Colorado House 2026 Legislative Day 056

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

Representatives Bacon, Barone, Basinecker, Bottoms, Bradfield, Bradley, Brooks, Brown, Caldwell Camacho Carter Clifford DeGraff Representative DeGraff Duran English Rep. English Excuse. Espinosa. Representative Espinosa. Excuse. Ferre. Rep. Ferre. Excuse. Flanelle. Froelich. Garcia. Garcia Sander. Gilchrist. Goldstein. Gonzalez. Hamrick. Hartsook. Jackson. Johnson. Joseph. Kelty. Leader. Lindsey. Luck. Lukens. Mabry. Marshall. Martinez. Brett Martinez is excused. Morrow. McCormick. Wynn. Pascal. Phillips. Richardson. Ricks. Representative Ricks. Excused. Rootnell. Rydon. Sirota. Slaw. Smith. Soper. Stuart K. Stuart R. Story. Sucla. Taggart. Titone. Rep. Valdez is excused. Rep Velasco is excused Weinberg Present Wilford Winter Woodrow Woog. Zokai.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is an honor to serve with you. It is an honor to serve with you. Madam Speaker, did you know that Broomfield County is the newest county at the state?

Well, with that said, being the newest county here, we're asking for a motion. I moved the journal on Monday, March 9, 2026 to be approved as corrected by the chief clerk.

Good morning, members. It is my absolute honor to welcome the most best, raddest, awesomest students ever in the entire state from Sandoval Elementary's student government. Right over there.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Judiciary Committee members, 15 minutes upon adjournment. We're going to meet in room 107. We're going to hear House Bill 1186, Senate Bill 74, House Bill 1232, and Senate Bill 11. 15 minutes upon adjournment. 107. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's an honor to serve with you. It is an honor to serve with you. Today, I want to recognize the folks on the seats across to my right. They represent the Western Slope Republican women who have traveled here from Mesa County, Delta County, and I believe Montrose County. And I...

Thank you. This organization plays an important role in encouraging civic engagement and helping people stay informed about the policies shaping their communities. Through regular meetings, educational speakers, and community involvement, they work to bring people together and encourage participation in the legislative process. And I very much appreciate them traveling four to five hours to get here, differing from folks from Denver who think the Western Slope is eight hours away. I appreciate them coming. And I ask that if you stand so we can recognize you.

Thank you. Representative Gilchrist.

Representative Froelich.

Seeing no, oh, one more announcement, Rep. Froelich.

Can't they just all be the best students? Right? All students everywhere. We love them all. Thank you, Rep. Froelich. Members, I'll invite you to take your seats, please. Madam Majority Leader.

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

Seeing no objection, we will proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 11. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Joint Resolution 11.

Speaker Pro Tem Baisenecker.

And would you like for that to be read?

Thank you. Please proceed.

Representative Marshall.

Speaker Pro Tem Basinecker.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of Senate Joint Resolution 11. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes.

Please close the machine. With 61 ayes, 0 no, and 4 excuse, Senate Joint Resolution 11 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Members, we are moving to third reading. I'll invite you to take your seats. Madam Majority Leader.

House Bill 1130 will be laid over until tomorrow. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of House Bill 1213.

Madam Majority Leader.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1213 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes.

Madam Majority Leader. Please close the machine. With 61 ayes, 0 no for excused, House Bill 1213 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1185.

Madam Majority Leader.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1185 on third reading, final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes.

Marshall.

Senate Bill 7 by Senator Mullica, also Representative's leader in foray concerning the use of medical marijuana by terminally ill patients in health facilities. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move Senate Bill 7 on

and other conditions an option to have alternative methods of treatment, and that includes cannabis, as you know. And so, again, I just can't stress enough the importance of this bill for my district, for my community, for the people that I represent. I went back to my district, and they were very excited about this for people who have an opportunity to do this. So I encourage and I vote on this bill. Thank you.

Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

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

Representative English votes yes.

House Bill 1137 by Representatives Titone and Garcia, also Senator Cutter, concerning requirements for persons engaged in campaign consulting.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1137 on third reading and final passage.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I understand the issue here, and I understand, but seriously, do we need to legislate absolutely everything? We are the number six, and I get the goal of always being number one, but being number one most regulated state in the country is probably not something to which we should aspire. But it's things like this that take us there. So this is a contractual issue. This is something that does not need the nanny state or the Karen state. It does not need to be taken directly to the manager, right? This is something that can be worked out. If you're going to hire, if you're going to do a political campaign and you are going to hire a political hired gun, then you would probably be best to understand that they might have other campaigns and other things that they're working on. That is what they do. Now, can they maintain a sense of objectivity? They would probably assert yes, that they can maintain a sense of objectivity because they likely don't care about the outcome of anything other than the fact that they get paid. So that is something that needs to be worked out. Try to put an amendment in there that if they have both parties sign off that say, hey, you have conflicting interests. You're running against each other. We're going to run a campaign for the best that we can to pit you one against each other because that's how they make money. The more they run candidates against each other, I mean, that's awesome for these businesses. And then let the people decide. But then just say look this is you can you know just making signing something like that be an affirmative defense that there doesn need to be a lawsuit that this doesn need to go into the courts where it is destined to go in order to have it have a fiscal note which everything this year magically has a fiscal note until we get to supplementals And then I'm sure we'll start to find out how much these programs actually cost. So this is a contractual issue. The nanny state does not need to be involved in every grievance to settle every grievance that happens in this body. I recommend a no vote. Let's maybe put brakes on becoming the number one most regulated state. Maybe we could move down a few notches by taking some out. But this is the kind of stuff that moves us up the ranks.

