 as amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. House Bill 1328 as amended is passed. Mr.

Representative Marum.

All right. We'll start with the appropriations report.

Any further discussion on the appropriations report? Seeing none, the question before us is adoption of the appropriations report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The appropriations report is adopted. To the finance report, Representative McCormick.

All right, further discussion on the Finance Report. Seeing none, the question before us is adoption of the Finance Report. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The finance report is adopted to the agriculture, water, and natural resources report.

All right. Is there any further discussion on that committee report? Seeing none, the question before us is adoption of the Agriculture, Water, and Natural Resources report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The committee report is adopted.

Representative McCormick. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, this is a new program that's been probably waited on for decades. There are folks that have unused old containers of pesticides in their garages and sheds that are of danger to our soil and water And this provides a very economical way for those products to be disposed of as a hazardous waste in our state And it'll be very accessible to our farmers and ranchers because they will set up events that will move across the state, and these events will be advertised, and we really hope that it'll help get these products recycled in a way that they should be. We ask for an aye vote.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of House Bill 1117.

concerning temporary hospitality event permits that authorize the consumption of marijuana.

All right. And a business report as well. All right. You've moved all three reports to the appropriations report first.

Any further discussion on the Appropriations Report? Seeing none, the question before us is adoption of the Appropriations Report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The Appropriations Report is adopted to the Finance Report.

All right. Can you move your amendments?

All right, give us just a moment. All right. Representative Gonzalez, tell us about the amendment.

All right, is there further discussion on the amendment?

All right. Is there further discussion on the amendment? All right. Seeing none, the question before us is adoption of L010 to the Finance Committee report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. L010 is adopted. Back to the Finance Committee report.

Thank you, Madam Chair. To the Finance Committee report, I move L013 on House Bill 1117 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So through talking, you know, and stakeholding with the public safety communities, such as law enforcement, what this amendment does is says that during these events, you cannot sell marijuana between the times of 12, so midnight to 5 a.m. There is the safety concern that if it's still selling between midnight and five when folks go home We're adding more liabilities on the road when looking in statute understanding that in 2019 there was a bill that's dealt with the hospitality portion of Marijuana what this is dealing with is the licensure of when these events can or cannot allow for the purpose for the selling and purchase of Marijuana so would ask for a yes for to yes vote to ensure safety in our communities per the law enforcement stakeholding.

during those hours. Okay. Representative Johnson. Correct. And I did misspeak. It's been a long day. So in the 2019 bill that came about, it deals with the hospitality aspect. This bill, this section would be dealing with the licensing aspect when you're licensing for events to take place, saying that at these events, then the consumption cannot happen between midnight and 5am. I misworded, but it still fits in that this is the licensing on the permitting side, while the 2019 dealt with the hospitality side for the consumption. There's a lot of statutes going in my head right now. It's been a long day, so thank you for the clarification, but did check and looked at the

Representative Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for that. There are still two different matters One is not affecting those who have a set up location of sales They can still do the hospitality aspect until 2 a and cannot start again until 7 a What this would do is saying for those events which are temporary in that community space that it's happening or that private sector space that it's happening because it's not a set up section that we are not going to allow for it in these areas because it's not as well established. This has again been asked by public safety stakeholding and we're just asking because these are different events happening. We don't want them on our public roads. We don't want them driving if they've had that consumption. We're just looking for that public safety aspect. For those who have that permit that's set up permanently in the buildings, if you go to a dispensary or such, still allowed. This doesn't cross that. This is just affecting the event space that happens for purpose of days. Representative Ricks? This is not something we would accept. All of the events will

Any further?

year-round. Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the passage of amendment L13. All those in favor, please say aye. All those opposed, please say no. L13 is lost. To the committee report. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none of the questions before us is the passage of the finance committee report. All those in favor, please say aye. All those in favor, please say aye. All those opposed, please say no. The finance committee report is passed. To the to the Business Affairs Committee report.

Is there any further discussion on the Business Committee report? Seeing none, the question before is as its passage. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say no. The committee report is passed. To the bill, Representative Ricks.

Can you move the bill with bill number?

Thank you. Okay, it is displayed. Representative Ricks.

All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say no. L-16 is passed. Back to the bill. Representative Ricks.

Sorry. Representative Gonzalez.

Representative Briggs?

Representative Gonzalez. So in closing, I will just say, without a lawful pathway, marijuana consumption shifts to unlicensed pop-up events, sites face enforcement challenges, and licensed operators lose economic viability. Hospitality has historically been one of the low-cost entry points into the cannabis industry in a space designated to support smaller operators over large, vertically integrated companies, offering meaningful opportunities for social equity participation. This bill preserves those access points for small businesses while stabilizing struggling hospitality operators by providing a lawful alternative to unregulated consumption events, and we respectfully ask for your yes vote.

Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to lay over House Bill 1230 until Monday.

Senate Bill 150 by Senators Ball and Jude, also representatives for Ellicott and Jackson, concerning reforms to the regional transportation district to increase accountability.

To the committee report.

Thank you. That is properly displayed. To the amendment.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of L-39. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. The amendment is adopted. To the committee report.

Oh, sorry.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We move two amendments in committee on local government cooperation and on the reporting structure back to the legislature, and we ask for an aye vote on the committee report. AML Winter. Oh, it's not to the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to move AL-038 to the committee report and ask that it be properly displayed.

In this amendment, we just don't want the governor to be able to appoint these people. We think that it should be a vote at large by the people. They should be able to choose the people that sit on this. And I think, you know, giving the governor all the power to choose who sits on this is not the will of the people, and I urge an aye vote.

Rep. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also rise in support. The district for Northeast Colorado has seen something where we had an amazing director appointed by the governor, ended up speaking up for rural Colorado and then ended up getting relieved of his position We got someone else who has not been active in the district or visited anywhere So by having it elected by the people we actually have people who are dedicated to the community, not to a certain branches directives. And this would allow for them to actually get out with the community, see what we have, and give them that ability to actually voice what we're asking them to voice without worrying that they're gonna get dismissed. So I urge a yes vote for the people, especially for rural areas. where our roads are crumbling and it's becoming a huge disaster, and we need them to be able to not be worried about their seat, but instead be able to say the truth of just how many crashes, potholes, and unfortunately deaths we're having because of the low maintenance we're getting. So I urge a yes vote.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of L38. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. No. The amendment fails.

Okay, that's properly displayed. To the amendment.

The increase in salaries is to make these seats more competitive and to be able to attract people to want to run for these positions If you look back a lot of these RTD district seats have largely been unopposed and one person running and winning And so the reason for this is to try and make this more competitive so that we can have better expertise, better skill sets on the board so that we can get better outcomes for our communities. I would ask for a no vote on this amendment.

Rep Jackson.

This bill really is about better outcomes. And I think one thing that we can all agree on is that RTD has not been delivering the results that any of us want to see. We have seen routes cut. We have seen existing routes that have been maintained, the frequency of those buses coming around being less frequent. frequent, we have seen safety issues, and part of the reason we haven't seen improvement is a result of the board makeup. There have since been three accountability committees and let me say bipartisan accountability committees who have taken the time to look at all of the contributing factors to what RTDs should be doing, where they have missed the mark, where they have not appropriated dollars, where they should have, where they appropriated dollars that were wasted. and so this was an evident this most recent accountability committee this it was an evidence based process and if anyone knows about what evidence based means it means that the things that they were looking at had already been proven to be effective by research and so one of the two big portions out of that committee were that board governance and also operations. And so what this bill addresses is the board composition in making sure that RTD actually works for the people who rely on it every day. We know that RTD has had declining ridership, budget issues. There was already talks like last week about further budget cuts and further cuts to service. And so this bill directly responds to the recommendations of that committee, and it takes a comprehensive approach to improving governance performance and rider experience It requires a data assessment and a long plan to improve our paratransit services ensuring that riders with disabilities have reliable and accessible transportation. It modernizes the governance structure by creating a smaller more effective board that combines elected representation with subject matter expertise in finance transit operations and equity and a lot of the conversation that we've heard around board governance is saying that you know everyone agrees that RTD needs improvement and nobody agrees on exactly what that looks like but the accountability committee was very intentional in looking at all of the different options and they came up with a 5-4 makeup I'm sure we will have amendments about the makeup but lastly what this bill does it strengthens accountability it identifies clearer performance expectations to regarding the finances and also around ridership so that we are really delivering the best results we can for riders who rely on RTD every day and I would ask for your support.

