Colorado House 2026 Legislative Day 105

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation of God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Representatives Bacon.

Barone.

Basinecker.

Bradfield.

Brooks.

Representative Brown.

Caldwell.

Carter.

DeGraff.

Representative English is excused.

Ferre.

Froelich.

Garcia-Sander.

Goldstein.

Hamrick. Hartsook. Jackson. Johnson. Joseph. Kelty. Leader. Lindsey. Luck. Lukens. Mabry. Marshall. Martinez.

McCormick.

Pascal.

Richardson.

Representative Ricks.

Excuse.

Ryden.

Rep. Sirota.

Slaw.

Soper.

Excused.

Stuart R.

Sukla.

Representative Taggart.

Titone.

Velasco.

Here.

No.

Winter.

Woodrow.

Zokai.

Good morning, Madam Speaker. Yes, I'm going to double down today, members. I've got two jokes for you, please. Hopefully it will get you to a unanimous yes vote on the journal.

Why can't your nose be 12 inches long?

Because then it'd be a foot. Hey, did you all hear about that restaurant on the moon? Great food, no atmosphere. Thank you. I'll be here all week.

be approved as corrected by the Chief Clerk. 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, and clearly, Rep. Barone, those jokes have to improve. Announcements and introductions. Representative Carter.

Oh!

Raiders.

Representative Stewart. Good morning, Madam Speaker.

All right, members, this Friday is Concrete Day at the Capitol, and there's going to be a barbecue from 11 to 1 p.m. on the East Lawn.

Also, you all got to pay attention. We have a very special VIP guest. Representative Stewart, one moment. Members, listen up. Members, VIP guests, the Honorable Barbara McLaughlin is over there. Great to see you, Representative. Are we doing these things? Sure. Representative Froelich.

Thank you. Representative Bottoms.

Oh, congratulations. So approved. Representative Espinoza.

Thank you. Representative Mabry.

Representative Johnson. and Sukla.

Representative Sucla.

Representative Gilchrist.

Representative Story. Thank you, Mr. Pro Tem. I just wanted to announce that CDC will be meeting tomorrow, Wednesday, April 29th at 8.40 a.m. in Senate Committee Room 357, not on Thursday, April 30th, as appears in the printed calendar. And the committee will consider a property transaction proposal from Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

Okay, members, thank you. Today, we honor the life and legacy of Reuben Lewis Sims, Jr., a devoted son, father, and pillar of the Aurora community whose life was defined by service, courage, and unwavering commitment to others. Sorry, members, I just want to be able... Thank you. In 1977, Mr. Sims made history as the first African-American firefighter for Aurora Fire Rescue. For 20 years, he served with distinction, protecting the lives and property of Aurora residents with integrity and bravery. But his impact went far beyond the calls he answered. As a firefighter and engineer, Mr. Stims stood as more than a public servant. He was a symbol a symbol of perseverance in the face of barriers a symbol of possibility for those who had long been excluded from spaces like his and a symbol of what it means to lead not just with strength but with purpose He broke barriers within the fire service, opening doors for those who would follow, and he didn't stop there. He used his position to uplift others, advocating for greater inclusion of women and communities of color in the fire service. He understood that being the first was not just an achievement, it was a responsibility. Beyond his uniform, Mr. Sims was deeply rooted in the Aurora community. Whether at Juneteenth celebrations or the Black Arts Festival, he showed up with pride presence and with a commitment to celebrating culture and community. Those who knew him remember not only a trailblazer, but a man of humility, strength, and character. Someone who carried the weight of history with grace and who worked to make the path easier for those who came after him. Mr. Sims did pass away and is believed to have suffered from cancer related to his service, a solemn reminder of the risks our firefighters carry every day in service to others, and yet his legacy endures. It lives on in his family, in the firefighters he inspired, and in the countless lives he touched, both on and off duty. It lives on in the city of Aurora's decision in October 2023 to designate a portion of East 16th Avenue as Reuben Sims Jr. Avenue, ensuring that his name and his impact will never be forgotten. Today we honor Reuben Lewis Sims Jr. not only for his historic service, but for the doors he opened, the lives he changed, and the example he set. Please welcome his family, his son. Jamie, if you could stand. Thank you so much, members. We offer our heartfelt condolences and appreciation to his family, whose love and strength continue to carry his legacy forward. Thank you so much. Thank you all.

I apologize. I still got more to go. Here we have Carter Day. Two things I want to point out about Mr. Sims Jr. While I was researching information about Mr. Sims Jr. Regarding the first black firefighter, he was the first male, African-American male firefighter. What I found out while doing my research, the first black female firefighter is still currently working at Aurora Fire. Also, one last thing, we will be doing a 5K in Reuben Sims. Yeah, don't give me that look. I'm going to run a 5K. We're going to be doing a 5K. We will be running a 5K in Reuben Sims Jr. Honor on June 5th. And one last thing, last announcement. today is ALG day at the capitol they have chosen to go to the lesser chamber first ALG means the African leadership group they have chosen to go to the lesser chamber first however I will still say my remarks that's on them I want to take a moment to recognize a very special group of visitors they're going to be here at the capitol today the African leadership group was founded in 2006 by Papadia a man whose story is in many ways the story of countless immigrants who have come to this country in search of a better life. Papadia arrived in the United States in 1998 from Senegal, carrying with him a background in law and a determination to build something here. Like so many others, he faced real obstacles, a new language, a new system, credentials that didn't transfer. He took a job at a bookstore, then in a bank where he worked for almost 18 years. It was there that something became clear to him. The financial tools and resources that can make or break a person's future in this country existed, but they weren't reaching the people who needed them most, immigrant communities. African communities were being left out of the conversation. And when Papadia began helping the people around him navigate those systems, more and more people came to him for guidance. When the bank took notice and expressed concern, Papadia made a decision. He would build something whose entire purpose was to help. This is how the African Leadership Group was born. Add one person's refusal to accept that his community should be left behind. ALG's work is guided by values that this institution should recognize. transformation, diversity, equity, integrity, and excellence. Those are not abstract ideas, ideals. They have the foundation of what it takes to help African immigrants successfully and professionally integrate into American life and ensure that when people come to this country with talent, drive, and ambition, they have a real opportunity to contribute. ALG, like I said, they went to the Leicester Chamber first, but at 1.30 they will be in the West foyer. Please stop by and say hello.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. I do have an announcement. Member, this is a reminder that we are in open enrollment through May 11th. If you have any questions regarding benefits or open enrollment, please feel free to reach out to Shannon Briggs in accounting. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, I move to proceed out of order for consideration of resolutions.

Madam Speaker, I move for the immediate consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 21.

Senate Joint Resolution 21 by Senator Judah, also Representative Zokai, concerning designating the month of April as National Arab American Heritage Month.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move Senate Joint Resolution 21 and ask that the Be It Resolved section be read at length.

Be it resolved by the Senate of the 75th General Assembly of the State of Colorado, the House of Representatives concurring herein, that the General Assembly recognizes the contributions that Arab Americans have made to the development of the United States and the State of Colorado, that the General Assembly officially designates the month of April as National Arab American Heritage Month to be observed yearly as a time dedicated to recognizing the valuable contributions of Arab Americans, and that the General Assembly urges Colorado residents and institutions to actively participate in this special observance.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And Madam Speaker, which is another way to say it an honor to serve with you It is an honor to serve with you Members I would like to just start by thanking Senator Judah for bringing forward this resolution to designate the month of April as National Arab American Heritage Month here in Colorado. For over a century, Arab Americans have helped shape this country in profound ways, contributing to medicine, science, education, business, public service, and culture. and somebody recently asked me about Middle Eastern culture and to try to describe it which is a difficult thing to do but I think that above all it's a culture that is rooted in hospitality and taking care of each other and bringing people in as if they're our family and we are going to feed you whether you like it or not and I bring that up because I think that that culture is often and not what is portrayed in Western media and in political rhetoric. And too often, people who are of Middle Eastern descent or Arab Americans are reduced to stereotypes that are rooted in fear or conflict or suspicion rather than seen for who they actually are, which is neighbors, professionals, public servants, business owners, and families that are deeply invested in the well-being of our communities. And I think that that split leads to something that I see within our communities, which is this push of whether we try to shed our culture and background and act as American as possible, or whether we really embrace our culture and show who we really are to try to run a face of that stereotype. and I think that people with me grapple with that. And to me, the point of this resolution is to say that whether you choose to assimilate or not, you are American and you belong. And here in Colorado, more than 42,000 Arab Americans call our state home, contributing every day to our economy and our civic life. Their presence is not new. Arab Americans have been part of Colorado's story since the late 1800s, and their impact continues to grow. This resolution recognizes the deep family values, commitment to education, entrepreneurial spirit, and the rich diversity of faiths and traditions that Arab Americans bring to our shared community. And it affirms that everyone in our state should feel respected and safe. And I think that's something important to note as it does feel very pressing now, given conflict in Lebanon and innocent lives that are at risk. And so I'm just going to close by reading something that a family member in Lebanon sent to me. Today it hit home. Not far, not somewhere else, right next to me. Today a bomb fell a couple of buildings away from where I was standing. Today I could have been gone. Today I ran without thinking. I ran to reach my daughter, and I found her collapsing, terrified, in a place that was supposed to be safe. This is not normal. This is not life. My family is not collateral. My child is not part of your war. Our lives are not yours to gamble with. Take your wars. Fight them somewhere else. Leave us out of it. I ask for a yes vote.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move that the following bills be made special orders on April 28, 2026 at 9.39 a.m. House Bill 1419 and House Bill 1340.

House Bill 1419 by Representative Sirota and Brown, also Senators Maubelain-Bridges, concerning the over-refund amount for state fiscal year 2024-25 of state revenues in excess of the state fiscal year spending limit under Section 20 of Article 10 of the state constitution.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1419 and the committee report. To the committee report Representative Sirota Thank you Mr Chair There was just a very small appropriation necessary to ensure that the auditor has the ability to provide the report necessary for the bill

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is actually a very simple bill in concept. What happened was the books were closed on the 24-25 fiscal year, and then just days later, Congress passed H.R. 1, which had a significant impact on the financial outlook of the state and significantly reduced revenues that impacted that particular fiscal year because it impacted tax year 2025, which occurs halfway in fiscal year 2025 and halfway in fiscal year 26. And so what happened was that when the books were closed prior to the passage of H.R. 1, it appeared that we had a Tabor refund and that refund was given out. But, however, what happened with H.R. 1 is that the revenue reduction then was all absorbed into one and a half years of a revenue reduction was absorbed into one year. And so in order to remedy the fact that essentially refunds were given out, even though revenue didn't actually come in, we have worked out this particular bill to direct under law. we are directing the controller to determine an amount that is equal to the difference between what was certified in the ACFER and then what the state would have been required to refund based on the actual impact of HR1. And then that reduction will reduce TABOR refunds but spread it out over two years to actually adjust for the over-refund that was given after fiscal year 2025. Easy peasy.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think everybody knows that our TABOR refunds come from surplus revenue above the TABOR cap. And as my co-prime sponsor mentioned, based on the tax year 2025 revenue prior to H.R. 1's passage, we were above the TABOR cap last year. But H.R. 1 retroactively reduced taxes and FY25 revenue, so actual collections did not reach the cap. The state needs to amend revenue collections for FY25 to more accurately reflect the tax revenue that was actually collected. Since H.R. 1 eliminated TABOR revenue, but we haven't adjusted that revenue, we've been sending out TABOR refunds out the door based on money that we've never collected. So we running this bill to correct that error that was caused by the federal government and we are moving this bill to correct that So we ask for an aye vote.