Madam Speaker, good morning. Good morning. Thank you. Colleagues, just because we can doesn't mean that we should. I know we can. I don't believe that this is an area in which we should legislate. I don't see anything here that honestly can't be solved with signing a simple, you know, non-compete. pretty standard, at least in the business experience that I have had, that if you're worried about any sort of conflict, simply having the person that you're doing business with sign that illustrates a commitment to avoiding any sort of conflict, real or perceived. I just I don't I don't think that this is the role of what we do here and I would encourage a no vote.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just wanted to just go back over this bill one more time and to point out a few things that are important to this bill. If you look at the Secretary of State's website, zero people are in opposition. It's just one page. Usually there's like 20 pages of different positions on the website. There's one page. There's support. There's no opposition. There were no conversations that people really had with me about it. There was things said that a lot of consultants were too afraid to come forward. and say something. I mean, when does that ever happen? Nobody's shy about coming forward and telling us that they don't like a bill. But now all of a sudden there is. There were really not a lot of good reasons against it. I mean, I understand my colleagues over here on the right where they say we don't want government involved. I get that. I get it. But this is just a simple fix. We have things happen to us. We've run bills. We've seen bills that when we have experiences ourselves or we have someone else that comes to us with an experience that we can find an injustice that happens, that we can do something to fix that problem. And that's what this bill does. Consulting companies are not regulated, not like lobbyists there's no statute for consultants this is a simple fix it just says if you have a conflict if you want to hire an opposing person that it going directly against someone who you already working for that you have to get written permission That's what this bill does. Very simple fix. So a yes vote says that you agree that transparency and ethical behavior is important in this space. That when consultants are deliberately undermining one of their client's interests, especially when they're running for office or if it's an issue committee that's on the ballot, when you have that happen, that is against the democratic process. That is someone putting the thumb on the scale and hurting that interest or that candidate before anything happens. Because time and money in campaigns are very important, and that takes away that effort. You can't get it back even if you take them to court later on. This bill makes it so there is a remedy, that there is a clear remedy in the court that that person can, or that candidate committee can take in the courtroom for compensation back to them. Because right now there is nothing that says that. There are some really great consultants out there. Most of them that I talk to are really great. And they said, when I told them the example of this happening and why this is coming about, they said, I would never do that. That's crazy. Why would they do that? That's so unethical. I'm appalled. That was the reaction I got from every consultant who I talked to. So why should they have someone get away with this kind of thing? We regulated the funeral industry because there were a couple bad actors out there that were doing horrendous things, and we did something about it. Most of the other folks were doing good business. But you know what? This is one of those votes where when I see the lights green or red over here, it's like fireworks. Because the green is good. It shows that there's support for transparency and ethical behavior. And when there's red, it shows the people who are doing the work of the wealthy and the powerful who really are at the heart of a lot of these consulting companies. and who they work for, especially the one particular one in question. They have the most wealthy and powerful people connected to them. And this kind of body that we have here should be working for the people, not to protect the wealthy and the powerful, but that's what we're seeing here. Because some people don't want to be on the record voting one way or another, and the governor doesn't want to be on the record voting one way or another either. But here we are. So a no vote does not make me sad. A no vote gives me the record of who wants to protect the wealthy and the powerful. And that is what I'm recommending, that you vote yes on the bill, to put transparency and ethics in place, because that's what this bill is all about.

Concerns were with the consultants outside of this building, not those who will be pushing the buttons for red or green? Right, exactly.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I wasn't going to come up and say anything, but then the more I heard, I figured I would just come up and just give you my point of view of this bill. We've all been junior candidates. We've all been brand new to the field. and we've seen throughout the years that you have campaigned or that you've been involved in politics, if there's going to be any shade, it's going to be in politics. And I think everyone here has seen it. We've seen good actors. We've seen bad actors. As far as these consultants are concerned, and when you become a candidate, immediately you start getting calls from the back rooms of wherever they come from. Oh, I want to be your campaign consultant. I want to help you this. I want to help you this. Here, buy into this. Buy into that. when you're brand new, you don't know who is who or what is what and what questions to ask or where to go or even how to proceed. You're brand new. I see this bill as something that actually probably is needed. I don't like nanny state. I don't like Karen's stuff. But when it comes to finding a problem and having to put a solution out there, depending on people's ethics in politics, is not going to cut it sometimes. And I do believe a bill something like this is necessary. It actually protects the person who is running. If I found out, actually I probably would never find out, that a campaign consultant also is being a consultant to my opponent. But they don't tell you that. They would never tell you that unless you ask, but you wouldn't know to ask that because you would never think that someone would do something like that, but they do. They are and they do do that. There are some really great ones out there and I've seen some really bad ones. I ran my own campaign. Want to know why? Because I didn't know who or what to trust. Trust is a big thing with me. If I can't trust it, I'm not doing it. I'm doing it myself. Fortunately, I had the know-how and the knowledge and experience over the years of being able to do that myself. But so many of them out there are not. And there's so many young, brand-new candidates. Some may not even be young. I'm not young. But that are out there, and they don't know who or what to trust, so they trust blindly. And there are a lot of bad actors out there. Again, if there's going to be anything shady or shady going around, it's going to be in politics. We've seen that. So we need something that's going to protect those who are running for office because those are going to be the future leaders, and it would be nice to know that we get the good guys in there and root out the bad. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wasn't planning to come and speak on this bill today, but I am on the committee that heard this bill, and I think it's important to speak to some of the other motivations that may drive a no vote on the board today. This is a good idea in the sense of these kinds of terms should be found in contracts. I think that's fair. I think it's fair to say that giving notice to customers, to clients, that, hey, we might not just have your interest, but a competing interest in mind, that's a fair thing. But it doesn't require a law. And the notion that somehow it does require a law because we might not be aware of that or able to negotiate it is very concerning to me Because this particular policy doesn cover the average guy out there It covers people who are seeking to have authority and power over the lives of other people It covers people who are running for elected office, and most of those cases charged with negotiations, with understanding the dynamics of a space, of a situation, of their rights under that space. And if we are not sophisticated enough as candidates to be able to negotiate for our own best interests, perhaps we should not be running for the offices sought.