Brett Bacon, AML Bacon.

Rep Ricks. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Look, members, I'm very concerned about Denver and Aurora. I'm an Aurora rep, but I'm standing here with my colleague, Rep Bacon. These two cities have the largest share of ridership when it comes to RTD. They were not invited to the stakeholding work on this bill. Denver and Arapahoe counties contribute the most sales tax revenue to RTD and contain the most system-wide rail-covered corridor miles in the region. In 2024, Denver contributed over $22 million in sales tax revenue, and Aurora contributed $15.3 million, and they were left out of the conversation. This board has the opportunity to impact a large portion of Denver and Aurora residents, and the fact that they were not guaranteed sufficient representation is detrimental to RTD operations. Denver and Aurora have asked repeatedly, over and over again, for board representation to take into account ridership as a consideration for designing the districts. They have been told that the accountability study shows something otherwise, so therefore their voices don't count. Writership was actually included in the introduced version of this bill, but it was stripped out in the House, in the Senate. So I cannot support this bill. There's nothing in the bill really that proves that by redoing the composition of the board is going to have the impact on the ridership. And ridership is important. People use this to go back and forth to work. They use it to go to school. They use this, you know, to go to hospital. Some people, that's all that they have. And so we want to make sure what we're doing is the right thing, not just because there's a bill that we've been trying to push for the last six years. Should we just push this bill through? We want to make sure that people are represented and the cities that are going to be greatly impacted the most have a voice and have strong voices on this board. We ask for a no vote on this bill.

users of electronic media and a connection therewith requiring an operator of a social media platform to ensure the social media platform provides a streamlined process to allow a law enforcement agency to contact the social media platform concerning a search warrant and requiring an operator to report to a local law enforcement agency if the operator's social media platform receives a notice that a user has posted content that threatens imminent and specific harm to themselves or another individual expresses an intent to commit a crime or attempts to entice an individual to commit a crime.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 26-1255 and the Judiciary Committee report.

First, I move L-00... Well, one second. In committee, we passed an amendment that clarifies the threshold for when social media companies are obligated to share the contents of a post with law enforcement, the new threshold centered around social media companies taking adverse actions against a user, including the restriction, suspension, or termination of a user's account, and I move L005 to the committee report.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Based on conversations we had with a number of stakeholders, we draft this amendment, L-005, to further clarify three key aspects of the definition of adverse actions. First, the adverse action is taken by the social media platform in response to a user violating the platform's own policies concerning specific or imminent threats. Second, the adverse action must be subject to human review before the platform has an obligation to report to law enforcement. And third, the post in question must be generally open to the public. This language was heavily stakeholder and must be with the ACLU to ensure we do not violate First Amendment or Fourth Amendment rights. In its passage, we'll move them to a monitor position on the bill. I ask for an aye vote on this amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L-008 to the committee report and ask that it be properly displayed.

The amendment corrects language in the enacting clause to ensure consistency with the language that we adopted from the previous amendment. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the committee report as amended and ask for an aye vote.

Aye. Members, I want to take a few minutes to discuss the background of how this bill originated and why it's so...

Thank you. Members, I want to take a few minutes to discuss the background of how this bill originated and why it's so deeply important to the community I represent, as well as Coloradans across the state. On September 10, 2025, the shooting at Evergreen High School completely shattered the peace of our community. The perpetrator, a 16-year-old student at the school, shot and critically injured two students before taking his own life. In all, around 20 rounds were fired over the course of nine minutes, both inside and outside of Evergreen High School. nine minutes those nine minutes permanently altered the evergreen community and its effects will be felt for years to come Even now, some teachers and students struggle to return to the building Haunted by graphic memories that stay with them every single day Families continue to wrestle with the heavy uncertainty Of whether their children and loved ones are truly safe the moment they leave home Despite the unspeakable horror of this event the Evergreen community united together and displayed remarkable strength and resilience. In the Judiciary Committee, dozens of Evergreen and Conifer students, teachers, grieving families, and community members from across my district came out to testify in support of this bill. They courageously shared their experiences and trauma around this shooting, and I want to share briefly some excerpts from their testimony about the continuing impact of this horrific event. We have been through the unimaginable fear that we have been aware of since the early years of elementary school, a fear that came true, a fear that does not have to become a reality. It was a dark day. Our innocence and sense of safety were shattered. My baby sister was only 14 years old and just 16 school days into her freshman year. In the midst of the chaos, my sister had a panic attack after the shooter found her in the hallway and fired several rounds of bullets before she was able to run for safety. I received some of the most alarming text messages of my life. Messages from my sister saying she had to run for her life. While caring for the infant I nanny for, I helped safely shelter several students from our neighborhood in nearby homes. I never hugged her as tightly as I did that day I didn even want to let go My son was at school that day coming back from lunch He was there outside the school watching things unfold when the shooter turned the gun on himself. My son is a teenager who should have been thinking about college applications and Friday night plans, and he witnessed a school shooter's suicide. That image does not leave a person. It does not leave a family. Six months later, we are living in the aftermath of something that should never have happened. My 17-year-old son walked into the hallway to refill his water bottle. He stopped for a moment to talk with a favorite teacher. Seconds later, he heard a loud noise and just a few feet away turned to see a gunman fire directly at him. My son ran. He followed his instincts, yelling to warn others as shots followed behind him. He could have been killed. At home, I got a text from my husband, a coach at the school. Shooter in the school. I have our son. Our daughter is running. Terror ran through my body. As I raced to get my freshman daughter, she was running through a neighborhood, hearing gunshots behind her, surrounded by students who were screaming and crying, unsure if she was being chased or how close the danger was. This was less than two weeks into her first year of high school. my 11 year old sat in the dark hiding under his desk a text from our son said I love you guys we knew there was a shooter at the high school he ran to the band room and into the director's office while bullets flew at the room in the weeks and months since I have watched my children carry this with them my son struggles to sleep he's on edge constantly scanning his surroundings my daughter is afraid to be alone she gets sick from the anxiety some days just going to school feels overwhelming unable to focus both were forced to reduce their class loads They lost their appetites and then lost weight. Loud sounds bring a feeling of fear into their bodies. The sound of walkie-talkies or announcements at school, lockdown drills, false alarms, and even, especially, ordinary school days bring those terrifying moments rushing back. The trauma my son lives with is not abstract. It is the reason he sometimes goes quiet at dinner. It is the reason certain sounds make him flinch. It is the reason I watch him more carefully than I did a year ago, and why I will probably keep watching him that way long after he leaves for college. seven months later the shooting still affects our family every single day and nights too Our 15 has nightmares We all have anxiety Our 12-year-old is dealing with complex trauma and has recently started having panic attacks. Trauma counseling is ongoing. They spend part of their lives in therapy trying to process something no child should ever experience. As a parent, I feel it too. A siren, a loud noise, and my body immediately goes into panic. My heart races. My mind goes to the worst place. I must make time for therapy. As a parent, it is incredibly painful. to watch your kids carry this spear. Law enforcement responded to the Evergreen shooting in two and a half minutes. The gap was not in their response. It was in the weeks and months before September 10th when the information that might have prevented the shooting was sitting in a platform system with no legal obligation to move. Had this requirement been in place in the summer, the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office might have received a report in July when the Anti-Defamation League flagged it. They would have had a name, or at minimum a path to a name. They would have had two months. Two months is enough time to intervene in a young person's life. Two months is enough time to prevent a shooting. My son would not have seen what he saw. The shooter had posted about violent intentions months before the attack. If adverse actions were reported by social media, the social media platform, this shooting could have been prevented. If search warrants were addressed by the social media platform faster, this shooting could have been prevented. no child should ever have to sit in a room that takes gunfire no family or siblings should ever have to sit with that kind of fear no social media platform should ever be allowed to sit on threats or warrants reporting and timely response could have saved my family and our community a lifetime of dealing with this trauma. The trauma has changed our family in immeasurable ways. The maddening part is knowing it didn't have to happen. There would have been an opportunity to intervene months earlier, before a gun was ever brought to their school, before my children had to run for their lives. Please sit. Thank you. I appreciate you. As these witnesses alluded to, this bill is a response to the systemic failure in the search warrant process that could have provided an opportunity to disrupt this shooting before it took place A social media post foreshadowing this attack was flagged by the Anti League in New York as early as July 5th. A complaint was filed with the New York FBI, who then, with probable cause, initiated the search warrant process. Under our current system, social media platforms have 35 days to respond to judicial search warrants. Three separate judicial search warrants are required just to identify a single individual. Each respective search warrant uncovers a different layer of identity. This process took about 70 days to identify the user and hand over the file to the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office. Tragically, the shooting occurred two days before the information finally reached local law enforcement. Two days after the shooting happened, highlighting a critical gap in how threats made on social media are identified, reported, investigated, and acted upon when necessary. Over the past eight months, I have worked closely with the Evergreen community, Sheriff Marinelli, District Attorney Doherty, and a significant number of stakeholders from across the spectrum to address this crisis. House Bill 26-1255 requires social media companies to comply with search warrants within 24 hours. It also requires platforms to provide a streamlined process for law enforcement to contact them, including a 24-7 staffed hotline. In addition to these requirements, this bill establishes a duty to report for social media companies. As I shared earlier, this duty is triggered when a platform takes an adverse action, specifically the restriction, suspension, or termination of a user account, in response to content that violates platform policies concerning specific and imminent threats. The platform must report the content allegedly posted by the user to a local law enforcement agency no longer than 24 hours after that adverse action is taken. Some colleagues have asked about the impacts to 1255 because of similar policy, and there are a few ways to address this challenge. I attempted to address this earlier, but there was no agreement among parties to do so. I will offer two amendments to conform the bills so they will no longer be in conflict. I move L-009 to Senate Bill 26-1255 and ask that it be properly displayed.