Representative Sirota. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have one amendment. I move L007 and ask that it be displayed.

Representative Sirota. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment does two things. It sets this policy in motion based upon the certification from the controller in September of 2026, and it also changes a date so that it requires this calculation to be performed by November 16th instead of December 1st to give a little more time for it to be implemented. This was at the request of the Comptroller, so I ask for an aye vote.

Representative Garcia-Sander. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this conversation around the Taxpayer Bill of Rights is interesting because we've heard a lot about H.R. 1 for the last, I don't know, almost year. And H.R. 1 did reduce state revenue during fiscal year 24-25 by approximately $319.8 million. However, because H.R. 1 became law four days after the close of the 24-25 fiscal year on July 4th, this revenue impact is supposed to be accrued to fiscal year 25-26 under normal accounting rules, to accrue the fiscal impact to a prior fiscal year would be unprecedented. I am really concerned that this is going to open up our state to some pretty big legal issues. I'd like to know kind of what the explanation is around that, because if we have a big lawsuit on this, I think we'd lose. just it's a date thing so if you could address that that would be great thanks

thank you chair some of the same it was calculated correctly under the law and economic conditions that it existed during fiscal year 24-25 And under accounting rules for Colorado itself, says the follows, it is not an over-refund. Now, I think at some point we just need to realize that we have a spending problem. If we had the billion surplus that we had in the past I don think this would be the issue We have a billion deficit that we dealt with in traditional fashion by raising taxes increasing debt and adding spending That's the problem. not that the citizens got money back. Colorado's annual comprehensive financial report states that the ACFR is prepared in conformity with the General Accepted Accounting Principles, GAAP, applicable to governments as prescribed under the Government Accounting Standards Board, the GSB. In plain language, that means Colorado has chosen to follow GASB's rulebook for government accounting, and that rulebook is what governs how we treat anything that happens after the fiscal year ends. GASB statement number 56 is the standard that tells Colorado how to handle subsequent events in fiscal year 24-25, things that happened after the fiscal year closed but before the financial statements were issued. GASB defines subsequent events as events or transactions that affect the financial statements sometimes occur subsequent to the statement of net assets date, but before financial statements are issued. GASB 56 draws a bright line between two types of subsequent events. There are recognized events and there are, not surprisingly, non-recognized events. So what are the recognized events? These events are that provide additional evidence with respect to conditions that exist at the date of the statement of net assessments and affect the estimates inherent in the process of preparing financial statements. GSB says all information that becomes available before issuance should be used to evaluate those existing conditions, and the financial statements should be adjusted for any changes in estimates resulting from the use of such evidence. Then there are non-recognized events. These are events that provide evidence with respect to conditions that did not exist at the date of statement of net assets but arose subsequent to that date. GASB is explicit. These events should not result in adjustment of the financial statements. though some may be important enough that you disclose them in the notes so user understands the financial statements. So under the very statements that Colorado says that it follows, Colorado says that it follows, there is only one kind of later development that justifies changing already completed financial statements. New information about conditions that already existed as of the end of year. Now conditions that arise after end of year do not allow you to go back and rewrite the past. At most, you must disclose them. So not only are we looking at, well, it's just retroactively going after the overtaxation of the citizens of Colorado in addition to pulling back things like retaxing overtime pay and tips, which is a surprising way to try to save the citizens of Colorado any money. So let's apply this to the Tabor refund for 24-25. First, the refunds due from the taxpayer bill of rights are based on taxpayer bill of rights surplus, which in turn is based on state fiscal year spending, as defined in Colorado law as the conditions that actually existed during the fiscal year. The fiscal year 24-25 surplus and refund were calculated under the tax laws and federal treatment that were in effect that fiscal year. When someone now calls that refund an over-refund, they are doing something different. they are taking a law or policy change that happened in fiscal year 2425, ended in trying to retroactively apply it to the past year, as if those new conditions had existed all along. Under GSB 56's definitions, that is the textbook example of a non-recognized subsequent event. So what does that do? Well, now, if you just go past that, you're opening yourself up for a lawsuit, and a lawsuit could cost the bringing back that refund plus an additional 10%, plus $30 million on top of that. So it seems like that's not, that seems pretty cut and dry. And there are definitely people that are eager to take this to court because the citizens of Colorado appreciate that they have a taxpayer bill of rights. They don't appreciate that the General Assembly blows through it, past it, and bulldozes it under every year. Under the GSB's rulebook, that matters. GSB 56 tells us that events which create new conditions after year end should not result in adjustment of the financial statements. If an event is big and important, you might need to disclose it so users understand what changed. but you do not rewrite the prior year numbers that were correct under the old laws and old conditions. And again, we had $1.5 billion, and then there was another $1.5 billion. This is $300 million. It's not insignificant, but it is not addressing the core issues of overspending in this general assembly. So Colorado, once again, this is indicative of the larger game plan of getting rid of your taxpayer bill of rights. Colorado says its statewide financial report follows GASB's rulebook, except for Rule 56, for governed accounting. GASB's rulebook has a specific section, 56, that tells us what to do when something happens after the fiscal year ends. It says we only go back and change the prior year financial statements when there is new information sheds lights on conditions that were already in place at year end. But when something truly new happens later, like a change in federal law or policy, that is a non-recognized subsequent event. Those events do not justify changing the past year's statements at most.

Thank you, Chair. So this is just a simple referendum clause. We replace the clause, make it a referendum clause, and take it to the citizens of Colorado because we are talking about a tax change. So if we're going to talk about a tax change to our tax policy by disregarding significant factors of our tax policy, we should take this to the citizens of Colorado and say, citizens of Colorado, how do you feel about the General Assembly disregarding longstanding tax policy for the purpose of not refunding the overtaxation that was calculated under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. So that's all the referendum does. It just says, let's take this to the citizens. It's their money. It's their tax policy. Much to your chagrin, they still have rights as taxpayers, and this is one of them, that they have the right to make determinations and that they are required to give permission whenever you're going to do significant changes to the tax policy, like, I don't know, completely disregard sections of the tax policy itself. So I recommend an aye vote on this and take this to the people so that I think we should take this to the people instead of just giving this to the people.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I ask for a no vote on this amendment The safety clause is necessary for implementation of this bill and we are not violating the Constitution with this bill We are simply Tabor allows for the type of correction that is embedded in this bill We correct for over every year and Tabor is clear that the legislature has the authority to determine how refunds are calculated and distributed, and the safety clause does exist for these very budgetary purposes. So I ask for a no vote.

I like the old statement that failure to plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine. The safety clause is something for emergencies. Now, if we had, I mean, we do have money in reserve. We have billions of dollars in reserve. Not that we should spend them. We should be bolstering that. There was no issue with taking that down. We have no shortage of areas in which we can save millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars in rooting out the fraud that's in the budget. That's not on the table. There's been numerous places identified, and we've gone more the route of California, which has basically made looking for fraud illegal. I can't figure out why anybody would want to make looking for fraud illegal. But this body, this state, this gold dome, the gold dome cesspool has blocked all look at reform. We have not taken apart the budget. We've not gone line item veto. We've not gone line item zero budget, zero-based budgeting. like we should in the case where we've blown through a $4 billion surplus. So we have this emergency of our own creating. And once again, just like every time when you overspend, you say, well, wow, we overspent and we're just doing good stuff. So our solution is to take more money from the citizens of Colorado. Always the solution. Now, when you say we're not changing tax policy, it seems like we are disregarding GASB statement number five that tells Colorado how to handle subsequent events. And I don't think $300 million is de minimis. Things that happened after the fiscal year closed, but before the financial statements were issued. Now, if you go through with this, I can pretty much guarantee you that there is going to be a lawsuit. There's going to be a lawsuit. I mean, for if no other reason than the penalties on this would be $30 million. $30 million. So if there's a lawyer out there that would be willing to apply themselves to the possible lawsuit against this, their cut would be part of $30 million in damages. And then the $300 million would go back. So this is a significant change to tax policy. It also creates precedent. It creates bad precedent in just saying, yes, we have rules, but they're not really rules. They're more what you call guidelines. And we follow them until they become inconvenient And then we disregard them and we reach further you reach further into the pockets of the citizens of Colorado There's all kinds of places that we could start looking with zero-based budgeting to save the citizens of Colorado money. My go-to is the governor's green grift. Hundreds of millions of dollars there. Hundreds of million dollars in your climate superstition. That accomplishes nothing.

Thank you, Chair. Somebody bet me that I couldn't work in one half of one drop in 20 Olympic-sized swimming pools of drops. So I won't work that in, and I'll just lose my bet.

I'll just lose my bet.

it. So there's plenty of money in the budget. There's plenty of money that has been that has been tax extracted from the citizens pockets. You can go look there. You don't need to go back out and send your goon squad back after the citizens of Colorado. This is a referendum. This would be getting the permission of the citizens of Colorado to do this. This would be getting the permission of the citizens of Colorado to do this. But you could just say, well, that's $300 million over roughly $4 million or so, so it's, you know, what, 50 to 60. It's not all that much. Just ask for the citizens to pay extra on their taxes this year. Just say, hey, we blew the budget. We're asking for some extra money. Just go ahead and write that check on there. And you wouldn't even have to put it on the ballot because I'm sure the citizens of Colorado would be understanding and they would be forthcoming and open up their checkbooks because they know that the General Assembly of Colorado has nothing but the best interest at heart. That all of the money blown by this General Assembly is for their own greater good. So this is a referendum clause to keep us from getting sued, losing an additional $30 million, because of blowing off GASB number 56 and making a significant change in our tax policy and raking back, shaking the citizens of Colorado upside down by their heels to get whatever's in their pockets out, I recommend a yes vote.

Thank you, Chair. I do think this referendum is the actual best path. And the reason is because this is going to be a lawsuit. And I want to give some more information that will help the lawsuit. I brought this up in a prop. I voted against this in a prop. There is a definite disagreement within the legal department on this bill. and it was stated by some of the legal that this is putting the state in a precarious position and that would be definitely uh liable for a lawsuit and would most likely win uh lose that lawsuit and so i'm saying this not to the people in the building um you may have may have not known that but i'm saying it to the lawyers that are going to be uh going after this this This is part of the information. This is a win at this point. Knowing that even legal said that this was not okay, we should not be doing this, and that we would be liable for this, lets you know it will be lost once we get out there. This bill will be lost on a legal challenge because it's already been lost in legal in this building. And so, yeah, I think this amendment is the only option you have. You take it to the people, at this point it's going to lose, which I'm actually okay with that. If you vote down this amendment, I'm totally okay with it going to the people, because part of what was stated was all of the money, if this lawsuit wins against the state, and this bill is overturned, then all of the refund goes back plus interest. So I'm okay with us taking that route. I wouldn't mind a little bit of interest added on. Now this amendment gets you out of this. This amendment is the only thing that will get this bill out of legal, out of a lawsuit. This actual, and I don't even know if the sponsor of the amendment knew it was that deep. But this is the only option because it will be sued, it will lose, and we will get all of our refund back plus interest. So actually, I want you to vote no on this amendment.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. am I not surprise folks that I agree with the folks from my caucus that have spoken today. A little bit earlier, we had a question asked about why we were clearly changing policy. That wasn't answered, and I know why, but the law can be confusing. Obviously, we got lawyers that argue both sides of every issue, but our Constitution is clear that if there is a tax policy change directly causing a net tax revenue gain, then it goes to the people, as this amendment calls for. When there is confusion about whether something might be a tax policy change or not, we are blessed with other lines in our Constitution. Within Section 20, the general provisions, it states, it is the preferred interpretation, the preferred interpretation of Tabor, that its measure shall reasonably restrain most growth in government. I think that's pretty clear. If there is a question, we default to not collecting money and not growing government. the whole purpose of this found money is to continue to grow our government. It has not been reasonably restrained. I was in a meeting in Appropriations this morning where it was brought up in not a very pleasant discussion and some very I don know it was just not a very pleasant discussion when a sponsor was asked and it wasn really the sponsor issue but a JBC member that was very concerned that after all the work that has been done that a department within the state actually came up within two bills, that departments within the state, after lengthy work to find every bit of spare cash we had, were suddenly finding spare cash to pay for new bills. This is exactly that. We're trying to find spare cash or make it up out of whole cloth to pay new bills. Just interesting to see essentially the same argument being used in reverse just an hour later. But our Constitution is clear. when it comes to things Tabor, like this amendment, we should err towards that that reasonably restrains the growth of the government. That's what this amendment does. It reasonably puts it in the hands of the people. Let them vote. I know how I would. I think I know how the majority would vote. But let's pass this amendment. Thank you.