I actually listened and I actually disagree with my colleague. Like I said, there are people that come into this world. This is not a world that you can just pick up a leaflet and know everything about it. There is a problem out there. I've seen it myself, and that's why I actually agreed with the bill. There is a problem, and our job here is to come up with solutions. I agree there shouldn't have to be a law like this. It shouldn't have to be. But apparently there is. Sometimes we have to come up with a law to protect consumers. Sometimes we have to come up with a law for safety, protect against crime. Unfortunately, people in that realm, in the political realm, are not as ethical as we would like them to be. That's a sad day, but it's the truth and it's reality. Unfortunately, it has come to the point where we have to make a law that is going to protect those who are running for office from unscrupulous individuals. And when I say unscrupulous, I mean very unscrupulous. So it is a sad day that we have to have a law that protects us, but yet here we are. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do want to say that there are other mechanisms by which to protect. All of us are influential in our particular political parties, and all of us can raise for them that this is an issue so that in the candidate packets that get sent out to any particular interested candidate, it's included as a potential contract negotiating point. And to the bill sponsor's point about many consultants are appalled that this would even happen, you can approach those particular people and ask that this term be put in as boilerplate so that it just becomes common practice within the industry. There are many other ways to do this without having to pass another law to make those books back there even bigger.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is my second time at the well. I probably have less than 10 minutes to speak, and I won't use that. So I just thought that...

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I kind of felt like unrestrained up here. So all right. So I think it's interesting in this political space that we're talking about duplicity. and somebody who would affirm that would represent candidates that would not be fully acting with full integrity as to their intentions and motivations and I think that maybe we should just have a law for politicians that do something like swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution and then do not

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

No, ma'am.

Yes.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 1. Senate Bill 1 by Senators Roberts and Bridges, also Representatives Basinecker and Richardson, concerning housing and in connection therewith authorizing a board of county commissioners to appropriate money to support specified types of housing and making the middle income housing tax credit available to transferees who do not own an interest in a qualified development. Madam Majority Leader.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yeah, just some concerns around this bill. if we won the pretense that we still have this massive housing shortage. When we have, when instead what it seems to be is that we're building a massive housing bubble. And we've seen what happens when we build a massive housing bubble with government incentives to create a massive housing bubble. The funny thing about things that can't go on forever is they don't. And they work great until they fail catastrophically. And that's kind of the sense of a bubble. A bubble grows, it's nice, and then it pops and it's messy. And we have record high vacancies in El Paso County, in Denver, around the state, and yet we're pushing and pushing and pushing for more development. Not only more development, but ultimately more development that is controlled by bureaucrats from the capital, from Denver, who have absolutely no reach back, no accountability into the communities in which they are meddling. And so some things here, this power to sell public works. Any public building or real property, if the sale and disposition of the public building or real property is for the purpose of providing property be used for the development of affordable housing. And the funny thing is, just to confirm it, I looked it up, what's the definition of affordable housing? and it's really not defined. So we don't really have a defined definition of, well, that's redundant and repetitious at the same time, but we don't really have a good definition of affordable housing because it's ultimately less than 30% of the adjusted gross income. So anybody, affordable housing can be affordable for anybody as long as it under 30 of their income Now that was kiboshed a couple years ago when it was all of a sudden approved that you could have that the landlord the property owner could only ask for rent could only guarantee rent income at 50%, and that automatically gave rise to the ability to raise rents by 50%, if you look at the way the math works, and you look at the adjusted gross income or the average median income. Going from 30% to 50% was an automatic jump in rent of 50%. I won't do the math for you because it doesn't have anything to do with pools and your carbon footprint, but trust me, you can work it out or I'll show you how to do it. So any public building for affordable housing, and then you shift it to AMI. So that's basically what I'm talking about, the average monthly income of an area being 30% versus 50% for the basis of rent. So now what we're doing is we're just saying, hey, we're going to have a public works and we're going to sell any public building or real property. Well, just sell the property if you have to maintain it. But this is, and then we get into the issue, I think the bigger issue for me is that we have, with non-profits and things like that, a governmental or quasi-governmental organization may transfer credits allocated to it by the authority, a transferee, instead of paying for the property, instead of just paying straight up or paying for the housing to be made, then we're getting into this sub-economy of food stamps, housing stamps. and while common in the housing finance, this creates a secondary market where credits can function like financial assets rather than pure public housing tools. So what we're doing is we're feeding, my concern is that we're feeding this sub-industry where they have uncovered fraud, schemes involving housing subsidies and tax credit structures, including inflated development costs. And that's always the case. When the government inserts money into an economy, what you have is you have an artificial supply of money. And when you have an artificial supply of money, then the costs just go up. It's that simple supply-demand curve, Econ 101. And the kickbacks tied to credit financing. And what are we doing here? Credit financing. So kickbacks in credit financing seem to go hand in hand. It's not the intent of the bill. the intent of the bill is to be able to do this housing credit but again we have this we have this notion that we're going to just continue to build housing and we have vacancy rates we have we have office vacancy rates at 40 percent in denver so i'm not sure who and we have record high housing vacancy record rates in denver so in order for those housing rates to be the housing vacancy rate to go down. What we need is for the business vacancy rate to go down. And the last thing that this body is addressing is why the vacancy rate of our office space is so high. And that's because, again, we're the sixth most regulated state, aiming for number one as fast as we can. So tax credit, the government accountability office and housing policy organizations have warned about monitoring and reporting the weaknesses within tax credit programs, including inconsistent oversight as to how credits are allocated and used. So we just have this obscure, this obtuse credit thing where you're just saying instead of buying it and paying, and cash on the barrel head sort of thing. You're saying, well, we'll give you some credits over here. They don't really cost anything, so we'll just have that over there. Not the intent of the bill. The intent of the bill is to get housing, but again, we don't have a housing crisis. We're growing a housing bubble. Our birth rate is far below growth. It's only a fraction of maintenance. So right now, our birth rate is moving us in a direction that we're going to have even higher vacancies. So why do we want to clutter all of Colorado with housing that is not going to be, if it's not going to be needed, if it's not going to be needed, it's just going to decay into slums, which is the typical outcome when the government gets involved in these programs. Slums, higher rates, and lower availability. Inflate, the economists and policy analysts have argued that housing tax credit programs can sometimes inflate, development costs, standard, and allow financial actors to profit from credit structures rather than housing production. So the amendment that I put on there ensured that the public entity was responsible for the housing project, reduced speculation in the credit markets, and strengthened the accounting. And then the sponsor said, well, we couldn't really do the bill because then the bill wouldn't be possible if it weren't for credit because the people that were going to be doing these programs largely are not paying taxes anyways. So we're taking these entities, these non-audited government organizations, many of which are run from this room, but we're taking these non-audited government organizations and giving them tax credits to run a food stamp scheme into the sub-economy of Colorado, and it's a scheme that, not the intent of the bill, because I wouldn't want to get into any motivations there, tends to inflate development costs, result in kickbacks and fraud. So that's just the nature of the game. That's the nature of human, that's just, that's a commentary on human nature, not on the merits of this bill. I think the bill, unfortunately, we don't need that much more housing. We need to get the government out from pushing this growth of this bubble. Because the bubble, the more the government pushes it, the more it rewards people for growing that bubble unaccountably, the bigger mess that we're going to have. So I'm asking for a no vote on this. We don't have a housing crisis. The state is growing a bubble. We're just – we have a vacancy. We have a high vacancy rate. and when you talk to the demographers, then they just say, well, we're anticipating at some point the influx of a high rate of young fertile females, and I don't know where they're coming from, but that's the basis. Ma'am, that's the case. That's what they've been told. So I don't know how that is going to happen because that's the only way that the birth rate would change and turn around, but right now we have a negative growth rate on our birth rate. We have a high vacancy rate. We have an even higher vacancy rate in our business offices.