It's okay. It's been a long day. I move L-009 to House Bill 26-1255 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Senate Bill 26-11 recently passed the legislature and was signed into law by the governor. The bill established This is a 72-hour search warrant response time for social media platforms. We have drafted a couple of amendments to conform the two bills so that their language is not in conflict. This amendment conforms these bills in three key ways. First, L-009 amends House Bill 26-1255 to add district attorneys to the enforcement provisions. This makes it so that both the attorney general and district attorney can enforce the provision. Second, L-009 amends Senate Bill 26-11 to include a $250,000 civil penalty for noncompliance with a search warrant up from $5,000 currently in the bill. A $250,000 penalty provides a significant incentive to comply with the duty to report element. The ACLU, local law enforcement, and the DA recommended increasing the penalty amount so that it is significant enough to serve as a deterrent. And third, L-009 amends Senate Bill 2611, which has a 72-hour search warrant response time, to conform to the 24-hour search warrant response time in House Bill 26-1255. Because the search warrant process is a three-step process, a 72-hour response time would result in six additional days to process judicial search warrants compared to the 1255 bill's 24-hour search warrant response time. In the case of the Evergreen High School shooting, had the search warrant process taken just three days less or just four days less, local law enforcement could have interrupted or disrupted the shooter's plan. Lives could have been saved. Critical injuries wouldn't have happened. The students, educators, staff, parents, and the whole Conifer Evergreen community would have been spared the immense trauma and PTSD that will be with them the rest of their lives. Days matter. Hours matter. This is about protecting communities and saving lives. I ask for a yes vote on L-009.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L-10 to House Bill 26-1255 and ask that it be properly displayed.

This amendment substitutes the definition of covered platform that is in Senate Bill 2611 to become social media platform definition in 1255. Specifically, the definition includes a monthly user minimum of 1 million users. In response to testimony from smaller platform owners, we adopted this definition to exclude these smaller entities from the requirements. But before we vote on L010 I move L011 to amend L10 and ask that it be properly displayed. Okay, amendment L11 is now displayed.

L-11 amends L-10 to include internet gaming platforms in the social media platform definition, and I ask for a yes vote. Is there any further discussion on Amendment L-11?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L-10 as amended to House Bill 26-1255 and ask for a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, this bill is fundamentally about saving lives. Over the past eight months, we have engaged in extensive stakeholding to ensure this measure effectively protects Coloradans while upholding our constitutional rights. This effort has resulted in a broad coalition of support, including law enforcement leaders like the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police and the County Sheriffs of Colorado. Our supporters also span numerous municipalities and key health care, educational, and civic organizations, such as the Colorado Nurses Association, Common Spirit, the League of Women Voters of Colorado, the Jefferson County School District, and the Colorado Organization for Victim Assistance. Additionally, by adopting the committee amendment, we have successfully moved the Colorado criminal defense bar to a soft amend position. Based on our extensive conversations with these stakeholders, I cannot overstate the importance of the duty to report element of this bill. Law enforcement can only act on the information they actually receive. If the Anti-Defamation League had not flagged the Evergreen perpetrator's post, a search warrant would never have been initiated in the first place. Without a clear threshold for reporting, a direct threat could be scrubbed from public view by a platform before its legitimacy can even be investigated. This duty to report provides our law enforcement officers a genuine opportunity to disrupt a plan before it turns into tragedy. This bill does not mandate the removal of posts or the shutdown of websites. Instead, it ensures that when a specific imminent threat is identified, critical information moves at the speed of the modern world. Social media platforms are multi-billion dollar industries equipped with the most advanced technology. They have the capacity to be partners in protecting our residents. By passing this bill we are choosing to prevent acts of violence before they happen sparing our communities from the trauma and PTSD that still haunt evergreen and conifer today and will for their lives We owe the people of House District 25 and all Colorado residents nothing less. In closing, I wish to share thoughts from the family of the unnamed 14-year-old Evergreen High School victim, which was released to the public through the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office about two weeks after the shooting. Our 14-year-old son endured the unimaginable, a face-to-face encounter with a violent school shooter filled with anger and hatred. Our child suffered traumatic gunshot injuries and has remained hospitalized and undergone multiple surgeries since the incident. In those terrifying moments, our son showed a level of bravery, strength, and will to survive that no child should ever be asked to display. He and his friend confronted the assailant, which undoubtedly allowed time for more students to flee and the school to lock down. This life-altering encounter happened before alarms were set off or lockdown announcements made. Our son was shot at close range. Yet he was able to run from the school to save his own life. As he and his friend ran through the school to escape, they alerted classmates about a student with a gun. Our son reached the recreation center behind the school and received immediate critical first aid from an EMT firefighter who was working there. The family said they are grateful for the efforts of many people in their son's escape. to the librarian who pointed him towards safety as he ran for his life through the library emergency exit, to the EMT firefighter and others who gave him care in those first critical moments, to the first responders and initial hospital staff who triaged his injuries, to the flight team who flew him to the pediatric intensive care unit, To the incredible nurses, doctors, surgeons, and care providers who dedicate their lives to helping children and families on their darkest days. To the Jeffco deputies standing guard outside of his hospital room to provide a sense of safety, as well as the victim advocates. and to the evergreen community and communities across our state and country who have surrounded us with love and support in so many ways. It is through your support that he will persevere and return to the community that loves him. He also asked how this could happen. His mind and messages were clear. The adults responsible for protecting children must take real, meaningful action so that no child or family endures this kind of horror, in school or anywhere. The road ahead for our beloved son and family will be long and complicated physically emotionally and in ways we cannot yet imagine His and our wish is that real change can come from it finally I urge a yes vote on House Bill 26, 1255.