Thank you. Chair, just to reemphasize what my colleague read, I think it is a significant change in the tax policy when we have a set of rules, when we have rules to the game, and then you change it mid-game. That's a pretty significant change. Now, one thing that I did want to note, because, well, one, you have $300 million, roughly. And I think we have around 4 million voters. So that's around $75 per voter. And if we went back to the $4 billion of surplus that we had a long time ago, that would be about $1,000 per voter. So one, Colorado citizens, tax widgets of Colorado, just know that the overtaxation that was one time $4 billion, that would have netted you a return in that overtaxation because of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights that the General Assembly tries to dismantle every year has reduced that down to a whopping $75. So this is really a great exercise in what the General Assembly has done to the citizens of Colorado. It has reduced a $1,000 per voter per year refund due to the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, and it has reduced it to $75. Now it wants that $75 back. Because here's what it says. Request R2 argues that the entire amount of the refund last year, or 24-25 refund, was due, was an over-refund, and that over-refund was due to H.R. 1. So citizens of Colorado consider this, that the only reason that you got, that you received a refund of just roughly an average, just roughly averaging that out of $75 down from $1,000 is because of H.R. 1. And now what is the General Assembly trying to do? What is the majority of the General Assembly trying to do? they are trying to rake that back. They have to rake that back The governor has to rake back that money because they want you to have no they want no overtaxation considered to be no overtaxation under the taxpayer bill of rights so that when they come to you and they say why do we have this taxpayer bill of rights you not getting a refund anyways And so remember, the reason that you have the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, yes, so you get a refund when the General Assembly overtaxes you, which is it would never consider that it overtaxes you because there is no limit to the amount of taxes. But the only reason that we can even offer this amendment is because the Taxpayer Bill of Rights requires that any significant change in tax policy go back to the citizens of Colorado. That is what they want to get rid of. They want to take your money without asking. They want to take your money without asking. They want to increase your taxes without asking. And this is just more proof. Voting this down is just more proof of why they hate the taxpayer bill of rights, because they want to take more of your money without asking. They want this to go through quietly. They want to go back into your pockets, reach way deep into your pockets, all of them, see what they can find. If they can't find it in your pockets, they'll go for your couch cushions, they'll go for whatever they have to, and then they'll start going after the pennies. Yeah, we're going to have to bring my, I'm going to have to bring my penny jar back out here. I mean, that was the only serious effort to balance the budget in recent years. So this is a referendum that matches the Taxpayer Bill of Rights that says the General Assembly, if it's going to make a significant tax change, policy change, which the significant tax policy change is to completely blow off the rules in the tax policy that we say we follow. to go back only so they can go back and rake back the money that was saved and put back into the economy by that big, beautiful bill. Because the General Assembly, the sponsors of this bill, are saying the citizens of Colorado should have gotten nothing back and liked it because they will not be happy until you have nothing.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I love this amendment. So I've mentioned it before. I used to have a bumper sticker next to my desk that said, to frighten a child, do to and not with. To enlighten a child, do with and not to. People like to be asked. They like to be involved in their decisions. And almost three-quarters of the voting public in Colorado likes Tabor, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, and they like it because they want to be asked. It's not saying that they'll say no. We've seen school districts get bonds passed. We've seen municipalities get mill levies raised and bonds passed. People just want to be asked. So this amendment is simply taking it to the voters to ask them Choices are important People like to have choices To frighten the public do to and not with To enlighten the public do with and not to Words to live by.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Maybe we should just bring it back to talking points that maybe we can all understand. Let's talk abortion. Let's talk Amendment 79. No, let's talk about L-008. We're going to.

Amendment 79, overwhelmingly, we love abortion in this state. The taxpayers said yes to abortion. Let's do abortion. Let's fund it from the taxpayers. What if we said let's not have taxpayer-funded abortion anymore? I'm sure we would want to take that to the voters. I'm sure we would want to run a referendum. them. That is what we're doing for Tabor. I'm just trying to put it so you guys on the left can understand where we're coming from. Tabor, Taxpayer Bill of Rights, was overwhelmingly voted for by the taxpayers in all of our districts. Like you say abortion was, although it wasn't in mine. Or Penrose. They didn't vote for that either. So the voters should get to vote for you stealing their refunds, not the Golden Dome, because they are sick of you stealing their refunds. They would like their refunds. Just like if we were trying to take abortion rights away from people, they would want to vote on that. So I'm just trying to wrap it up with a pretty little bow. The people should be able to vote on you taking away their taxpayer bill of right refunds. Maybe that helps. You're welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If members are very, very upset about the loss of refunds, my suggestion is you take it up with the Republicans in Congress because it is their fault.

Okay, citizens of Colorado, you heard it. it is the fault of the signers of H.R. 1 that you got a refund at all. That you got a refund, it is only due to that H.R. 1. Now, that did some crazy things like no tax on tip, no tax on overtime. No, what? Able-bodied people doing able-bodied things like work. Canceling Medicaid fraud. The things that this state really stands for. Medicaid fraud. Able-bodied people just sponging off the citizens of Colorado, not contributing from each according to his ability to each according to his need. Crazy things. The only reason, citizens of Colorado, the sponsors just told you the only reason you got a refund, and it's right here, Request R2, argues that the entire amount of the 24-25 refund is an over-refund. It is only, there is only a refund. There is only a recognition of overtaxation by the taxpayer bill of rights because we still have a taxpayer. Bill of Rights. And as you can see, the General Assembly, the majority party of the General Assembly, will go after whatever money they can find wherever they can find it, including raking it back out of your pockets. So if you're curious where you stand on the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, this is a good example. If you're concerned about this and you think, yeah, that should come to the voters, you only have that option of going to the voters to ask. And why do they hate that about the Taxpayer Bill of Rights? Because overwhelmingly the citizens of Colorado vote that they don't want more taxes. So that's why you get more fees. Now, fees are just taxes that identify as something different. But they're still taxes. And then they say, well, a fee is something that you get for a service. So they contrive a service to charge a fee because they want to just actually charge a tax. So you contrive a service that you didn't know you needed in order to charge you a fee. Because the Taxpayer Bill of Rights protects you from taxation without your permission. And the citizens of Colorado, overwhelming. So this is why they don't want to take this to the citizens of Colorado. because the citizens of Colorado overwhelmingly say, no, you tax us enough. You've taxed us enough. Now, citizens of Colorado, I can guarantee you, they do not believe that they have taxed you enough. Getting rid of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights is their dream. Not for an election year, but for the subsequent year. after the election year. They're not going to run on killing that taxpayer bill of rights this year. They're going to wait until next year if they're allowed to because they hate the idea that they have to come to the citizens of Colorado who they supposedly represent and ask for the ability to raise taxes. As long as you have money, they're not going to be happy. So a $4 billion surplus that would have netted you $1,000 has, through the whittling, the death by 1,000 cuts, been reduced to about $75 per individual. And now they want it back. Now they want it back. So while I think we ought to continue the conversation on this, I just do want to know, Chair, that I will be asking for a... We don't have to stop discussion now, but I will be asking for a division on this because I do want to know where the General Assembly stands on whether the citizens of Colorado should be asked about significant changes in tax policy or they should be asked about significant raises in revenue. And this is both. So again, I don't know if my colleagues have anything more to say to the citizens of Colorado. The only reason you got a refund is because of H.R. 1. The majority party, the governor wants it back. Representative Brooks.

Since my colleague asked and since he shown an inclination to be curious about what taxpayers in Colorado want since he shown a modicum of wafer amount of interest or concern about what actual taxpayers of Colorado want, I just figured I'd come up with results of a very highly, admittedly, unscientific poll. There was another Tabor tax-grabbing item that I heard in committee last night. It will be coming here soon. And typically what ends up happening when a bill passes out of committee, as this one did, somebody will make a social media post. Yay, my bill passed. Actually, so what I went through and I looked at the comments on that bill passing committee. And there are upwards of 40 comments, and there were two that said, hey, great job. Everybody else basically said, stop stealing our money. The math on it was .047, so less than 5%. Admittedly, highly unscientific poll. It's scientific enough for me. Less than... You were there. Less than 5%. Less than 5% favorability. Less than 5% of people said, nice job. 95% of people said, shame on you. We want our taxpayer bill of rights to stand. We want our money. Manage your own money. Figure out how to live within your means. I could go through. Actually, the comments were very rude. It made me uncomfortable. I had to stop reading. They were so, gosh, it made my stomach turn. That's what Colorado thinks of stuff like this.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to come up here and just say that obviously I support this amendment. This is very obvious. But I wanted to touch on some comments like HR1 and Congress is to blame for what we're in right now. Totally false. I don't know if you remember last session. A few of my members and myself, I remember this, and there's a video on my social media that I have receipts, that we came up here and we said this is all before HR1 has even passed. It was being contemplated. It was being discussed in Congress. And I remember saying, H.R. 1 is a big tax cut for the citizens of the United States of America, including Colorado, which is a state in the United States of America. Why are we overspending? We are going to be in a bigger deficit next session. This was last session. If we overspend, do not do this. H.R. 1 is going to pass. You were warned. You knew it was coming And guess what? This body did it anyway And now that it did happen What is this body doing? Talk to the Republicans in Congress in Washington D.C. No That is unfair Because we were told this last session This was going to happen