I'll hold those for later.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate my colleague statewide view of the issues but this bill is actually very hyper on very local needs As I said at the outset this bill appealed to me because one it one of the first bills that's come forward in this area that is truly not prescriptive, that doesn't state from this podium or this building how a local government must address its needs. It's not a one-size-fits-all from the state level. Denver may be awash in available housing, and that may be because businesses have left and folks don't need to live here. But at the end of the day, jobs are people, and houses where those jobs go to sleep at night. There are areas in this state where there are significant shortfalls in housing that can be afforded by people in the workforce. And there are definitions for workforce housing. But again, this bill provides a tool. It doesn't provide a mandate. It does not require new taxes or fees of any sort to be levied. The middle income tax credit program exists. It is funded. This bill allows local decision-making and local priorities to direct those monies in a way that they can be used to allow projects to actually pencil out and be built. I don't disagree. There are places where this isn't needed. But there are places in this state that truly suffer from a dearth of housing that people who work for a living can afford, and this allows that to be addressed. As for potentials for misuse, everything has a potential for misuse. seeing that misuse and addressing it is absolutely much more likely when it's a specific project supported by a very local government that's answerable directly to its people. If you walk through some of our smaller counties, our smaller districts, stop for gas, stop in the grocery store, the people in our counties know exactly what's going on everywhere, and they will tell you who is doing right and who is doing wrong. At some point, we have to trust as a state body that our local governments can also be trusted to do the right thing for the people that they serve. Are there things that go awry? Absolutely. but we've got to trust the people that we partner with. As a state, the counties can only do what we allow them to do. This allows them to do something to help the people of their areas. And quite honestly, I think they can do a better job at figuring out what they need and how to best address it at their local level. So I continue to urge support of this bill and have maintained from the beginning and still do that the real problem we need to address is why it is so darned expensive to actually construct a home And I talked to my co at the very beginning of this that I really like to get after how we reduce the cost of constructing a home not just subsidizing that cost. But right now, we have programs in place and money has been put into them. And rather than have... I won't... I'll use the term random pull-downs of that cash for somebody that has a great idea. I think it is much better that a local government that knows its people and perhaps the housing authorities that were formed by those local governments that know those needs are the ones that access that money and direct it to a very specific project. So I know this bill is not going to satisfy everyone. There's a whole lot more to be worked done in this sector and there's a lot of other ways to handle that the cost of living the cost of everything and we need to get after those as well but we can't throw out a good idea because it is not perfect and that's where I'm going to stop so I would urge a yes vote.

Representative Sukla. Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I actually have a question for the bill sponsors, and that is in Montezuma County, I was on the Housing Authority. We owned $32 million worth of property and projects. We built multiple projects. We also, because it was a Housing Authority, we didn't pay any taxes on those properties. And so my question is, with this bill and the affordable houses that are built, will they be paying property taxes every year?