Thank you, Madam Chair. These are tough bills, without a doubt. These kind of tough bills should not be left for the waning hours on a Friday after a full day.

I do.

the gravity of a bill like this is immense. But what we have to also contend with is the results of a bill like this. It doesn't matter how good intention. And my fear is that because we have to be very careful about crossing a line that should not be crossed. That certainly does not negate or minimize the issues that are before us. Some of those are because we have a culture that minimizes life and celebrates death. But when we start to compel private platforms to monitor speech and report users to government based on subjective standards, I have concerns. It's not a narrow tool. It's a broad mandate that invites over-reporting, false positives, and could, not the intent, but could, have a chilling effect on lawful expression. So these are the things that we have to balance. These are the things that we have to wrestle with. This is a very weighty bill that should have the full weight of the General Assembly in consideration. Not a fraction. We have a constitutional framework for a reason. If the government wants to access private communications, it must show probable cause and obtain judicial authorization. We have those for a reason. I've just been having a very long discussion about the Fourth Amendment and your right to privacy. Now, certainly we don't have the right to violate somebody else's life. that's not in consideration but we have to balance now we have to balance the concern that we have in the effort and we have to balance that against a right that we may or may not still have because there are some that feel your right to privacy your expectation of privacy is unscathed reasonable. And this further goes down the avenue that your right to privacy, your expectation of privacy, is unreasonable. And I think that's a very, very dangerous slope. And we can't just cross it. We can't just start going down it, however you want to use whatever metaphor you want to use. We can't just start going down it because it's certainly not a minimized thing, not to minimize anything, because what happened is horrific. I would also consider that what happened is a symptom of where our society is now, but this bill flips the structure. And we risk losing a safeguard against abuse. We know that, we know, whether intended or not, that tragedy is often used for purposes other. I don't think that's the case here. But we have to risk, we have to be cognizant, we have to be vigilant, we have to actually dig into these things. because we don't want to flip that structure. We don't want to turn private companies into front-line decision-makers about what speech triggers law enforcement involvement. And if we mandate that, let's say we mandate that, and we create a duty. Duty, then, is the sublimest thing. You can never do more. You should never wish to do less. And if you create a duty, you create an obligation. And if you have an obligation, that creates ramifications. Because what if you fail in that duty? What if somebody is unsure? What if somebody is unsure whether that is hate speech? and speech is violence, and therefore it's okay that we need to turn somebody in. We've gone down that path. We don't want to flip that structure. We don't want to turn private companies into decision makers about what speech triggers law enforcement involvement. It's not the role, and it shouldn't be. Now, I think we could encourage them. we could encourage them to if something is known if somebody reports something and there's something in there but if we start monitoring this and we start requiring this and we start saying this is a duty and if we say this is a duty we create an obligation for them to monitor all speech and not just monitor all speech but be responsible for the content of all speech and if you're responsible for the content of all speech then at some point the only way to handle this is to start limiting it. And when you limit speech, you limit the opportunities that you have to solve problems peacefully. And you just balkanize society, and I think you could risk creating bigger problems than we have because what we like to do what we should be able to do is we should be able to encourage communication We should certainly be able to encourage communication without having laws that turn speech platforms

Representative, you're welcome to speak about what your intent is, but not the intent of others, please.

Is there any further discussion on House Bill 1255?

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none the question before us is the passage of House Bill 1255 as amended all those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed no House Bill 1255 as amended is passed

Seeing no objection the committee will rise and report Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you The House will come back to order.

Thank you, Mr. Schiebel. Appreciate the applause. Members, Representative Wilford. Members, you have heard the motion. We do have amendments at the desk. Mr. Schiebel, please read the Johnson Amendment to the Committee of the Whole report.

Representative Johnson. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move the Johnson Amendment to the Committee of the Whole and ask that it be properly displayed. One moment. It is properly displayed. Please proceed. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Colleagues, what this amendment does is it leaves the motor and special fuel loss in transit allowance to 2%. In the bill, it cuts it to 1%, and this will be detrimental. We are asking to keep it at 2% because the Colorado's motor and special fuel exercise taxes allow distributors a 2% loss in transit and unloading deduction from taxable gallons to account for unavoidable evaporation and handling losses. This is something that occurs naturally and we should allow for the industry to adapt to that. House Bill 26-1289 reduces this allowance from 2% to 1% for tax periods beginning on or after January 1st of 2027. What does this mean? Well, it means we're going to see probably increases at the gas pump for the people of Colorado. In an effort to save the state money by reducing this, they're going to have to make up for these costs somewhere because of the losses. Where are those costs going to come from? instead of the, you know, $4 or $5 in some areas across the state, it could be seven or six or seven or even more dollars per gallon. That is going to hurt Coloradans. The state auditor's evaluation notes the loss in transit allowance was set to reflect typical evaporation and handling losses and is meeting its purpose at 2%. Lowering it to 1% assumes distributors can eliminate physical losses that are largely inherent to transporting liquid fluid. Liquids evaporate. That happens. Distributors cannot, you know, mitigate that. What I'm asking is a yes on this amendment to allow for us to stay where we are so Coloradans don't have to pay the price. Seeing no further disrepresentative Garcia. Yes. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, I just ask that you vote no on this amendment, and let's just preserve the careful calculations that are in 1289. Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of the Johnson Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine, and members proceed to vote. Representative Leader, how do you vote? No.

No. Representative Stewart votes no.

Representative Goldstein, how do you vote? Representative Goldstein, you're on mute. No. Representative Goldstein votes no.

No. Yes. Representative Kelsey votes yes. Representative Sukla, how do you vote? Representative Sukla, I didn't hear you. How do you vote? Yes, ma'am. Representative Sukla votes yes. Clifford, Foray, Lindsay, Morrow, McCormick, Valdez, Weinberg. Please excuse. Clifford, Foray, Lindsay, Morrow, McCormick, Valdez, and Weinberg. Please close the machine. With 19 I, 36 no, and 10 excused, the amendment is lost.

Representative Goldstein, would you please mute yourself? Thank you. Representative Marshall.

Move the first Marshall Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report and ask for it to be displayed.

It is properly displayed. Please proceed.

Representative Brown.

Representative DeGraff. Talk about very different information. But I just thought it reaffirmed for everybody here that looks like at least most of the gangs here that the subsidies on these EV toys for the rich are probably in the lines of per vehicle The manufacturers have been more or less eager to get rid of them I mean when they started making them they said well there not really any there's no business case to make for creating them because they don't actually save energy. They don't actually reduce pollution. They just put it someplace else reliant on slave labor and eco-raping manufacturing. So $40,000 to $50,000 per vehicle is displaced onto other vehicles or tax credits. And when you're looking at the cost of filling up your tank at $4 per gallon, yep, that's a lot. The cost to fill an EV is the equivalent of $17 or more, probably closer to $18 now, which means that your neighbors are just paying for it. So the EV toys for the rich are being paid for by the citizens of Colorado, and then you're filling up your tank is being paid for by your neighbors. That's what I call a parasite.