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's an honor to serve with you. It is an honor to serve with you. Members, I've been listening to the discussion, and I appreciate the conversation around things that are popular or deeply unpopular with folks in our state. I also appreciate the sentiment of this amendment where we are asking the voters what they want. And the clear line of reasoning that's being made, or at least I understand it, is that we should do what the voters want us to do. I might be paraphrasing the argument a bit, but you'll forgive the simplicity for the sake of an argument here. And I love that argument. I just wish we had made it, or at least certain elected officials had been somehow bound by that argument prior to casting their vote to H.R. 1. It's pretty clear when you look at the timeline what we had in projected Tabor refunds the minute before H.R. 1 was signed into law and what happened to our state the minute after H.R. 1 was signed into law. Now you can say, maybe they didn't know. Maybe no one told them. I was there for the interim process where we discussed with each and every department what would happen if H.R. 1 was signed into law? I went so far as to ask a question on the mic. Have all of our congressional representatives received this information? Has my congressman, CD2, received this information? Yes, he did. Has the congressman from CD8 received this information? Yes, he has. What about the congresswoman from CD4? Has she received this information? Yes, she has. In fact, Larimer County's Health and Human Services Director was there and said, we have reached out to her office numerous times, as we have from the good representative from CD8. What was the response? The response was a yes vote on legislation that is deeply unpopular with the electorate. That's not my polling. That's not just conjecture. That's a poll from an organization that typically does not align with values of the Democratic caucus, a news channel that a lot of people watch on the regular. That information is out there. Now you might ask, what are the impacts of HR1? Why should we be talking about that? Well, it's clear. The impacts to health care in our state were very clear to us if you attended those interim processes. But even if you didn't, you just need to listen to what our health care providers are telling us. What about the impact of SNAP benefits and other vital services The impacts are clear What about the impacts to Tabor refunds The impacts were clear This is not hidden away This is something that was made very clear to each and every one of us downstream of a decision that we had no input on other than to plead our case to our congressional delegation to please please don do this And what did they do? They said, thank you very much for that information. we're going to pass the tax bill anyway. Now where did that money go? Did it go back into the pockets of Coloradans? No. Well, maybe it did if you're ultra-wealthy. But if it went back in your pocket, I would ask you, where's your Tabor refund? It's not coming. And that was not a decision by this body. That was a decision by your federal government and your federal administration. That was the values they put forward. They have the majority. They could vote that through. So if we want to talk about what is popular or unpopular, let's start with why we're in this mess in the first place. And it has nothing to do with this body and everything to do with the downstream effects that happened because of a federal administration that prioritized certain individuals over the average Colorado who might have otherwise received a TABOR refund. It is clear. If you want your TABOR refund, make a different decision when it comes to that point. But this body, this body will continue to act responsibly with the dollars we have, ensuring that when there are impacts of legislation that is passed, such as H.R. 1, that bleed backwards into tax years before this one, that we will make that adjustment. That is what we are obligated to do. Nobody in your federal delegation was obligated to make that yes vote. They chose that. And when they chose that, it had the impact on TABOR refunds that you are seeing today. We can disagree about whether or not you like that. But what is not up for debate is how that happened and why that happened. Thank you.

I appreciate the animation. So, request R2 argues the entire amount of the fiscal year 24-25 refund was an over-refund. Why? Because of H.R. 1. So if 100% of any refund that went out to Coloradans was because of H.R. 1, and then Speaker Pro Tem is advocating that you would have gotten a refund without H.R. 1, I'm not sure that math's correctly. Oh, no, wait. It does not. 100% of $300 million is $300 million. Request R2 argues that the entire amount of the fiscal year 24-25 was an over-refund due to H.R. 1. What does that say? The only reason. The only reason is because of H.R. 1. The only reason that $300 million went back into the economy at roughly an average of $75 per person. Now, I don't know how that factors out with the tapered refund, but we have 4 million voters. So how it all goes back, it goes back, but it goes back into the economy. Okay. And what happens when it goes into the economy? It gets spent. And what happens when it gets spent? It goes and it gets spent again, and it gets spent again, and it continues to go around the economy until the General Assembly takes a little bit off the top with every transaction until it's gone. So ultimately, the General Assembly did get that money back. it did come back because that money just goes out and gets spent it gets spent and it transfers so if you have 5% sales tax you spend that dollar 95 cents goes to the next person and then 91 cents goes to the next person and then 87 cents goes to the next person and pretty soon that dollar is zero why? Because the entire dollar has been subsumed by the General Assembly. But the only reason that you had, the only reason that we had to have that dollar go through the economy fractionally about 20 times before it was siphoned, it was vacuumed into this fiscal vacuum. that is because of HR1. Request R2 says it. Argues, argues. It makes the argument that the entire amount of the 2024 refund was an over-refund because of HR1. You, tax widgets of Colorado, did not deserve that. That's the governor's position. That's the majority party's position. You did not deserve any of that money back. And you will never deserve to have any of that money back because, as you note, they had already reduced the overtaxation consideration to zero. And that is not enough. They've taken that overtaxation of $1,000 per year and reduced it to zero. They have increased your taxes in that time frame by that $1,000 per year. So when you consider that, what you used to get in a refund because of overtaxation by the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, that has been feed into oblivion. Fees for feels. The only reason that there were refunds, that there were $300 million that were infused into the economy, was because of H.R. 1. And boy, the weeping and gnashing of teeth over you having any money in your pockets is incredible. One federal audit, $285 million. Wow, we're almost there. One federal audit uncovered, $285 million worth of fraud in one department. it. Then there was another $40 million in ride fraud. And then for 10 years in 10 counties, they've been charging $600 for a $60 wheelchair push or ride for 10 years. How much is that? I don't know. They haven't figured it out yet. Probably because the AG is not forthcoming in allowing this fraud to be uncovered Please bring it back to L So we are thank you Chair we are I appreciate the reminder that we want to talk about L because we should be going back to the taxpayer and asking them, do you think it's more important for you to get, for H.R. 1 to have infused $300 million into the economy or should the General Assembly protect, in this one department, $350 million worth of fraud? $300 million into the economy, $350 million worth of fraud and campaign contributions, taking the opportunity to take campaign contributions. The TABOR refund was sent out. That's the problem. You say, where are your TABOR refunds? They're being sent out. That's why their governor is trying to rake them back. The entire amount of the refund is an over-refund because of H.R. 1. The only reason that there was $300 million re-infused back into the economy to spin around until the General Assembly siphoned it off, taxed it off, drained the energy off of those dollars one transaction at a time is because of H.R. 1. and the General Assembly is mad. So yes, I agree with Speaker Pro Tem. If you want a different outcome, you need to make a different decision. If you want to be asked if you're okay with being taxed more, you definitely have to make a different decision. If you want there, if you want overtaxation to be returned to you and your family where we had $1,000. I don't know if anybody could use, I guess nobody could even use $1,000 per person per year out of a $4 billion surplus because the General Assembly decided that for the greater good, which we know from history never is, that they would siphon that off one fee at a time, one good intention at a time. that $1,000 average siphoned off one bill at a time because they want to kill your taxpayer bill of rights. They don't want to ask you if they can tax you more. They don't want to have to ask you if you would like to keep your money. you have to listen to the schemes in this building as to how they intend to get more money out of you I think the problem with the fees is they're running out of the creativity and how to fee more so now they need to go back to taxes and the only way to get more money out of the citizens of Colorado is this because they've obviously maxed themselves out because as per the request, R2, the entire amount of the 2024 refund was an over-refund because of H.R. 1. the only reason per per the request is because we still have a taxpayer bill of rights unless you make the wrong decision in November Representative Bottoms Thank you Mr Chair I do want to bring back Speaker Pro Tem words because first they were false

Any further discussion on L-008?

Representative, if you could bring it back to L-0-0.

Any further discussion on L-008? Thank you. Thank you. Members, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L008. A division has been requested. All those in the chamber not entitled to vote, please sit and remain seated. All those in favor of Amendment L008, please stand and remain standing in one place or raise your hand and keep it raised until the count is taken. Thank you. You may be seated. All those opposed, please stand and remain standing in one place or raise your hand and keep it raised until the count is taken. Thank you. You may be seated. Amendment L-008 is lost. Back to the bill. Representative Gonzalez.

Please give us a moment to display the amendment. Tell us about L003, Representative Gonzalez.

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion on L-008? Seeing none, members, the question before us is the past three. My bad. Members, the question before us is the adoption of Amendment L-003. All in favor say aye.

All opposed, no.

The no's have it. L-003 is lost. Back to the bill. Representative Brooks.

You're welcome, sir.

Do you have this?

Ledge deck. To the amendment, Representative Brooks.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank my colleague for his engagement on this bill.

And this legislative declaration establishes the history of why we're here and why this bill is necessary. We are correcting an error that was caused by the federal government. we are correcting an error in the way that we account in Colorado. So we ask for a no vote. Representative Bradley.

Representative DeGraph.

Any further discussion?

Rep. Woodrow.

Rep Woodrow, can we please take it back to the amendment?

Minority Leader Caldwell.

the right to decide if this body here is going to raise taxes on them The most recent polling I saw on is 70 percent 70 percent popularity in Colorado It probably the single most popular thing in Colorado So I don't think they were hoodwinked back in the early 90s. Tabor's been challenged, as far as I'm aware, around 36 times. And the voters rejected those challenges 69 percent of the time. So the voters continually, again and again, when they have a chance, they don't say, oh, well, we got hoodwinked back in the 90s. Let's fix it now. No, they protect the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. So I don't think they were hoodwinked. And as far as this amendment goes, I'm a yes on this amendment. Rep Hardcic.

Rep. Richardson.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of L2. All those in favor say aye.

All those opposed say no. No.

To the bill. Seek Reptograph.

Rep to graph, can we take it back to this bill?

Brad Bradley.