You have four minutes and 50 seconds remaining. Thank you. Now, the housing authorities, as quasi-governmental organizations or the counties, can pay taxes, and that's kind of the point of this bill. They can access these credits, but they don't pay taxes, so they can't use them to cover a tax bill, but they can transfer them to somebody that can purchase them that does have a tax burden, and that brings cash into either the housing authority or the county that can be placed towards that project to get it completed. Okay.

No.

Representative Richardson, was there an additional question in there, just so that our public is aware?

We did digress a little bit. The question was, down the road, projects completion, property taxes, will they be paid?

Representative Soukla, you have one more time to speak to this bill, and you have nine minutes and 29 seconds remaining.

Representative DeGraff, you have 52 seconds remaining.

Representative DeGraff, your time has expired.

Speaker Pro Tembe Senecker.

Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 1 on third reading, final passage.

Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

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

Representative English votes yes. Representative Ricks, how do you vote?

Representative Ricks votes yes. Please close the machine. With 53 I, 10 no to excuse, Senate Bill 1 is adopted.

One announcement, members, representatives Brown, Sirota, and Taggart are excused at such time as necessary for the Joint Budget Committee. Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move the following bills be made special orders on March 10, 2026 at 1017 a.m. House Bill 1089, Senate Bill 34, Senate Bill 13, House Bill 1095, Senate Bill 64, House Bill 1258, House Bill 1090, and House Bill 1191. Seeing no objection, the bills listed by the majority leader will be made special orders today, March 10th at 10.17 a.m. Representative Camacho.

Seeing no objection, Representative Camacho will take the chair. Thank you.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of House Bill 1089. House Bill 1089 by Representative Espinoza, also Senator Snyder, concerning mortgage modifications and a connection therewith, enacting the Uniform Mortgage Modification Act. Representative Espinoza. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is the Uniform Law Commission bill, and what we're doing here is updating provisions in the Mortgage Modification Act, and specifically, HB 1029 clarifies that a senior mortgage retains its original lien priority when modified through certain qualifying borrower-focused changes. The bill preserves the existing priority framework while ensuring that common loss mitigation efforts do not unintentionally alter lien status. Specifically, it provides that a senior lien holder does not lose priority solely because it enters into a qualifying loan modification. It clarifies that a modification does not constitute an ovation of the original mortgage. It confirms that lien priority is preserved Representative Espinoza Colleagues if you could please reduce your volume and move all conversations aside so we can hear our colleague

To the bill. It confirms that the lien priority is preserved regardless of whether the modification is recorded. And finally, it recognizes electronic signatures, bringing us into the 21st century, and records for mortgage modification to modernize the process and promote uniform treatment. I'd encourage an aye vote.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of Senate Bill 34. Senate Bill 34 by Senators Colker and Marchman, also Representatives Hamrick and Bacon, concerning expanding participation by members of the Auraria Board of Directors Advisory Committees.

I move Senate Bill 26034.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are honored to present Senate Bill 2634, also known as the Auraria Student and Faculty Board Voting Rights Act of 2026. This bill modernizes the governance of Colorado's largest college campus to better reflect the people who live, work, and study there every day. The Auraria Higher Education Center is a unique shared resource campus serving over 49,000 students, faculty, and staff across the Community College of Denver, MSU Denver, and CU Denver. While these groups are the heart of the campus, the representatives on the Auraria Board currently sit in a non-voting, advisory-only capacity. Senate Bill 2634 changes that by granting these elected representatives full voting rights. When we talk about the value of this bill, we're talking about the grounding of the board's decision-making and actual lived experience. Currently, the Auraria board makes major decisions regarding classrooms, safety, multi-million dollar construction projects, and student fees for shared spaces like the Tivoli Center Union. Without a vote, these major projects could move forward without meaningful input from the very people most affected by them. This advisory-only status creates a disconnect that often leads to underused resources or policies that feel out of touch with the reality of campus life. By empowering the student voice, we're also making our governance more inclusive of the modern student body. This bill reveals the outdated requirement that the student representatives be full-time student, which effectively re-enfranchises the nearly 50% of our various students who balance their education and careers with part-time schedules. We're further opening the door to our talented international and out-of-state students by reducing the residency requirement from three years down to one. Similarly, we are strengthening faculty representation by expanding their advisory committee from six to nine members. This ensures that as the campus grows, the board has access to a broader, more diverse range of academic and professional perspectives from all three constituent institutions. Ultimately, granting these votes ensures that those who are materially affected by the board's decisions are active, substantive participants in the process. We're not reinventing the wheel here. This bill follows the precedent of at least 15 other public university systems across the country, including states like Arizona, Go Cats, Tennessee, and Washington, that already provide students or faculty with voting rights on their boards. To ensure the highest level of integrity, this bill explicitly clarifies that these new voting members are fiduciaries of the center. It bills on existing law that requires them to recuse themselves from any vote or executive session where a conflict of interest exists, and empowers the board to create a transparent framework for these standards. We respectfully ask for a yes vote on Senate Bill 26.0. to ensure our campus community has a true voice in shaping its future. A.M.L. Bacon. Thank you, members, and thank you to my co-prime for sponsoring this bill. Ultimately, members, we just want to say that we have often supported the notion in this building that those who are impacted by decisions, particularly who are of sound mind as adults, should be able to contribute to those said decisions. And often, the colloquially, we say, not about us, without us, and that's ultimately what this bill is about. This bill is about expanding a board that, unfortunately, is created in and managed through statute, given its special nature. This is about allowing students of a very special campus who, quite frankly, have more of a profile of being students from the area, students who are career changers, students who might also be more progressive in their careers, and they are fully capable of contributing to the decisions that impact their very lives. And at the end of the day, what we are proposing here is that the students have a voting voice on issues that impact them, along with the faculty, which, you know, it's kind of striking, actually, that those who are the primary distributors of the information, a.k.a. the product of a higher education campus or higher education in general, do not have voices in the space. And so, members, this is simple. Throughout the reading of the bill, because I'm sure we're going to have discussion, there are requirements as well. If you want to be a student representative, yes, it says that you do not have to be full-time given two of the three campuses are, you know, directly target career changers. And we also say, though, that we cut the residency provision from three years to one year, which means someone still has to be a resident to apply for the student seat. But we did that to give students the opportunity to even become a resident, let alone to be able to serve. For example, I went to school in Louisiana, but I was a resident of Florida as an undergrad. And so if I wanted to be a member of a student, if I wanted to be a student member of a board, that means I would have to change my residency to Louisiana. Well, that is not actually required much in these circumstances. But in this bill, we said you do have to be a resident of Colorado at least for a year. even if you are an international student, even if you are a student coming from another state. And this campus does host such students. And so members, when you think about three years out of four, especially in undergrad, we want to give folks an opportunity to decide if they want to commit this way, and that's why we changed that rule just there for an example. But everything else is commiserate to where we see students who actually have voting opportunities. And finally, members, the minute someone has the voting responsibility and opportunity, per rule and statute, they are fiduciaries, which means they cannot operate under conflicts of interest. And so I'm putting it out here because I'm sure we're going to talk later. And so when you hear me just ask for a no vote, you know why. Thank you.