Representative Leader votes no. Representative Martinez, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsey, how do you vote? You're on mute. No. Representative Lindsey votes no. Representative Sukla, how do you vote? Yes, ma'am. Representative Sukla votes yes.

Representative Kelty votes yes. Representative Goldstein, how do you vote? No. Representative Goldstein votes no. Good evening. Please close the machine. with 21 I 34 no 10 excused the amendment is lost

is amended passed. Representative Marshall I move the second a Marshall amendment to the committee, the whole report, and ask for it to be displayed.

Members, this was another one where I was not at planning on running it on the committee of the whole report, but had some other colleagues bring it to my attention, that it is a huge statement for what we're doing here in this Capitol when we are cutting everybody else, devastatingly cutting everyone else. And we will have to do it in the next session, too. unless things radically change, we are going to be facing the same situation. So in that context of just allowing us and all the state elected officials to have all pay raises from 6% for this body up to 45% for the Attorney General, we are slashing everyone else in the state. That's poor, poor leadership. I asked and hopefully will get a late bill request to do it the right way to just delay the pay increase one year But we can't be certain of that. So the best way we can show that we are with our constituents and willing to accept a small bit of the pain that a lot of them are experiencing and will experience is to vote yes on this amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Truth be told, when this amendment came forward, I really thought it was a tongue-in-cheek amendment to point out the hypocrisy of some of the tax policy and conversations in this building. And so when I supported it, I supported it in those two veins. That being said, I have been thinking about this a little bit more, and it is an interesting question. Two things related to Tabor. First is, as relates to having different tax rates for people. One could argue. Representative Luck, we will go into a brief recess. Thank you. Thank you. The House will come back to order. Representative Luck, I apologize. You are still on your first 10 minutes, first time to speak. You have 9 minutes, 21 seconds remaining. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Who knew? Tax policy. All right, where was I? I'm not really sure. I guess what I was trying to articulate was that while I initially supported this with a bit of tongue-in-cheek in light of the overarching conversation, I have given thought to the underlying arguments against this. The first argument being that TAPER doesn't allow for different income tax rates for different people, that there is this flat rate. But the reality is our tax credits, tax expenditures, all of that structure is actually a different, allows for different income tax rates. because ultimately if you can check different boxes on that form for different tax credits you are paying a different amount than other people who maybe make the exact same salary as you but can't for instance because i have a little one even though we all make the same amount in this building assuming we all just had this one job which that that not a fair assumption but let just say for sake of argument it is then I am paying a different rate than someone who can check the box for that earned child or the child credit. So in any case, then that particular argument falls flat vis-a-vis this particular amendment because it really is one and the same. The second argument is that any tax increase has to go to the voters, the people, the taxpayers, the people who will be impacted by it. Well, fancy that. We are the people that are going to be impacted by that. So assuming that this were to pass by more than four or five, right, if the differential is more than five, let's say it's 40 to 25, then presumably, because we're calculating in the governor and lieutenant governor and secretary of state and what have you, presumably the vote count is more than half in support of this such that we sent it to the people who would be impacted, i.e. us, and we agree that indeed this is the right way forward, and if there is that differential, then, well, the taxpayers, the people who would be subject to this, have spoken. So I just wanted to put that on the record in light of those two particular arguments for food for thought. Representative Soper. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, I actually object to this amendment even being here at all and would ask that the sponsor might consider withdrawing that. And that's on the basis of the fact that it pits two things against each other. One is it's asking members to basically vote for a pay raise. On the other hand, it's saying, do you want to violate the Taxpayer Bill of Rights? Both are lose-lose propositions and ones that we shouldn't be placed into asking. The other problem with this amendment is any member who's likely to come back next year should really take a 21C because this will directly impact their compensation for next year. And depending on how you vote, that raises major ethical questions. And that's why this particular amendment is inappropriate. It should not be put to the test of the membership of the House of Representatives because we created a mechanism, whether you liked it or not, for an independent committee task force to review compensation and to make recommendations. I happen to disagree with that, but that was the process laid out to take all questions of compensation out of the hands of this body. And this amendment, it brings it right back to the House of Representatives for us to have to vote on compensation. And if you don't want to vote on the compensation, now you're looking at violating the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. Both are propositions that put every single member of this chamber into a lose-lose situation, which is why I would humbly ask that the sponsor of this amendment withdraw this amendment. Thank you. Minority Leader Caldwell. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. For all the reasons that my colleague just laid out, I am going to request to be excused on this, and I imagine maybe some of my colleagues will too. There was a task force set up that reviewed and established legislator pay not something that we voted on as far as increasing our pay raise And that it's it's something that if I vote one way, it violates a principle. But if I vote the other way, I feel it's a violation of the taxpayers bill of rights. So if this amendment does go forward, as my colleague said, I would ask that the sponsor of this amendment withdraw it. but I will request to be excused for this vote. Thank you. Further discussion? Representative Caldwell will be excused from the vote on this amendment. Further discussion? Representative Zocay. Mr. Speaker, pro tem, I would like to request a 21C as well. Representative Zocay will be excused according to Rule 21C. Representative Johnson. Per the rule of conflict, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem, I ask to be excused. Representative Johnson will be excused per Rule 21C. Mr. Assistant Minority Leader. Per 21C, I ask to be excused from this vote. Representative Winter will be excused per Rule 21C. Representative Camacho. In the fairness and consistency, I request a 21C on this vote. Representative Camacho will be excused per Rule 21C. one folks, members. Representative Marshall. Representative Marshall, would you like to speak? Representative Marshall. Representative Marshall. This is your second time to speak on the amendment. Thank you. Due to the great number of profiles and courage, I'm going to have to withdraw this amendment. And I do withdraw the amendment. Seeing no objection, the amendment is withdrawn. The motion before us. Representative Taggart, the amendment has been withdrawn. We are now moving on to the motion before the body. Thank you. The motion before the body is the adoption of the Committee of the Whole Report. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine, and members proceed to vote. Members who are participating remotely, please turn your cameras on and turn it off when you have voted. Representative Stewart, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Stewart votes yes. Representative Leder, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Leder votes yes. Representative Kelty, how do you vote? No. Representative Kelty votes no. Representative Martinez, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Martinez votes yes. Representative Sukla, how do you vote? No ma'am. Representative Sucla votes no. Representative Morrow how do you vote? Yes. Representative Morrow votes yes. Representative Lindsay how do you vote? Yes. Representative Lindsay votes yes. Representative Goldstein how do you vote? Yes. Representative Goldstein votes yes. Representative Wynn how do you vote? Yes. Follow us. Oh, there you are Representative Wynn. Two places at once. Representative Brooks, we see that you are here. Mr Schiebel Morrow voted yes She is excused on the wall Please close the machine. Oops. Sorry. Please close the machine. With 38 I, 19 no, and 8 excused, the report of the Committee of the Whole is adopted. Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move to lay over the balance of the calendar until later today. Seeing no objection, the balance of the calendar will be laid over until later today. Mr. Schiebel, reports of committees of reference. Committee on Business, Affairs, and Labor. After consideration, the Meritza Committee recommends the following House Bill 1424 be amended as followed. And also amended before the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation. Printing report. The Chief Clerk reports the following bills. 