thing, whether the government keeps more of your money or whether taxpayers get it back like they were promised. Colorado voters were crystal clear when they passed the taxpayers bill of rights. When the state takes in more than it is allowed to spend, the money is not the government's, it belongs to the people. Not maybe, not depending on a formula, not after we tweak the math. It belongs to the people. And yet here we are again, another bill, another attempt to redefine, rework, and reinterpret what a refund actually means. Because apparently when government gets too big, the rules start to change. Let's talk about what growth, or that growth, because this is where the truth comes out. Over the last decade, Colorado's population has grown, yes, 5%. But do you know what has grown far faster? The state budget, 50%. And you know what else has grown? Medicaid at unsustainable rates of 8.8%, three times that of inflation. Government spending in this state has exploded at a pace that outstrips population growth and inflation combined. Let me say that again so it's crystal clear. Government is growing faster than the people it is supposed to serve. and now we're being told we need to adjust how refunds are calculated. Why? Because the government is collecting too much money. That's not a taxpayer problem. That's a government problem. Families across Colorado are tightening their belts. They're dealing with rising grocery costs, skyrocketing housing prices, higher energy bills, and the crushing weight of inflation. But what is the state doing? We're growing. We're expanding. We're spending. and now trying to keep more. This bill is a perfect example of how it happens, not with a headline that says we're taking your money. No, this is done quietly through formulas, through definitions, through language most people will never read. I would say that's hoodwinked. But the impact is very real. If you change how the over-refund is calculated, and we have lawyers arguing this. AGs and governor's office says it's an over-refund, but legislative staff say it's not. You change how much money goes back to taxpayers. That means less money in the pockets of hardworking Coloradans when every penny counts. And more money staying right here in government. Let's call that what it is, a backdoor tax increase. Now, supporters of this bill will say, oh, this is just a technical correction. They'll say it's about accuracy. They'll blame H.R. 1. But I have to ask, when has government ever needed to correct something in a way that results in taxpayers getting less back? When does the correction ever go the other direction? It doesn't, because this isn't about accuracy. It's about access to your money. Tabor was designed to do one thing above all else, limit the growth of government and protect the taxpayers. And every time we see a bill like this, it chips away at that protection. Not all at once, not in a way that sparks outrage overnight, although people are waking up, but slowly, deliberately, piece by piece, until one day the safeguard voters put in place doesn't function the way it was intended to anymore. And that should concern every single one of us, regardless of party, because this isn't about Republicans or Democrats. This is about whether we respect the will of the voters. We can't just respect the will of the voters when we want to. We have to respect the will of the voters every single time. Do we honor what they passed or do we look for ways around it We are sitting on a government that continues to grow year after year Programs expand departments expand spending expands and I would say fraud expands And yet somehow the answer is always the same. We need to keep more. No, you don't. The people of Colorado need to keep more. They earned it. They paid it, and under the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights, it is theirs. This bill sends the exact wrong message. It tells the taxpayers, we know better than you what to do with your money. It tells them even when we take too much, we're going to find a way to keep it, and it reinforces the pattern that people are already fed up with, a government that grows without restraint and then asks for more anyway. That's the conversation we should be having, not this, not another attempt to quietly move the goalposts, which we keep doing in this building. So I'll leave you with this. If the state has to redefine what a refund is, it's because they don't want to give it back. Vote no. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I've been here for a year and a half, and what I've learned real quickly is it's really easy to spend other people's money. I go back to my district, and this is what I hear. They talk about affordability. They talk about not being able to have insurance. Actually, I didn't have health insurance until I got elected. I didn't have health insurance after that until I was a county commissioner, and then I had health insurance for eight years. What I'm learning is if you are in government, and I'm talking all the way from local government to the state government, you're better off than my constituents.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And like our colleagues before, I am also opposed to House Bill 26-14-19. When talking about the Colorado Taxpayers Bill of Rights, when the government doesn't like it and the people love it, that usually means it's a good thing. When I talk to neighboring states and when I've been blessed to travel around the nation for conferences, other states are jealous of what we have. the Colorado Taxpayer Bill of Rights because it keeps more money in the people's wallet and it gives more money back to the people's piggy bank. Others want to follow suit. Colorado is a leader in this regard. So we should uphold what the people did years ago and make sure we're not touching their money. Last year, this year, we had to go through the cushions of the government couch. We shook and we shook and we found all the coins we could and we had to do a lot of tough decisions. At what point do we look ourselves in the mirror and look at each other and say, it is not a revenue issue. It is a spending issue. We need to make sure that every time we finally balance the budget, we're not coming back and creating other things that throw us into chaos again. We need to make sure, you know, because we have an affordable crisis in the state. I go back to my seven counties and I hear about the budget crutches they're having. Can they afford eggs that week? Can they afford milk that week? How are they going to make sure that they have that milk that lasts for the whole family? And I kid you not, colleagues, I hear of families who are adding water to their milk to make it go longer. And they are looking at what they can and cannot afford, and they're tightening their belts. They're doing budgeting because that's how you run a household. Government should follow the lead of the people, and we should tighten our belts, stick to a budget to better run the state. We need to protect the Colorado Tax Bill of Rights and make sure that the money that they're expecting and they know is owed back to them goes back to their wallet. I trust money back in the wallet of people over putting more money back into the government so it can spend it somewhere else just for us to lose it and have to balance the budget again. And I want to thank the JBC members for the long bill and the entire time that we were debating it and making sure we have a balanced budget. But we should not be then putting our hands out and saying we taking the taxpayer money instead of using what we already have I urge a no vote and I have talked to all seven of my counties When I look at them from Morgan Logan Phillip Sedgwick Washington Parts of Weld and Yuma counties, they want their money back. They want less government and they want to be left alone so they can spend what money they're able to have and the budgets that they are working hard to afford. Let's not make that harder for them. Let's not grow government. let's vote no on this bill and look at other ways that we can find revenue. Go back to the cushions of the couch of government, not to the wallets of the people. I urge no vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just appreciate this debate. I just want to bring us back to why we're here, which is the passage of H.R. 1. We had a balanced budget on July 1st of last year. On July 4th, we were over a billion dollars in deficit. That's H.R. 1. What we have done is we have refunded money, as appropriately, under TABOR. But because of the passage of H.R. 1, we over-refunded money relative to where we should have. So for the next two years, this bill makes sure that we are fixing that error, we are correcting that error, and making sure that we are refunding the appropriate amount over the next two years. So again, if folks are upset, we should remember where the blame really falls, and that is with our federal government. We no longer have a good partner in the federal government. We used to have strong partnership that was helping us to pay for basic necessities and to fund our schools and our health care. We no longer have that kind of commitment. H.R. 1 gave inordinate tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans and cut significantly our health care safety net. So that's what this bill is about. It's about correcting this error and imbalance in our books because of the way that H.R. 1 was passed. So I just wanted to put us back into that context. We cut, to all of my colleagues who have been talking about tightening our belts, I think anybody who has focused on the JBC process over the last several months knows that we tightened our belts significantly. We had to cut hundreds of millions of dollars just out of health care programs alone. And then when the forecast was updated in March, we had to come back and cut hundreds of millions of dollars more. So the state is more than living within its means, but it also means that programs that are beneficial to Coloradans are getting cut. Kids are not going to have the health care that they once had. We had long debates about educational programs that are going to have to be scaled back or cut. That's where we're left, and that is because of H.R. 1. And I will also say that, again, the senior homestead exemption, which we fully funded out of the general fund this year, that was scheduled to be a Tabor refund mechanism had H.R. 1 not passed. So we had to make hundreds of millions of dollars in additional cuts to general fund programs because of the passage of H so that we could fully fund the Homestead exemption which we did That's where we're at, and that's why I just wanted to remind everybody why we're here. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam, or sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My apologies. I would love to ask the bill sponsor who just came up a question, because we're being told this is all as a result of HR1, and yet this same policy was not adopted after the Tax and Jobs Act of 2017. It wasn't adopted after the people passed an initiative at the ballot, I believe in 2020, reducing the income tax rate, or again in 2022 when they again reduced the income tax rate, even though those actions reduced income in a particular taxable year and created similar dynamics. The General Assembly at that time did not respond in this manner. They just moved on and allowed for the tax code and for the budget to fluctuate. And so why was there a different standard applied in those three other instances when the state found itself in the same situation? Why were the people just allowed to keep those dollars and we moved to the next budget without addressing it. What has changed? And I think that is the crux of the issue. What has changed such that we find ourselves in a position where we need to take back from the people these dollars instead of proceeding with the precedent that had been set the prior three times over the last ten years?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This has been a pretty disappointing topic for me to have to listen to many of the comments, not from my side, about it's disappointing to me that we don't recognize some things that I think are pretty basic. And for simplicity's sake, to use the word of my good colleague from the northern and lesser fantastic parts of Larimer County, because I have some of Larimer County that I represent too, and I think it is the best of Larimer County. For simplicity's sake, let me present a little bit of a parable. There were a couple parents who had a teenager. The teenager always needed things. The parents gave the teenager a $100 bill so that she could go get the things that she desperately needed. And when she got to the store, she spent almost all of that $100 on shiny junk that she found that was awesome to her. And a couple of the things that she needed. And she brought the change back and gave it to her parents. some of the things that she spent some of that money on that was shiny junk came with future subscriptions but it was awesome right then she desperately needed it sure that she that she wanted it and that she could afford it not thinking about the fact that the subscription was going to cost more money later also so then in time she asked she came back to her parents and recognize that oh hey the change that I gave you back I actually I didn buy only things that I needed I bought a lot of things that I just wanted and looked super cool So actually, I need the change back. So she asked for the change back. Maybe it was a, the change was an over refund of excess allowance that she was given. That's kind of how I see that. and then she found out even later and this set up the situation that even later the subscription was going to come due and more money was going to have to be spent even above and beyond the money that was initially allowed I think it's pretty easy to see that we're in a similar situation right now stayed as the teenager spending money on shiny junk and not entirely all the time on the basic needs that it should be doing Our declaration says that governments are instituted among men to secure unalienable rights, not a bunch of shiny junk, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, property, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed, kind of like the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. I think limits on government are critical, especially spending limits. life is the first listed and the preeminent right recognized by our founders to sustain life most of us have to work that work is traded for money and then we share some of that money for public benefit back with the government in form of taxes that's supposed to be for needs to secure unalienable rights for basic needs, public good. Again, limits on the government are critical, especially when it comes to spending. Why? Because without limits, government will, just like the teenager, spend money on shiny things it wants, then throw a fit when it doesn't have the money it needs for the actual needs. Maybe they'll blame it on another teenager and say that teenager spent money, why can't I spend more money? Maybe that other teenager's family needed a taxpayer bill of rights. Maybe we need a federal taxpayer bill of rights. When we don't consent with the amount of money we're being required to share with the government, but it's being taken anyway or taken back after it was returned, I think that's called theft. We all know what taxation is without consent. And to me, I think that means that we're being governed by an awesome new word that I would call a kleptocracy. When we're stealing, we're just taking back money that we gave back that rightfully belonged to the people that got it. We're just taking something that isn't ours to start with. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It seems like our conversation on this is dwindling down. I just wanted to point out a couple of things. We are not here because of H.R. 1. We are not. We are here because this bill needs to pass to make true an assumption that was made when the 26-27 budget was built. We're here to make real an assumption that we can Clawback, in a way, monies from what is supposedly an over-refund of Tabor. Budgeting conceptually is very simple. In practice, it's very hard. But every budget is simply an estimate. It's a collection of estimates. It's a collection of the estimates of what we're going to spend. it's a collection of the estimates of the revenue that we have coming in. And sometimes prioritization has to take place when the revenues aren't as much as we want the expenses to be or we have things that we want to pay for that we simply can't afford. And that's what the whole long bill exercise and orbitals were about. If you still have your long bill book with you, page 11 flatly states that this package also includes placeholder assumptions for two other bills that are outside of the package. SB 26042, which we're not talking about today, and the one we are talking to, and a not yet introduced bill accounting for an asserted Tabor over refund from 2425. these placeholders are assumed to reduce the obligation by an additional $183 million. So we're here trying to make some assumptions true so we can keep a balanced budget. We're not here because of H.R. 1. That ship sailed a long time ago. We knew what was coming. We could have addressed it before it happened. We could have addressed it during special session. We did not. We chose in desperate times to take a desperate measure, and that is to do something we had never done before, to do something that staff recommended not be done, one that was fraught with legal risk and outlined very carefully as such, and yet we chose to plow ahead. We could have accessed funds that were not an assumption. We could have spent down the reserve a little bit more. Not something that I would have liked to have done. We could have sold some more tax credits. Not something I would have supported. We could have spent less. We chose not to. And now we have to pass a bill in order to make something we did two weeks ago true. I'm concerned that we did not pass a balanced budget. We're trying to make it balanced with this measure. But we should not, as a body, be put in a place of having to come back weeks after we debated the long bill to now make one of the underlying assumptions true. This should have been addressed before we sat down to look through the long bill. We should have done something to confirm that these revenues were available to us, but we chose not to. we could have taken this up while we were looking at the 60 or so orbital bills in conjunction with the budget but we did not so coming back after the fact to try to make something true that was assumed and very regally risky and articulated as such by the staff I think is just a bad idea I know this risks unbalancing a budget It not de minimis or we wouldn be talking about it at all This is real money It money that was taken from the people that we really want to kind of take again And I don't think that is right. We've offered some solutions today. They were all denied. But I am a no on this. I think it's the wrong approach. If we're going to make assumptions that our budget depends on, And we need to validate those before we approve the budget, not come back weeks after and try to really be put in a position where our arms are being twisted because we've got to have a balanced budget and the timing is short. And we've got to get stuff forward and we've got to decide on things and we've got to get it to the governor or else we lose our authority as a legislature to actually appropriate and we hand it over to the governor. This was wrong. the timing of it is wrong, the presentation of it has obscured what is really happening here. We're not addressing what HR1 did to us a year and a half ago. We're addressing what we did to ourselves this year. Let's at least be honest about that. I am a no vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've been trying to grapple with the intricacies of this bill, but as some who know me well in this space know, I hate tax policy. I hate it. If I had my way, we would have no other revenue sources apart from a standard sales tax, clear, transparent, easy to figure out. Everyone gets to own their property, not lease it. Everyone gets to keep their income and not have it wage-gouged by the government. But that's another conversation. It does go to the point, though, that many of folk who pull up this bill may have their eyes glaze over, even though the relevant part is really just a page in length. because tax policy isn't something that most people enjoy reading or understanding. And so after having some lengthy conversations with experts about tax policy, people I admire for understanding these things well beyond my scope, I've come to conclude that really the issue here is whether, well, is who should have the ability to decide where this $300 million goes. If we allow past precedent to stand and we allow for the Tabor refunds to stand unaffected, the answer to that question is the people. The people get to decide. where that $300 million goes. In fact, they already have decided. They've already spent it. They've already saved it. They've already put it however they wanted to put it in whatever couch cushion they have. It's already circulating out in the economy. This bill answers that question to say, actually that $300 million needs to be something the state directs and apportions. And while we won claw it back originally we just won distribute new dollars in the future up to that amount so as to allow the state to be the ones who designate where that million goes And that, I think, is where the worldview differences between the sides come into play. Who is better positioned to spend those dollars for themselves and for the public good? This is where a lot of the debates in this room come to a head. We heard from some who suggest that not passing this is a demonstration that others in the room don't care about community, don't care about the needs of community. But I will say for myself that's a mischaracterization of the stance that I take. because I believe that the government is least able to properly apportion these dollars. And if the chair will just allow me a paragraph of reading to make that case, I will substantiate my claim based off of a paper written about education in colonial America. Here's what it reads. The results of Colonial America's free market system of education were impressive indeed. Almost no tax money was spent on education, yet education was available to almost anyone who wanted it, including the poor. No government subsidies were given, and inefficient institutions either improved or went out of business. Competition guaranteed that scarce educational resources would be allocated properly. The educational institutions that prospered produced a generation of articulate Americans who could grapple with the complex problems of self-government. The Federalist Papers, which are seldom read or understood today, even in our universities, were written for and read by the common man. Literacy rates were as high or higher than they are today. A study conducted in 1800 by Dupont de Moua revealed that only 4 in 1,000 Americans, 4 in 1,000, were unable to read and write legibly. Various accounts from colonial America support these statistics. The article goes on. we have become enamored with the idea that this building and the institution of government is best positioned to solve all of the world's problems and to handle all of these questions when in fact we could look to other cultures other times, even in this culture when the system was designed differently and to better effects when we didn't have these same kind of arguments over how much the people should be taxed in order to supply less than satisfactory services because it was handled differently. I'm against this bill. I think we should stand on the past precedent, but I also would argue that this budgetary crisis is a perfect time for us to examine all of our assumptions about the role of government, about our effectiveness in the policies and programs that we have advanced, and maybe to deny the snobbery of chronologicalism, the fact that we are further in time, therefore somehow superior to those who came before, and look at the ancient ways, and look at the past ways even of this more modern culture 250 years review that historical record and possibly discover a better way of doing life and doing government that is not only more effective and life-giving for the populace, but also less costly.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just rise to respond to a couple of points that we've heard today. And first, I'm going to actually respond to my colleague from Penrose, who was just talking about education. I would note that I don't think we can go back to that form where the government wasn't providing education, because in this state, our Constitution mandates that as an obligation for us to engage in. And in fact, we prioritize that because it is part of our Constitution and part of what we're trying to do in terms of education. So I don't think we want to go back to a time when the government wasn't involved in the educational process. I also heard my good colleague from Douglas County say, when the government takes in too much money, the money is returned. That's fundamentally missing the point of this bill. This bill is that the government did not take in too much money because the government was precluded from taking in the money that was projected to be taken in because of H.R. 1 to get us back to the legislative declaration and to get us back to the point of this bill. The reason there was a shortfall and that we were called into special session was because our income taxes are based and tied to the federal government. As a result, when the federal government made changes to those taxes, the money that had been projected in our budget did not come in, leaving us in a shortfall because what we did do is meet our obligation at the time and pay out the table refunds that were due at that time. So part of what this bill is trying to do is remedy that deficit that occurred, and I think it's important to remember those parts of the facts. When the amount of money depends on that income coming in and it's split over two different fiscal years, we do the best as we can as a government to assess how much money would be coming in and to make the determinations at that point at the tax year, which is different than the fiscal year, to make the refunds based on the analysis that we believed was coming in in terms of taxes. That didn't happen. That's the reason we have the deficit. It's not because of the structural situations. And if you recall, when we came back in special session, We specifically addressed some of those connections by delinking some of that in order for us as a state to not be solely dependent on the income tax schedule of the federal government and to make sure that we could align more in the future what those refunds are with the reality of the income that we take in. We act in good faith. We've acted in good faith in the past. We actually refunded the money that we believed that we were going to receive income to cover, and that's why we ended up with the deficit that we're attempting to fill by this bill and not going back and saying, oh, we should claw back those refunds, but to say we need to fill the budget based on the hole that was there, and this is an accurate and good way to do that without adversely impacting the people who received this money in the past. that actually wasn't funded at the time.