the question represented it representative Brown thank you mr chair I just come up here to bring up some concerns on this bill and then hopefully the bill sponsors can you know probably clarify this for me The board itself, you know, these colleges, they have members that are coming in from out of state. The student, all I want to make sure is that we have board members that have skin in the game, per se. that look at the best interest of these higher education services to move forward and to do the best for their students. And having people in the state that live here, that have skin in the game, that may not necessarily grow up here, but at the same time want to put their roots down. So I just want to make sure that this actually does accomplish that. And I just want to see if that's something that the bill sponsors can clarify for me. Amel Bacon. Thank you to my colleague. I would first offer that students have skin in the game and that this not only is a very big expense on their behalf to being a student, but also they are at an institution that will issue them a degree, which the whole purpose of them being there is so they can use it. So we see naturally by their presence. But furthermore, in the bill, there is a residency requirement of one year. They have to be a resident of the state for a year to be able to run for the position.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 13. Senate Bill 13 by Senator Syndrickson and Marchman, also Representative Zokai, concerning cohabitation as a means to commit the offense of bigamy.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Senate Bill 13.

Members, this bill is providing a much-needed cleanup to our criminal code and clarifying that the definition of bigamy should align with its plain meaning, which is the act of entering into more than one legal marriage or civil union at the same time. Bigamy is a class two misdemeanor, and yet part of the definition of bigamy includes cohabitation. And that can be difficult to define and hard to interpret in practice. And so what this bill does is it removes cohabitation as a basis for criminal liability for the charge of bigamy. And that is because including cohabitation in the definition can have unintended consequences. For example, I ask that we consider somebody fleeing domestic violence. They may not have the means to go through a divorce proceeding, or they may avoid going through a divorce proceeding because they are afraid to see their abuser in court. If that person then lives with somebody else, they would fall within the current definition of bigamy and could face criminal liability. The current definition of bigamy also keeps people from seeking medical attention and essential services because they are worried about facing that criminal liability. Even if conviction and prosecution does not ultimately occur, the mere threat of being charged under this ambiguous criminal statute has a chilling effect and creates fear and uncertainty for people who are trying to rebuild their lives. Ultimately, it is my belief that families come in all shapes and sizes and that it is not our place to judge what is a legal family. And I recognize that we might have different moral views when it comes to living arrangements and how people structure their households but it is not our place in this body to criminalize those differences The role of government is not to police private relationships between consenting adults, but rather to ensure that our criminal code is focused on addressing real harm. This bill had bipartisan support in the Senate and in the Judiciary Committee in the House, and I hope all of you will join me in supporting it today. Representative Espinosa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise today in support of this bill, but I want to put on the record I voted against this bill in committee because I do think there's a state interest that's still at play in this area. And I want to be clear that upon reflection, I believe that state interest is still met. The question in bigamy is whether the state has an obligation to protect two subsequent marriages in terms of protecting the first party that entered into the marriage from any adverse actions that might happen with the second party. I believe that the word cohabitation, as it was originally in the statute, was referring to common law marriage. and therefore at the committee I was not in favor of this bill. However, I've looked at whether we would need to put common law marriage back into the statute to cover that concern and I do not believe we need to because the bigamy statute as it will remain after this bill is adopted indicates that there's still a marriage that happens and a subsequent marriage. A subsequent marriage would be covered and since our statute includes under marriage common law and regular marriage. I do not believe we need to add common law back into the statute, and therefore I encourage an aye vote on this bill. Thank you. Representative DeGraff. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a brave new world.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. In this brave new world, I move L001 to SB013, and I said it would be displayed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment is just to clarify current law for this section. So not to add regulation, but just to clarify the regulation, and just saying nothing in this section shall be construed to allow an individual who is legally married to maintain multiple households representing spousal or marriage-like relationships for the purpose of attaining public assistance. So again, the sponsor will tell you that this is pretty much already in law. This is just clarifying the law. This is just clarifying the law for this section here that we're in this brave new world. So for the purpose of obtaining public assistance, tax benefits, or government programs. If an individual who is legally married represents more than one person as a spouse or spousal equivalent for the purpose of government benefit or legal status, such representation constitutes evidence of bigamy so again just to clarify current law as we getting into this new realm and I ask for an aye vote Representative Zocay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Oh, much taller than me. Thank you to the representative from El Paso County. I am going to ask for a no vote on this amendment, as doing so already constitutes fraud. I don't believe we also need to add it into the bigamy statue, and it is redundant in adding additional charges that are not necessary. So I urge a no vote.