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. Delivery of bills to the Governor. The Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives. Delivery of bills to the Governor will be printed in the journal. Message from the Senate. Madam Speaker, the Senate has passed. Message from the Senate will be printed in the journal. Message from the reviser. We hear with Transnet. Message from the reviser will be printed in the journal. Introduction of bills. House Bill 1430 by Representatives Basinecker and Sirota, also Senators Lindstedt and Amabile, concerning adjustments to transportation funding. House Bill 1430 will be assigned to the Committee on Transportation, Housing, and Local Government. Senate Bill 134 by Senators Lindstedt and Judah, also Representatives Duran and McCluskey, concerning the imposition of fees by payment card networks. Senate Bill 134 will be assigned to the Committee on Finance. Senate Bill 138 by Senators Doherty and Mullick, also Representative Stuart Kay, concerning measures to reduce the administrative burden on the health care system. Senate Bill 138 will be assigned to the Committee on Health and Human Services. Senate Bill 165 by Senators Robertson, Pelton, R., also Representatives McCormick and Soper, concerning measures to support species conservation and in connection therewith, authorizing an appropriation from the Species Conservation Trust Fund. Senate Bill 165 will be assigned to the Committee on Agriculture, Water, and Natural Resources. Senate Bill 172 by Sen. Eker and Kipp, also representatives based in Eckern-Paskel, concerning the Front Range Passenger Rail District. Senate Bill 172 will be assigned to the Committee on Transportation, Housing, and Local Government. Announcements and introductions. I have an announcement. Oh, I'll let you go first, Representative Brown. Thank you, Madam Speaker. House Appropriations Committee will be meeting in the Old State Library five minutes upon adjournment. We will hear one bill. It will be Senate Bill 149. Senate Bill 005 will be laid over until Monday. On Monday, we will be meeting at 8.30 in the morning. We will hear five bills, Senate Bill 5, Senate Bill 1016, House Bill 1272, House Bill 1428, and House Bill 1326. So see you in five minutes upon adjournment, committee members. I have an announcement. Representative Gilchrist will replace Representative McCormick on House appropriations for today's upon adjournment hearing only. Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, we are breaking so appropriations can meet, so please don't go very far. Madam Speaker, I move the House stand in recess until later today. The House will stand in recess until later today. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Wow. Mr. Schiebel, please call the names of those who are absent. I'm a little busy. Can you go talk? I'm a little busy. Representatives Bradley, Camacho, Carter, DeGraff, Froelich. Goldstein. Goldstein. We need to get the projector back up. Yeah, I get the... Did you need to talk to me? Jackson. Kelty. Leader. Lindsay. I'm here. Chimes are on. I have them on. They're not terribly loud. Oh. Yeah. No, I said we want the chimes. We got Mauro on the wall. Martinez. Lindsay. Leader. Wynn. It's on the wall. Smith. Here. Here. Stewart K. Stewart R. Sukla. Velasco. Representatives Camacho Goldstein Kelty Goldstein on the wall Stuart R and Representative Sukla Representatives Camacho, Kelty, Stuart R., and Sukla. Thank you. Representatives Camacho, Stuart R. and Sukla. That's a good enough instance for me. How many members? Mr. Stewart. Stewart? Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move that the call be raised. Members. I'm raising it right now. It has been moved that the call be raised. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. No. The ayes have it. The call is raised. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker. I move that Senate Bill 149. Oh, sorry. I got excited. Mr. Schiebel, please read the report. I got excited. The reports of committees of reference. Committee on Appropriations. After consideration on the merits, the committee recommends the following. Senate Bill 149 be amended as followed, not so amended, be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation. There we go. Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move that Senate Bill 149 and House Bill 1307 be made special orders on May 1, 2026 at 7.32 p.m. Members, you have heard the motion. I believe there's been an objection. Members, that means that we will be voting. Yes. Members, there is an objection to the motion that the majority leader just made to move Senate Bill 149 and House Bill 1307 as special orders today at 7.32 a.m. P 7 p Members this will be a recorded vote The motion before us is if you vote yes then you are in support of the motion that we have these two bills on special orders at this date and this time 7 p.m. If you vote no, then you are voting against these two as special orders today at 7.32 p.m. The motion before us is for special orders on Senate Bill 149 and House Bill 1307 today at 7.32 p.m. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Stewart, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Stewart votes yes. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote? Representative Lindsay votes yes. Representative Martinez, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Martinez votes yes. Representative Morrow, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Morrow votes yes. Representative Kelty, how do you vote? No. Representative Kelty votes no. Representative Wynn, how do you vote? Representative Wynn, you are on mute. Yes, yes. Representative Wynn votes yes. Representative Goldstein, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Goldstein votes yes. Representative Leader, how do you vote? Representative Leader, you are on mute. Yes. Representative Leader votes yes. Representative Woodrow is excused. With 50 aye, 5 no, and 10 excused, the motion to move special orders is adopted. Representative Wilford. Members, you have heard the motion. Seeing no objection, Representative Wilford will take the chair. Thank you. The committee will come to order. With your unanimous consent, the bills will be read by title unless there's a request for reading a bill at length. Committee reports are printed and in your bill folders. Floor amendments will be shown on the screen on I-Legislate and in today's folder on your box account. Bills will be laid over upon the motion of the majority leader and the coat rule is relaxed. Mr. Schievel, please read the title of Senate Bill 149. Senate Bill 149 by Senators Amalba and Simpson, also Representatives Caldwell and McCluskey, concerning pathways for individuals with mental health disorders and a connection therewithmaking appropriation. Madam Speaker. Thank you, Madam Chair, and it's an honor to serve with you. It's an honor to serve with you as well. I move Senate Bill 149 the report on judiciary and the report on appropriations to the Appropriations Committee report Thank you In appropriations we brought an amendment to address several of the deficiencies that we had recognized through an analysis of some of our previous amendments. We made those corrections. The corrections resulted in roughly a $1.4 million savings and roughly a $1.4 million expenditure. So our fiscal note still remains at roughly $30 million. The canaries for that, the canary in the fiscal note has now been distributed. I hope that you have had a moment now to see that. I ask you all for an aye vote. Is there any further discussion on the Appropriations Committee report? Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I am looking at the fiscal note dated today, May 1st. I'm not sure how this is impacted by this, but hopefully there can be some understanding. So I see on the first page here that we're looking at starting out in 25-26 fiscal year with a $4.1 million state expenditure, additional, well, we'll just leave it at that. But then over the course of the following four fiscal cycles, we go from $27 million to $31 million, $43 million to $57 million. But if I then go back over to page 15, it's saying that the estimated total beds needed under this bill during, let's say, that same time frame goes from 32 to 128, but the beds available through the provisions of this bill go from 51 to 69, which is basically half of what is needed, and that additional contract beds are required. So I will be frank and say that I have not read this in detail and have not had a chance to really process this through. So I'm hoping that the bill sponsors can explain how much of the need that is identified is actually going to be covered by multiple millions of dollars. Speaker McCluskey. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to be sure I heard your questions, Representative. I may have missed them. I do want to start that the fiscal analysis for Senate Bill 149 and our restructuring of our competency system, the fiscal analysts did a remarkable job considering input from our judicial department, the Department of Human Services, as well as our district attorneys. And from gleaning information, both surveys and current data, they were able to determine that the range of individuals that may fall into this category and require competency services, the placement services identified in the bill, was somewhere between 25 and 65, roughly. As they have been working through the analysis of the number of beds, that was the foundation, the basis for where we started. We realized that immediate construction of those beds could not be accomplished overnight, obviously, so building capacity will include the hardening of some facilities along with the construction of some additional beds. In addition we will be contracting beds during this time until we have also built out some of our capacity So while I believe at this point our fiscal analyst is using that foundational material for the projection, certainly I think there would be room for us to reevaluate after we see the policy implemented and what the population may be that we see needing these services. There may need to be adjustments in the future. Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that. I guess just starting, so if the assumption is about 65 individuals who will be served, it draws questions again when I'm looking at these tables on page 15 of the fiscal note. So on that page, there's an expectation that there will be 32 individuals who are needing of these particular services. That will grow next year to 64, the following year to 96, and the final year that is listed on the first page to 128. So when we look at the amount that we are considering, well, and that's the total beds that is estimated to be needed, but the beds available through the policy in this bill suggest that there will only be 69 total beds by the end of 2930, and that there will be additional contract beds required in addition to that. And so if I just take those 69, we're looking at nearly, well, a little bit under a million dollars per person for this, and we're not even covering the total need. And so I'm just curious how this is all going to work out and what those costs are, and are they going to be sustained even beyond $29.30 at the kind of rate that is expected here. Madam Speaker.