Rep Luck.

Rep. Kelty.

Seeing no further discussion, The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1419. All those in favor say aye.

All those opposed to saying no. The bill passes. Mr. Shebo, please read the title to House Bill 1340.

AML Winter. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to move House Bill 1340 and the Agriculture Committee report.

All we did is we made some adjustments and amendments in the bill I urge an aye vote Seeing no further discussion the motion before us is the adoption of the Agriculture Committee report

Aye.

Rep. Morrill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is an important bill that addresses a problem that starts in my district and extends to my coprines district. And I'd like to first thank you for your hard work, months and months of hard work on this bill. What this will do is address decades of long-term consequences of poorly reclaimed permanent agricultural dry up. This area is still dealing with the impacts today from lands that were dried up 40 to 50 years ago. I believe this is a thoughtful, balanced approach informed by decades of experience in the lower Arkansas Valley and shaped through extensive stakeholder input. When water is permanently removed from the land, the responsibility to address the impact should follow that action.

Seeing no further discussion, Rob Carter.

Rabbi Carter, can you pull the mic a little closer? We're having trouble hearing you.

Hey, my winner. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to my good colleague for bringing that up. And it does say, when applying to the water court for a change of use of water rights pursuant to the subsection, the water right owner shall identify for the water court's consideration site-specific criteria criteria and associated scientific and objective evaluation methodology to measure determine the extent to which revegetation or conversion to dry land farming is successfully established on the formerly irrigated agricultural land. The water shore shall include site specific criteria and an associated scientific and objective evaluation methodology and the degree approving the change the use of that water right. So to your question that if we're going to use site specific and data all of that will be put in front of the judges as as they work on the decree for this change of water right.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's an honor to serve with you. It's an honor to serve with you. Members, I'm in big support of this bill. As we've heard through this session that we've seen a lot of these buying dries, or they're not calling them that anymore, but I think that this really helps out these rural communities when water is being taken out of those communities. And I think that much as what the bill sponsors have said is that without this, you get one, noxious weeds that grow in that farmland that also take up additional water and spread out to the rest of that part of the state. But then the other portion of this is that You know, this prevents the dust bowl, right, from happening again. And so making sure that we are being cognizant of this and being able to put actual pen to paper now is something that we want. We have this issue in the Sandlin's Valley. We worked with the bill sponsors on this. Unfortunately, just due to the title and the timing, we weren't able to add in what we needed to for my district. But, you know, happy to work with the bill sponsors in the future to being able to continue doing that. So I think this is a good bill. Vote yes. Hey, my winner. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And the second answer to the question that you asked, sir, is they'll link the amount of water available for the new uses to the amount of land successfully reclaimed as established through an associated 1041 permit. So they have three options. They provide financial services such as a bond, other security to the local land use authority. They can link the amount of water available for the new use to the amount of land successfully reclaimed while still allowing all water to be used for existing uses And then the final one is as lengthy amount of water available for the new uses to the amount of land successfully reclaimed as established through an associated 1041 permit. I mean, I know this bill kind of seems like it's sliding right through, but this is kind of groundbreaking for water. This piece of legislation was an honor to work on it because I think you're going to start to see other basins and districts get involved in this as we start to see buy and dries happen. And if you get a chance, stop by my desk and I'll show you the pictures of Crowley County. where the water came in it's just unbelievable to see what it looked like in 1984 and what it looks like now and what it's done to the surrounding communities and we're seeing water pulled out of bent county and we're seeing water pulled out of otero county and what's left is beautiful lawns and beautiful golf courses in the urban areas but what's left in my district is fallow fields dust weeds and it's just unfortunate to see and for my constituents to have to deal with but um i hope i was able to answer your two questions based on

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before... Hold on one second. Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of House Bill 1340. All those in favor, please say aye. All those opposed, please say no. House Bill 1340 is passed. Madam Majority Leader.

Seeing no objection, the committee will rise and report.

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

AML Bacon. Members, you've heard the motion. There are amendments at the desk. Mr. Schiebel, please read the DeGraff Amendment.

Representative DeGraff. Thank you, Speaker Potem. I move the DeGraff Amendment to the Committee of the Whole, H001, to HB 11419. I ask that it be displayed. Please proceed. Thank you. This is just the refer to the people under referendum. This is in accordance with the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. This is not de minimis, and this is a major shift in tax policy by what seems to be clearly violating one of the general accounting standards rules that we supposedly go by, or I should say guidelines, that since they're not so much a rule as a guideline. So just ask for a yes vote on this that it will go as a referendum If it goes as a referendum hopefully that would either I guess I say I good either way The citizens of Colorado say they are good with this tax increase or they don't want it. But either way, they should be asked. We do have the taxpayer bill of rights in our constitution. This is not de minimis and this is a change in tax policy. I I ask for an aye vote.

Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the adoption of the DeGraff Amendment. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine. Members, please proceed to vote. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Minority Leader Caldwell, how do you vote?

Please close the machine. With 24 a. 39 no and 2 excused, the DeGraff amendment is lost. The question before us is the adoption of the report of the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members, please proceed to vote. Representative Lindsay.

Representative Weinberg.

Minority Leader Caldwell.

Please close the machine. With 41 a, 22 no, and 2 excused, the report of the Committee of the Whole is adopted. Majority Leader Duran.

Majority Leader Duran, I think we just have to make the motion and move into third reading prior.

No. Okay. We're good. At the advice of our clerk, I'm going to ignore my script. You all heard it here first. Can you restate the no motion for me so I can speak it back to you?

Seeing no objection, Senate Bill 43 and House Bill 1281 will be laid over until tomorrow.

Senate Bill 137 by Senators Coleman and Simpson, also Representatives McCluskey and Caldwell, concerning measures to reduce administrative burdens and a connection therewith, making changes to the mandatory review of department rules by each principal department and clarifying the Attorney General's scope of authority related to litigation discovery. Majority Leader Duran.