Representative DeGraff. Well, I thought it would be very big of you to clarify bigamy, but we'll just go on from there. So I move L-002 to SB-013 and ask that it be displayed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. and then with the discussions with the drafters, what this should do is just clarify current law to clarify it. So notwithstanding any other provision of law, a child may be claimed as a dependent for purposes of any state tax credit, deduction, or benefit by only one taxpayer or household in a given year. So again, this is just to make sure that should be a given, but this is just to make sure that as we're getting in this area that there's no question marks around this. If multiple adults reside in a household or maintain marriage-like relationships with the same child residing in the household, the Department of Revenue shall require designation of single taxpayer authorization to claim the child for state tax purposes. So the Department of Revenue may adopt rules necessary to ensure that a child is not claimed by multiple taxpayers for tax benefits in the same tax year. So what we don't want is children to be used as tax pawns. So this should be illegal. Again, this is just clarifying the statute. this is clarifying the rules and the regulations as it relates to this section. So it's not really adding. It's just clarifying. I ask for an aye vote. Representative Zocay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative from Vapasso County. I am going to once again ask for a no vote on this amendment as this is, again, current law. two adults that are married can claim a child together if they are separated. Only one adult may claim that child to do otherwise would be, I wouldn't say it's tax fraud, but it would be flagged and only one adult would be able to claim the child. The Department of Revenue already has rules to determine that. And just fun fact, it is whoever files that child first. And that's why these things are usually settled in divorce proceedings. I think adding this into the bigamy statute would create unnecessary confusion, and I ask for a no vote.

AML Winter. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wasn't able to sit in committee, so I just have a question. Are there any examples of this happening, or is there any background to why you're doing it? Representative Zocchi. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the question. Yes, as I outlined when I went over the opening of this bill, There's not that many convictions of bigamy, but people are charged with it and then ultimately not convicted. But just the mere threat of being charged with bigamy keeps people from seeking medical attention or essential services. And so it has a chilling effect on individuals who might have different living arrangements. And so we think it's important to make this clarification.

Representative Bottoms. Thank you, Chair. This is just another long line of bills that we do in this building. And I guess I should stop being surprised, but here's another one. I like the idea that somehow these relationships, these living arrangements, or however somebody wants to say it, should be chilled. These are very unhealthy relationships. But I do actually pick on the church here a little bit for the beginning of this context. The idea of marriage is something that God instituted. It's actually the first institution that God created. And there were very defined parameters of that. One man, one woman. And obviously, I guess I have to say this, one biological man, one biological woman. And then that's it. And sometimes people use the Old Testament to say, well, God was okay with all these other marriages, having multiple marriages. He never was. Those were illustrations of people getting outside of God's plan. And God explains that through scripture. The problem is in America in the 1600s, we actually turned marriage, the church turned marriage over to the state so that they could get some financial benefit from the king across the sea. And so when the church handed it over to the state, then the state now begins to define what marriage is. these are the results and this is something that the church just will not open their eyes and see when you turn this stuff over to the state these are the results the state is not a the state is not a god-fearing organization it's a bureaucracy and oftentimes even described in scripture as being evil and so the state has arrived at the conclusions are going to arrive at that anybody can marry anybody. We even got some bills coming that I think would allude to the fact that you can marry animals. So this is where we've come to. And then the church gets upset or moral founded people get upset, but you handed it to the state a long time ago. What we've got to do is take these things back from the state and reestablish them or reclaim them for the biblical Judeo-Christian values. that were exhibited at the very beginning. I cannot I just these kind of bills just blow my mind that we having these arguments and discussions and how many people can live together Is it bigamy Are they married Are they not married This stuff is just, we should not be having these conversations. But when we let the state become so corrupt and so immoral, this is what happens. Immorality will continue to be pushed by this room until we stop it. and I don't see it stopping for at least another six months. Representative Brooks. Chair, thank you. This did not come through a committee on which I sit, so I am getting caught up on some of it, as we go here, but as soon as I start looking at this, from the beginning this morning, I think that anybody on this side would realize that anybody on this side is going to have questions, if not outright concerns. My read of it is just a further kind of erosion of what my particular outlook and those I believe that many of my colleagues hold as dear and traditionally nuclear. I understand that one of the arguments that was made in committee is that things have changed. I heard that in committee last night when it came to tax code, antiquated. It's not the word. I can't remember what the word was that was offered up, but basically old-fashioned is kind of what I heard. I'll be perfectly honest with you. I embrace some of the qualities of being old-fashioned. I embrace some of the qualities of being traditional and nuclear. So I have some concern and pause with moving into this direction because it seems like there is a motion, a movement, a desire to erode at families, to erode at family structures, to erode at the definitions which have been traditional. And I want to push back against that because I think that there's so much that we're losing in this state already that there are some things that we should probably try to defend a little bit more and having some of that traditional element is something that I will continue to fight for. I would urge a no on this, and I would imagine that there might be some other amendments that have been printed and warm that are ready to go. Representative Bradley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I did not hear this in committee. I am blown away. I'm just listening for the first time, but I say that we tell California to hold our beer every time in this legislative session. If the bill sponsor what happens if someone is having an affair and won get divorced or sign papers Like I have a good friend whose husband is having an affair right now who is cohabitating with another woman and what happens to her under this bill? Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I don't know if that would have ever been under this bill, but what we are doing is removing cohabitation from the definition of bigamy. So there wouldn't be, I guess, a criminal violation, certainly a moral or ethical one. Okay.