Is there any further discussion on the Appropriations Committee report? Seeing none, the question before us the adoption of the Appropriations Committee report. All those in favor say aye.

All opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the Appropriations Committee report is adopted.

So any further discussion on the Judiciary Committee report? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of the Judiciary Committee report. All those in favor say aye.

All opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the committee report is adopted. To the bill. Minority Leader Caldwell. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, we're here today to help fix a major gap in our criminal justice system and civil treatment systems that is making our communities unsafe while failing to get help for some of our most vulnerable populations. Colorado law says when a defendant is found incompetent to stand trial and can't be restored, the court must dismiss the charges. Case closed. They walk free. This means violent offenders, people who have committed murder, assault, and sex crimes, are being released in our neighborhoods with zero treatment, zero supervision, and zero accountability. This is happening in every corner of Colorado, and innocent people are paying the price. That includes a doctor seeing patients in his own office stabbed by someone who would be released right back onto the streets a few months later. No treatment, no punishment. Or four victims who are enjoying a day on the 16th Street Mall when they were attacked by a defendant who was released from custody just weeks earlier. His mental health needs ignored. Even school children can't escape the consequences of our current system. Last year, a group of kids having fun on a playground were targeted by someone trying to kidnap them in broad daylight. Someone who was found incompetent in court who won't ever face those charges against him. These aren't just headlines. These are real Coloradans, victims, families, people trying to live their lives who are failed by an impossible situation created by this legislature. We have individuals who have created heinous crimes, murder, crimes of violence, sexual assault, who clearly need intensive treatment. But the mechanism to get them, that help does not exist. There's no bridge from the criminal system to the civil treatment system. Right now, a defendant's case is dismissed, and these dangerous individuals cycle back into our communities. No support, no monitoring, no treatment. Victims and families are left unprotected. The Constitution rightly prohibits the indefinite detention of people with severe intellectual disabilities or mental conditions. I respect that. We all do. But the Constitution does not require us to abandon our communities or these vulnerable individuals. What's missing isn't constitutional authority. What's missing is a structured pathway from criminal courts into the civil treatment system where courts can order long-term care and supervision. Under this bill, these cases will be handled similar to not guilty by reason of insanity cases. An individual can be ordered to civil commitment once four things have been established. The person is incompetent. They are unlikely to be restored or have hit the maximum amount of time allowed to be restored. They have committed a homicide, crime of violence, or felony unlawful sexual behavior, and they post a substantial risk to others. During this process, the defendant has access to a lawyer as well as experts in discovery. The judge must make a decision within six months. This isn't about punishment. It's about accountability. It's about protecting innocent Coloradans. It's about getting people the treatment they need while they can't hurt anyone else. This is responsible legislation. Ultimately this bill is about the state living up to its responsibilities We have a responsibility to victims to ensure their safety We have a responsibility to families desperate for options when loved ones suffer from a mental health crisis or a neurocognitive disorder We have a responsibility to defendants themselves to ensure individuals with serious mental and cognitive issues receive the care that meets their needs. And we have a responsibility to communities across the state who are living with the tragic consequences of a broken system. Madam Speaker.

Minority Leader Caldwell. Thank you, Madam Chair. And members, I just want to kind of emphasize Madam Speaker's thanks to all the people that worked on this bill. I joined on this bill late last year, and it had already been in the works for several months before that. And the DAs and their team and the public defenders and Disability Law Colorado, the governor's team, I mean, it was incredible. You don't just accidentally find your way into 200 pages of legislation that is this important. One of the things that happened when we heard a case in Aurora that got national attention last year, I had reached out to Madam Speaker because I had heard that this was a bill that had been started and being worked on already and requested that we be a part of it, we make it bipartisan. and so much kudos to the speaker for agreeing to that and saying absolutely this should be a bipartisan bill and has been a bipartisan bill this whole way through. And so I sincerely appreciate it, and it is a huge undertaking. I'm talking nights, weekends, holidays, that the teams who have been working on this legislation, who are experts in this area, have worked on it, And I've just been incredibly, incredibly impressed, especially with our own nonpartisan staff who have drafted the bill and our fiscal analysts who have who've worked on this, our JBC staff who have worked on this, our JBC members who have had to be really, really challenging task of trying to find where we find this funding. But, you know, the governor had made this a priority. The legislature was making this a priority. And so we all came together. And seriously, the JBC team we have here and their staff members who made this work and made this a priority. This bill has a direct effect on something that happened in Monument, Colorado in 2024, when a mother with her daughter was hit and killed in a McDonald's parking lot in Monument, Colorado and drugged 350 feet. And because that person had been found incompetent to stand trial and unrestorable, ultimately that person was released. And that is a person who killed someone, was charged with second-degree murder in my district, killed a mother in front of her daughter and was released ultimately. And so this is just one case of many that have happened around the state. Very, very possible that happened in your district. And I sincerely appreciate it, again, to those teams. Thank you. Thank you for the victims and the families of the victims who have showed up and who have been there all along the process. It means so much, and your testimony is so impactful and powerful in committee, and thank you. And I hope you know that we are here and we are doing this for you and the memory of your family. Thank you.

and is now properly displayed. You may proceed.

Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L66. All those in favor say aye.

All those opposed say no. Amendment 66 is passed. Minority Leader Caldwell. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L069 to Senate Bill 149 and ask that it be properly displayed. The amendment has now been properly displayed. You may proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, members L66, I'm sorry, L69, my apologies. combines l61 62 63 and 64 and what those amendments are l61 is strikes requirement for bha to provide care coordination 62 is clarified that if cdhs cannot identify an inpatient placement for the individual the transition to outpatient certification happens in line with the new 27-65-109.5 L-63 is a persistent acquired disorder to definition of neurocognitive disorder. And L-64 clarifies that facility designated by BHA commissioner are crisis stabilization facilities for M-1 holds. And we ask for an aye vote on this amendment. Is there any further discussion on amendment L-69? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of amendment L-69. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. The ayes have it and the amendment is adopted.

Amendment L74 has been moved and is now properly displayed. You can proceed.

Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L-74. All those in favor say aye.

Come on, y'all. Wake up. All opposed? No? All right. Amendment L-74 is adopted. Minority Leader Caldwell. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L-76 to Senate Bill 149 and ask that it be properly displayed. Amendment L-76 has been moved and is now properly displayed. You can proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair. Amendment 76 is a hospital request to align disclosures with HIPAA requirements and ask for an aye vote. Is there any further discussion on Amendment L-76? Seeing none, the question before is to see adoption Amendment L-76. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Amendment L-76 is adopted.

Amendment L81 has been moved and is now properly displayed. Please proceed.

So any further discussion on the amendment? Representative Locke.

could either of you provide the definition for neurocognitive disorder? Madam Speaker. Thank you, Madam Chair. As we have talked about neurocognitive disorders at a higher level, we are talking about traumatic brain injuries, those intellectual or developmental disabilities that someone might have, or dementia, something like Alzheimer's. I believe that this amendment will help us better align what is already in statute and clarifies between IDD, individuals with developmental disabilities, and DD.

Aye.

All opposed, no.

Madam Speaker. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L-082 to Senate Bill 149 and ask that it be properly displayed.

thank you madam chair again this was feedback from our judicial department it is providing some clarifying and technical language cleanups you see some expansion of specific words where we were just trying to make the meaning clear I ask for an aye vote So any further discussion on Amendment L82?

Aye.

Aye.