The motion before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 137, Representative DeGraff.

one-way ratchet again. So the due process and access to evidence is a big concern. The government can sue centrally, but the citizen who is being sued must chase the documents diffusely. The defendant may have to subpoena multiple agencies, litigate privilege fights, file CORA requests, or pursue separate discovery disputes. That increases costs. It increases the pressure just to settle, even when the facts support the citizen, probably especially when the facts support the citizen. The imbalance is especially troubling in enforcement areas involving business regulation, consumer protection, environmental enforcement, elections, professional licensing, speech-adjacent regulation, or politically sensitive disputes. So pretty much everything that the AG might sue. A citizen must identify the right agency, issue the subpoenas or requests, and fight separate objections while the state proceeds with one centralized lawsuit. It would also give the ability to shield embarrassing or exculpatory records. Internal records may reveal weak evidence, inconsistent interpretation, selective enforcement, or political pressure. Section 2 gives the AG a statutory reason to resist producing them. Could force early settlements. Small defendants may settle because they cannot afford the multi-front discovery battles against the state entities. And it makes the people a sword without transparency It could chill lawful contact It's not regulatory relief. It creates litigation discovery shield for the Attorney General and when the Attorney General sues in an official capacity or on behalf of the state or people. It deals with the agency review process, courtroom discovery rule, and it gives administrative burden relief, while the first part gives administrative burden relief, which is not really necessary because the core of these processes are already in place. The review process is already in place. And the Section 1 doesn't actually guarantee a decrease in the regulation, which is basically why it seems that the Section 2 was hidden behind Section 1. So going through that, it does not require any rule to be repealed, simplified, sunsetted, narrowed, or quantified. it does not require an independent burden score, regulatory budget, repeal of targets, or a citizen pathway or mandatory cost-benefit analysis for rules identified as a high burden. So it's kind of given away by the fact that there's, and I'm fine with that, a $0 state revenue, $0 state expenditure, $0 transfer, $0 TABOR, and a $0 FTE. So it's already being handled inside the budget, inside the processes that are already in place, so it's not really necessary. We don't really need a bill for it. But the Attorney General aspect says that in any action brought forward by the AG in an official capacity in a relation of state people of Colorado, the AG is not deemed to pursue the action on behalf of another state officer, state agency, department, board, commission, or enterprise, and therefore not deemed to be in possession or control of the records made, kept, or maintained by any other state officer or state entity. So translating that, the AG can sue as the state of the people, but when the defendant asks the AG for the relevant records held by another agency, the AG gets a statutory argument that those records are not in the AG's possession, custody, or control, and that is not an administrative burden reduction for the citizens. It is a litigation positioning for the state. A defendant may reasonably see that the state, as the opposing party, the AG, can centralize the lawsuit while decentralizing discovery. So under this also, we have the problem of the two-part, the double, you have two bills in this. and the one should have clearly gone to judiciary. Now, they're broadly covered under the title, but the title is a bit of a stretch. The separation of powers and concerns, Colorado's Constitution divides into legislative, executive, and judicial and bars one branch from exercising powers belonging to another unless expressly permitted. The Colorado Supreme Court opinion discussed Article 6 of Section 21 and emphasize that discovery rules and limits on the document production fall within the court's constitutional rulemaking power. So they should stay with the AG. Requires a fair chance. The due process requires a fair chance to defend against the government. When the government sues a citizen records held inside state agencies may be essential to show selective enforcement flawed investigation internal disagreement exculpatory facts bad data improper or inconsistent interpretation in the law And one of the things that I think we know is that if it can be weaponized, it will be weaponized. And this allows the state to sue centrally and hide records diffusely. It allows the state to drive up defense costs. It allows the state to force settlements. It allows the state to protect embarrassing records. it allows the state to create a government-only privilege. It allows it to chill lawful conduct and expands political leverage. So for those reasons, I think it's very important that this aspect should have been sent to judiciary. It should have certainly been since it really doesn't have any impact on the business community because it really doesn't have any teeth as far as regulation as promised. So I think this should go back to the judiciary, at least part of it should go back to the judiciary, and that's why I think the part on the attorney general should be stripped from this bill and that should be in that aspect should be run as a separate bill because it's clearly an entirely separate thing that's just, well, I think it is, I think the AG portion is the primary portion of this, and then the guise of regulatory relief is slapped on the top. So I move, I request a third reading amendment to remove the AG portion from this bill so it can go back to judiciary because it is clearly something that should have been sent into judiciary because it deals with the individual, the citizen's ability to respond when sued by the AG. This section... Representative DeGraff, I will allow you to state your motion. Your time has now expired. Please state the motion.

Thank you, Representative DeGraff. I think you've explained it. I appreciate that. If you could just make the motion to Senate Bill 137.

Sorry. Make your request for a third reading amendment on Senate Bill 137.

Thank you. Members, the motion before us is request permission to run a third reading amendment on Senate Bill 137.

Minority Leader Caldwell, how do you vote?

Minority Leader Caldwell votes no. Representative Lindsey, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsey votes no. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Representative Weinberg votes yes. Please close the machine. With 20 aye, 43 no, and 2 excused, the request for permission fails. The motion before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 137 on third reading final passage Mr Schiebel please open the machine and members proceed to vote Representative Lindsay how do you vote

Representative Lindsay votes yes. Minority Leader Caldwell, how do you vote?

Minority Leader Caldwell votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Representative Weinberg votes no. English. Please close the machine. With 55I, 8 no, and 2 excuse, Senate Bill 137 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1306 on third reading and final passage.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's an honor to serve with you. Honor to serve with you. Colleagues, these license plates get waved through so quick. There wasn't much opportunity to get up on seconds. There's a general and specific reason I'm voting no, and colleagues on the finance committee know very well the general reasons. I've explained many times I vote no on license plates en masse for many reasons. No one ever opposes license plates. I was told the Colorado State Patrol used to come in because it was confusing to have hundreds of license plates all over the place until they got their own license plate and then they stopped coming to object. but there's also a Tabor impact in fact we have 17 million dollars now that we can't spend on other priorities because they're being spent for the license plates and that doesn't seem like a very wise use of money there's also first amendment issues I've always been concerned about because we pick and choose which plates go through so one year we had the Chicano power license plate that had been denied three times previously by other legislatures, but we put it through that year, and in that same year, we had colleagues on the other side of the aisle that brought a don't tread on me, which meant something to the people bringing it, but we denied that one. So we're picking and choosing, which I think is totally inappropriate. So those are the general reasons I've always been against any license plate. But this reason I'm up is I have some specific reasons on this license plate. And again, it goes to priorities. We are dealing with the worst budget I think any one in this legislature has ever seen, and we're having difficulty putting priorities forward. But I want to point out that we have three other license plates that are not getting through or haven't. Last year, we had the murdered and missing indigenous relatives license plate. And as I said, I vote against all license plates, and that was a very devastating one because one of my closest friends and allies in highly ranch is indigenous, and this was very, very difficult for her. And my penance, I was going to get the license plate. I would vote against it, but I would get the plate. It was only a few thousand dollars, but the plate never got out of appropriations because we weren't doing any license plates. We have now a fallen firefighter's license plate in appropriations. That one's not getting out. We had an effort to revise back the disabled veterans license plate. And when I say revise back, there's a history lesson on that one. In fact, as best as we can tell, the original personalized license plate was the disabled veterans license plate. In fact, in 1949, it was House Bill 958 that waived all registration and ownership fees for disabled veterans. Remember who those people were in 1949. That's the group we call the greatest generation. And they put that forward. and then in 1955 House Bill 128 that's right after the Korean War that's the first time that we can find they had a personalized plate but guess what over the years that original 1949 effort to waive those fees they disappeared because there's so many veterans who don't want to advertise to everyone they have a DV plate So we've let the original people not get it, but now we have 200-plus plates for everything else. The cost for that was going to be $1.7 million because Fiscal said every veteran in the entire state is going to run out and immediately get it. I think that's a little high, but again, when we're paying $17 million for all these other plates, and that's 10%, Priorities matter. So what appropriations and what we're saying now is the horses are more important than the murdered and missing indigenous relatives. The horses are more important than the fallen firefighters. And the horses are more important than the disabled veterans. It's priorities. We make choices. You can't say, no, that's not what I'm saying. When you push that green button, that's what you're saying.

Found a pen.

So I'm up here, and why I'm on this bill is if we could go back in time, I actually wouldn't want any other license plates except for the one, so I knew where everybody was from. However, that ship has sailed. There is over 200 of them. We have a problem on the range. Actually, on my family ranch where we have the wild horses that is impacting the range because there's too many of them. And what we do is we gather. They gather them and take them down to 35 about every 10 years. Who knows how much that costs. This license plate is voluntary to buy the license plate, number one, and in the future it will generate revenue, not cost to the state generate revenue if they sell enough of the license plates And that is why I on this bill because it going to help the land It going to help keep the horses in check because they overpopulating and running the land. And that's why I'm on it. It's going to be a net gain. How often do you have a net gain. And I think if we want to cut the cost of license plates in half, next year I'll run a bill to take off the front license plate because a lot of the other states, and that should make the license plates cost half. All the other states don't have a front license plate. We don't want that wind drag, and I'm tired of running into a deer with my pickup and knocking off the license plate and then getting a ticket for it. Thank you.

I also rise in support of this what my colleague said from the southwestern part of the state is true when you look at this from a purely agricultural and ecological standpoint right now these horses are ultra inbred it's not good for them themselves and what they're doing to the terrain is horrible I'm about the other license plates. I don't know how many of them came in front of this body for me to vote on, but I refuse to have some moral authority sit and tell me what button I should push and how I push it and where it's going to land. I'll vote for my 88,000 people. You vote for yours. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. You know, I respect the fact that my colleague from Douglas County is a no. What I don't appreciate is either impugning our motives and saying that we are picking and choosing, you know, what we pass out through here. We have done a lot of work in the last four years regarding wild horses. As has been said by my co-prime, we are trying to regulate fertilization and trying to maintain the land. And you know what? I can't answer as to why those other bills didn't come out of here. Maybe. I don't know. I know that we worked really hard on this bill to find the funding. It took a while. This wasn't just something that just happened and showed up, and, boy, I came out of a probes just because I'm the majority leader. I had to put my work and time and effort, as well as my other colleague, my co-prime, into this bill. and I do resent the fact that we are being held to a different standard because other bills didn't come out. There are some that are in a probes. We have no idea the outcome of those and to assume that they're not going to happen I think is disingenuous. So members, I would ask for a yes vote. Thank you.

Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes yes.

Minority Leader Caldwell votes yes.

Representative Weinberg votes yes.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1256. House Bill 1256 by Representatives Jackson and Mabry, also Senator Cutter, concerning the procedure for releasing an individual from the Department of Corrections. Madam Majority Leader.

Representative Jackson.

I request permission to run a third reading amendment on House Bill 1256.

It was brought to my attention by the drafter that there was a technical amendment

Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is permission to run a third reading amendment on House Bill 1256.

Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Representative Weinberg votes no. Minority Leader Caldwell, how do you vote?

Minority Leader Caldwell votes yes. Please close the machine. With 56 ayes, 6 no, and 3 excused, the motion to run a third reading amendment is adopted.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Brotem. I move L4 and ask that it be properly displayed.

No, again, members, this is just a kid informing language to reflect changes we made earlier in the process.

Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine.

Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes yes.

No.

Yes.

I talked to the bill sponsors after I needed to apologize. I misread the bill. I will always be a woman of character. I thought that the bill was giving more money, and I did not read that you had taken the bus pass out. I believe that we should definitely be bolstering the Colorado Correctional Industries and the prison industry program. I definitely think that people that have been incarcerated deserve their ability to get and receive their identification documents. I apologize that I misread it, and I apologize for some of the comments that I made. I definitely believe that the community should be involved in the reentry programs and not the taxpayers be funding it. So I stand by those comments, but wanted to put on the record that I did misread some of the bill's contents and will be in support of this bill today. Thank you.

Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes.

No, ma'am.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1315. House Bill 1315 by Representatives Soper and Espinoza, also Senators Weissman and Carson, concerning documents relied upon for parole determinations. Madam Majority Leader.

Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1206. House Bill 1206 by Representatives Joseph and Gonzalez, also Senators Lindstedt and Benavidez, concerning approved funding to support affordable housing development. Madam Majority Leader.

Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote.

Yes.

No, ma'am.

No.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the titles of Senate Bill 92. Senate Bill 92 by Senator Simpson, also Representative Sucla and Velasco, concerning the modification of the salary categorization of locally elected officers in specified counties. Madam Majority Leader.

Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote.

Yes

Yes, ma'am

No, ma'am

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1236. House Bill 1236 by Representatives Okine Mabry, also Senators Ball and Henderson concerning arbitration reform.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1236 on third reading final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes yes. Minority Leader Caldwell, how do you vote?

Minority Leader Caldwell votes no. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Representative Weinberg votes no. Thank you Please close the machine With 34 I, 29 no, and 2 excused, House Bill 1236 is adopted. Co-sponsors.

Please close the machine Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1341

Madam Majority Leader Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1341 on third reading and final passage

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Oh, we're frozen.

First report of first conference committee on House Bill 1410. This report amends the re-engrossed bill to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Report of conference committee will be printed in the journal.

Seeing no objection, the House will proceed out of order for consideration of conference committee reports. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1380.

Representative Brown. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move to adopt the first report of the first conference committee on House Bill 1380.

Thank you. Colleagues in our conference committee we talked about the two different versions and we chose to go with the House version So we win No I just kidding I moved So that the explanation

Yes, ma'am.

Yes.

Yes, ma'am.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move for the repassage of House Bill 1380 as amended by the Conference Committee report.

Yes.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes, ma'am.

House Bill 1399 by Representatives Brown and Tigard, also Senators and Model and Kirkmeyer, concerning the elimination of the annual transfer from the general fund to the multimodal transportation and mitigation options fund and in connection therewith, reducing and appropriation.

So moved. Please proceed.

Seeing no further discussion. The motion before us is the adoption of the first report of the first conference committee on House Bill 1399. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Minority Leader Caldwell, how do you vote?

Minority Leader Caldwell votes yes. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Representative Weinberg votes yes. Thank you Please close the machine With 49 I, 14 no, and 2 excused, the motion is adopted.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1399 as amended by the first report of the first conference committee. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes yes. Minority Leader Caldwell, how do you vote?

Minority Leader Caldwell votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Representative Weinberg votes yes. Please close the machine. With 54 I, 9 no and 2 excused, House Bill 1399 as amended is repassed. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1405.

Representative Brown. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move for the adoption of the first report of the first conference committee on House Bill 26-1405.

In conference, folks, we transferred $1.3 million to the general fund from the Electrifying School Buses Grant Fund. and we also transferred an additional $10 million to the general fund from the OIT revolving fund. And we ask for an aye vote on the conference committee report.

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you, ma'am. No.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move for the repassage of House Bill 1405 as amended by the Conference Committee Report.

I'm sorry.

I get in a groove and it's hard. I apologize.

Representative Sirota.

Representative Kelty, this is your second time to speak. You have eight minutes, 45 seconds.

The motion before us is the adoption of House, the repassage of House Bill 1405 as amended. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Minority Leader Caldwell, how do you vote?

Minority Leader Caldwell votes no. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Representative Weinberg votes no. Please close the machine. With 41-I, 22-no and 2 excused, House Bill 1405 is repassed as amended. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1409.

Oh, no, you go first. I'm sorry.

Please proceed

Seeing no further discussion the motion before us is the adoption of the first report of the first conference committee on House Bill 1409 Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes yes. Minority Leader Caldwell, how do you vote?

Minority Leader Caldwell votes no. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Representative Weinberg votes no. Please close the machine. With 42 I 21 no and 2 excused the motion is adopted. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker I move for the repassage of House Bill 1409 as amended by the Conference Committee Report. Representative Gonzalez.

Yes, Representative Taggart.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the repassage of House Bill 1409 as amended. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes yes. Minority Leader Caldwell, how do you vote?

Minority Leader Caldwell votes no. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Representative Weinberg votes no. Please close the machine. With 43 I, 20 no and 2 excused, House Bill 1409 is repassed as amended. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1412.

Representative Sirota Thank you Madam Speaker I move for the adoption of the first report of the first conference committee on House Bill 1412

Thank you Madam Speaker We actually just took the bill back to the introduced version Okay

Yes, ma'am.

Yes.

Yes.

Clifford.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

House Bill 1357 by Representatives Sirota and Taggart, also Senators Amabile and Bridges concerning phasing out the teacher recruitment, education, and preparation program and connection therewith making reducing and appropriation.

Please proceed.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of the first report from the First Conference Committee on House Bill 1357. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes yes. Minority Leader Caldwell, how do you vote?

Minority Leader Caldwell votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Representative Weinberg votes yes. Please close the machine. With 63 ayes, 0 no, and 2 excused, the motion is adopted.

The motion before us is the repassage of House Bill 1357 as amended. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes yes. Minority Leader Caldwell, how do you vote?

Minority Leader Caldwell votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Representative Weinberg votes yes. Please close the machine.

Madam Majority Leader.

Members, the motion before us is to suspend the rules for the immediate consideration of the Conference Committee report on House Bill 1410. This does require a two-thirds majority to pass. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Minority Leader Caldwell, how do you vote?

Minority Leader Caldwell votes yes. Representative Lindsay, how do you vote?

Representative Lindsay votes yes. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Representative Weinberg votes no.

With 57 ayes, 6 no, and 2 excused, the motion is adopted. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1410.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move for the adoption of the first report of the first conference committee on House Bill 1410.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. We took a number of amendments that were made in both the House and Senate. The House amendments that we retained as amended, though, we did, as I mentioned, increase the Colorado State Veterans Trust Fund expenditures line by the $74,654 from the trust fund. We retained the increase of $300,000 to the offender treatment and services line for the Veterans Treatment Court and kept an amended footnote, but we did change the fund source to another fund in judicial. We maintained the House passed footnote regarding the Department of Natural Resources and the introduction of new wolves. we approved a senate amendment to add a footnote regarding the restorative justice program line item that costs us no money we made a number of staff technical amendments to ensure the long bill is implemented correctly we increased funding to the department of revenue to address That's a funding shortfall in the sales and use tax system. And we added an additional million to the placeholder that we already made for competency beds due to the consent decree that the state is under and active litigation that we are under and consultation with the special masters for that consent decree we also retained some house amendments to add a new line item for special needs parole and the related footnote in the Department of Corrections. We added the, we retained the footnote, I'm sorry, the allocation for Denver Health to be able to comply with the implementation costs of H.R. 1. We retained the additional cash funds from the unclaimed property trust fund to implement the trust fund. And we also added $3.7 or $9 million general fund to support the DD youth transition waiver, whereby the youth who are currently on the CES waiver and the CHIRP waiver under Medicaid that they were under the long bill decisions made no longer going to automatically transition onto the adult DD waiver. And so with this funding, we will enable those families who are most counting on that transition to be able to make that transition through the end of the calendar year. We also added $3 million general fund to ensure that we are exempting maternal and NICU codes from the 2% provider rate reduction and 85% of Medicaid reduction. And I think that's it. But we tried to meet everyone's needs. That's the short of it. So thank you all for your engagement on the budget, and we tried very hard to make sure that we were working in everyone's intent to this conference committee report.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's an honor to serve with you. Honor to serve with you. Don't eat the cabin boy. one of the news reporters came to me and said your comments on the long bill actually got over to the Senate one of the JBC Senate members discussed him and in the discussion said that they had listened to my comments and made the point that he's not my favorite person we don't really like Rep. Marshall I wouldn't follow what he wants to do most of the time but he's right they said he's right. We did eat the cabin boy in this budget. We went after the weakest and the strong kept their subsidies and their benefits. When I was given those comments for the first time I was telling a personal story because I never could understand that, but it seems like the thing to do is the only way to get through to colleagues is you have to personalize yourself and tell personal stories rather than focus on what best for everyone But I old and I started meandering I didn get to the point on the story of my daughter concerned about being considered a sociopath because of the test she took that she falsified some of the answers because she knew where it was going. But she asked me, well, what's a sociopath? And I said, well, it's someone who doesn't feel for others, who don't have empathy. She said, well, is that a problem? and I said, well, most people want people to have empathy and feel free them. And she looked at me and said, well, don't emotions get in the way of making bad judgments? Don't emotions cause people to make bad decisions? Can't you be a good sociopath? And I said, oh, I think so, yeah. When she turned 18, I gave all my end-of-life material to her because I can trust her to make the right decision. She won't let any emotions get in the way of anything she's thinking of doing. And she's in the right place. She's a submarine officer, a weapons officer, and she would flood a compartment in an instant to save the submarine, even if it was her own best friend in that compartment.

The point is the emotions that we make in this long bill we made choices the biz subsidies the donations, we voted in here we voted in here to take $200,000 from the film office and send it to the veterans treatment courts they couldn't take that in the senate they had to try and get the buses they still couldn't take it there's certain things that are sacrosanct that shouldn't be sacrosanct we fought hard for the disabled community, just to get $280,000 that would be doubled to $560,000 to delay, simply to delay one year slashing their incomes in half. And people are like, oh, no, no, it's a whole year. It's 25% July 1 this year when this budget's signed. Less than two months after this budget is signed, those community members with severely disabled kids, disabled family members bought homes of car leases based on that income slashed. Some have said they're going to lose their homes. All we needed was $280,000. If you remember during supplementals to the shock of everyone we had a division on that to take some money from the film subsidies and send it to the IDD community. Representative Marshall, back to the committee report please. It's part of the committee report, ma'am, on the subsidies for the IDD community. Supplementals is not. The supplemental decisions were not.

We had people break out in cheers at one point, but flipped. The profile's encouraged. Our representative from El Paso County isn't wrong in her comments she recently gave. We sit here and we make our choices, but my choice is going to be no on this bill. I thank you for allowing me to speak but once again being censored all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others

Yes.

No.

Please close the machine

Madam Speaker, I move for the repassage of House Bill 1410 as amended by the Conference Committee Report.

Yes.

No, ma'am.

Please close the machine.

Co-sponsors. Please close the machine.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules for the immediate consideration of the Conference Committee report on House Bill 1411.

Yes.

No.

Please close the machine.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Oh, sorry, I need to read the title first.

House Bill 1411 by Reverend Representatives Brown and Sirota, also Senators Maublin-Kirkmaier, concerning changes to health insurance benefits for certain low-income individuals who are not eligible for medical assistance due to their immigration status and a connection therewith making reducing appropriation.

Please proceed.

Representative Garcia.

Seeing no further discussion, The motion before us is the adoption of the first report of the first conference committee on House Bill 1411. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Lindsey, how do you vote?

Please close the machine.

Madam Speaker, I move for the repassage of House Bill 1411 as amended by the Conference Committee Report.

Yes.

No, ma'am.

Please close the machine.

Please close the machine.

Madam Speaker, I move to lay over the balance of the calendar until Wednesday, April 29,

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

Thank you.