Madam Speaker. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L-084 to Senate Bill 149 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. You will see throughout this amendment we are replacing Behavioral Health Administration in CDHS and substituting BHA. Concise and tight. I ask for an aye vote.

Aye.

Do you want to give her the packet? Oh, I see. I got out of rhythm.

Aye.

Madam Speaker. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move L086 to Senate Bill 149 and ask that it be properly displayed.

thank you madam chair again members these are cleanups they are technical in nature and aligning language throughout all 200 pages of this bill here we are making some clarifying language around criteria for the initiation of civil proceedings at CDHS and evaluation. I ask for an aye vote.

Bill 149 and ask that it be properly displayed. Amendment L88 has been moved and is now properly displayed. Please proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, this is alignment with statute,

specifically around county attorney, competency evaluators, professional persons, or intervening professionals. I ask for an aye vote. So any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L-88.

Aye.

Aye.

Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I think there were about 15 or 20 amendments there. And so it raises the question of what does that do to the different interested parties? Before this discussion started, according to the Secretary of State's lobbyist website, we find that in an amend position include the ACLU of Colorado Adams County Advent Health American College of Emergency Physicians Colorado Chapter Anna Neo Arapahoe County Boulder County Bridges of Colorado Colorado Behavioral Health Care Council, Coloradans Protecting Patient Access, Colorado Behavioral Health Care Council Colorado Counties Inc Colorado Cross Disability Coalition Colorado Hospital Association Colorado Office of Public Guardianship Colorado Psychiatric Society, Community Reach Center, Copic, County of Weld, Denver Health, Healthier Colorado, Jefferson Center for Mental Health Larimer County Government Mental Health Colorado Protecting Quality Healthcare Access The Arc of Colorado University of Colorado Health so all of those are in amend position or were before we began here i'm just wondering if the amendments that were just brought brought any of those to monitor or support minority leader caldwell

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I will say I am concerned that the counties are opposed or not opposed, that they're amending, that they have some issues still, and that many in the health care field, including Mental Health Colorado, which when I served on Judiciary, I respected greatly their thoughts. So I would love to know if the bill sponsors can inform as to why both the counties and Mental Health Colorado are still in an amend and what it might take to get them, seeing as this is a Senate bill, and this is really the last opportunity to do so. Madam Speaker.

Representative Locke.

Madam Speaker. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to emphasize how uniquely Coloradan this legislation is and the number of professionals and experts who have on the ground experience either in the courtroom or in the health care facility how people have been coming together to work on this legislation in response to some of the events that we saw last fall. I cannot speak specifically to another state's model, but I can say with confidence that the professionals and experts that have been weighing in on this legislation have been doing so with our judicial department, our Department of Human Services, our DAs, our public defenders, and again, that wide swath of individuals that we named earlier. I have confidence that while maybe not a cookie-cutter approach, it is a uniquely Colorado approach.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for that. I did hear rumor that there were some concerns in committee related to placements in community, placements in hospitals or homes, and the sustainability of that as well as the safety of folks. If you could just address some of those concerns, I'd be grateful.

Representative Luck.

Madam Speaker. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm not recalling the concerns that you may be addressing. I do want to point to one specific change in our bill that is the creation of the enhanced protective placement pathway. and this is something that is happening for those who may be demonstrating extremely dangerous behaviors. So we are creating a new pathway, a new pathway to treatment for individuals who may be incompetent because of neurocognitive disorders and clearly may not be restorable, may not be able to move forward through the judicial process. So I apologize, I don't recall those statements specifically in committee, so I can't speak to them specifically. Happy to do some research though if there was something I missed.

Thank you Madam Chair. I think a lot of my questions were answered. This is a new understanding it's a new protective placement category, 300 cases per year. I am a little concerned I suppose we have to add up to 116 beds. We're looking at $48 million per year, $428,000 per year per bed. I think that with the numbers up here, that comes to roughly $50 per hour for the entire time they're incarcerated. So I'm just curious. I'm concerned about the sustainability of this. I know prison is expensive, and I've heard for a criminal you're looking at probably $50,000 to $100,000 per year, somebody who's competent to stand trial and then goes into the prison system. And here we looking at the possibility of per year per additional bed from the beds that we have currently and the estimate that we could have about 300 cases per year So I recognize that you can't magically decrease the amount of money that that costs, But I just wanted to see if you could address that a little bit because that amount of money, how are we going to maintain that without breaking the entire bank?

Minority Leader Caldwell. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate the question, my fellow representative from El Paso County. I do think it comes back to as far as you're maintaining this continually year after year. I ask the same question as well, and I think it really goes to what we all talk about in our caucus all the time about prioritization, right? So $46.8 billion budget this year, and it's going to cost money to do this, right? It costs money to house people, to have the staff, to get them the treatment, to maintain the facilities. It's not cheap. And so I think it does come down to for the future General Assemblies is this is a costly program. It just is. And I'm sure the other states who implement something similar to it and have an issue, because you can imagine it's an issue anywhere you are, you have to prioritize that money. So I think the Joint Budget Committee is going to be well aware that on an ongoing basis, this is what we're going to have to do because the alternative is what we have now. And what we have now is like the case in Monument, Colorado, where there was nowhere to put the person who was charged with second degree murder and killed that mother to put them back on the street And so you know the realization is that it going to cost a significant amount of money I think if there was a significantly cheaper way and I know when I look in, I say, well, it costs $400,000 plus a year for one bed space. How in the world could that be possible? You know, I share that too. And I also sat down with the hospitals and the BHA and others and kind of went through and it's like it does cost a lot of money if there's a way to significantly cut that cost i am certainly all ears on that and uh may want to start a company with you one day to to offer that uh if it's if it's feasible but um this is uh what we have to work with now in the current system and again the alternative is doing what we're doing right now which is putting people back on the street and potentially putting members and communities at risk. And the offenders themselves aren't getting the treatment that they need to be getting treatment.

Minority. Caldwell. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I, if I, if I think if I'm following correctly, um, representative from El Paso County, I think what you're seeing in there with that increase in, at least a pretty large part of it is that when you, when you place someone, uh, then that takes up that bed space and they don't just, they don't just leave at the end of the year and then some new person is placed there. Right. So you do have the potential for, uh, someone takes that bed space and then they may be there two three four years and then you're having the the 46 more placements the following year on average right and now they can't use that bed space because someone was placed there the year before who's still going through the treatment who is still taking up that bed space so i think that's maybe where you're seeing that incremental i believe so

House Bill 1307 by Representatives Gilchrist and Bradley, also Senators Mullica and Rich. Concerning the continuation of the Colorado Medical Board and connection therewith, implementing recommendations of the Department of Regulatory Agencies in the Department's 2025 Sunset Report.

I apologize. Thank you, Madam Chair. Go ahead, Representative Gilchrist.

Is there any further discussion on the Health and Human Services Committee report? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of the Health and Human Services Committee report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed no. The ayes have it and the committee report is adopted. To the bill.

Amendment L-002 has been properly moved and is now displayed. Please proceed.

So any further discussion on Amendment L2? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L2. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. The amendment is passed.

Representative Gilchrist. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is an incredibly important piece of legislation to make sure that the medical providers in our state can move forward with their great work, and we ask for an aye vote.

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

Madam Speaker, your Committee of the Whole begs leave to part is under consideration the following attached bills. The second reading of it makes the following recommendations are on. House Bill 1307 is amended. Passed on second reading. Order in gross and placed on the calendar for third and final passage. and Senate Bill 149 as amended, passed on second reading, ordered revised, then placed on the calendar for third reading and final passage.

Yes. Yes.

Representative Weinberg votes no.

No.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move to lay over the balance of the calendar until Monday, May 4th, 2026.

Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move that the House stand in adjournment until Monday, May 4, 2026, at 9 a.m., members. Not 10, 9 a.m.