I have to digest for a second. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So it's a, I mean, it seems like a, I mean, there's the side that the state should get out of this entirely, but we've enmeshed ourselves in this. Now, I think that, and the state enmeshed itself in it because, you know, a healthy marital mother-father relationship is a significant indicator, if not a prime indicator, in individual thriving, in the overall long-term success of a child. and since children are our future, then this is not a matter. It's not a matter of value of individuals. It's just a matter of fact. And the state has decided that it has an interest in promoting that relationship, mother, father. It provides tax benefits for that purpose to encourage that relationship so that children grow up in a two-parent home. Now, is that the role of the state? Well, probably, probably not. But again, the state has intervened and said we see a need for us to intervene because, again, the state was not doing this for any moral purposes. The state is really doing this. The king was doing this for the purpose of stability and long-term thriving. So the state stepped in to encourage this stability, this family stability, because it does encourage long-term thriving. Now, if you look at authors and thinkers like Unwin in talking about the marital relationship and where this has gone, the strength of society long-term does actually depend on this. And whether you appreciate the morals and the values and the norms of a healthy marital relationship, it doesn't really matter. Those are the indicators of a thriving society. And when those break down, a society is in decay, a society is in collapse. So when we're dealing with this kind of legislation, we're just really trying to manage collapse. because we're no longer talking about thriving, we're no longer talking about growth, and you see that in the growth rates of our population. People are walking away from marriage, they're walking away from family, in large part because of the decisions made by the government where people don't see a future. So I move, in order to help manage this collapse, as indicated, by this moral decay that we're managing here. I move L004 to SB013 and ask that it be displayed I thought I did

To the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just some preamble there, and then on page 2 after line 13, if a child residing in a household received state-funded public assistance or benefits, the Department of Human Services or a county shall require cooperation with the establishment of paternity and child support pursuant to Article 13, Title 26, and Article 4 of Title 19. So this is to... There should be... I mean, paternity should be pretty easy to establish, But in those cases where it's not, then this is just making sure that the state is not just simply on the hook for people not shouldering their responsibilities. and if a father, well it shouldn't be considered, if the male of the relationship does not act appropriately as a father, this should at least take them off, this should put them back into the level of responsibility that they need to actually provide, provide, if not emotional support, they should be supplying financial support for the child. So going on, for purposes of this section, the existence of a child born to a legally adopt or legally adopted by two individuals shall constitute evidence of a marriage-like relationship. So even if they don't declare it as a marriage for the purpose of the state, we're going to call it a marriage-like relationship between those two individuals. Children should not be just back and forth. If you're going to have a child in the mix here, that needs to be, that is a serious relationship. You're dealing with the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of a current person, of a very vulnerable person. And so nothing in this section shall be interpreted to create legal parental status for more than two individuals based solely on cohabitation or marriage-like relationships. So this is not making a village as supposedly the caretakers of that child. This assigns the care of that child to two specific individuals, not just somebody to be passed around some little commune and all that where their interests are not truly represented. So again, for the purpose of this section, the existence of a child born or legally adopted by two individuals shall constitute evidence of a marriage-like relationship. And that ties in with the nature of this bill, so I ask for a yes vote. Representative Soper. Merci, Mr. Chair. Members, I have appreciated this conversation. It does kind of remind me of a famous story. Back in my youth, the president of France was Francois Mitterrand, and when he died, not only did Mrs. Mitterrand attend his funeral, but he had secretly been cohabitating with his lover in the south of France, whom they had a child with, and whom he financially supported. And that's exactly what this bill gets at. which is the element of cohabitation is not bigamy. It's when you have a person who's holding themselves as actively being married to two different people at the exact same time. So because of that, I move Amendment L-006 as a substitute amendment and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, this changes the short title to the Mitterrand Act. It illustrates exactly what the bill is trying to do, which is we want to punish, under the crimes of bigamy, those individuals who are actively holding themselves out as being married to more than one person at one time. We don't necessarily want to be in the position of having to police when someone is married and living with another person. That is a very sticky situation that really we do not want the state involved in. And we, you know, hopefully they would get a divorce if that was the case. That's the remedy that we have here. With that, I would ask for a yes vote to call this the Mitteron Act.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sure, why not? Seems fun. I urge you a yes vote.

To the bill. To the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, I wasn't going to come up here and say anything. I already had my vote in mind, but I felt the duty to come up here and speak a little bit on this for myself, for my family, and for my district. Of course, it's no surprise I'm going to be against this bill. I'm going to vote no, and I urge a no vote for my district and yours as well. The importance of why I'm coming up here is because I find this bill is actually moving away from solving the mental health problem that we have in our country and in our state. For that reason, I want to say that the importance of having what they call an atomic family, a strong family in the household, not just for the biological man and woman that are married, but for the children. the importance of having that strong family goes leaps and bounds for mental health when one of those aspects gets taken out of the family it affects not just one maybe two, not just two, but maybe three as well all three of them, or even depending on how many kids four, five, six it affects their mental health It goes into decline some immediate some over time but it does make an effect A PubMed Central report gathered from 24 studies found that women in polygamous marriages have a 2.25 times higher chance of experienced depression, and children with polygamous parents have a drastically higher global severity index. That's a concern for me because I'm a big advocate of mental health, that we do have a mental health issue. And propositions like these and this bill, it makes it worse. It just encourages more mental health problems in children, married couples. and I really don't feel like that's something that we should be encouraging. So that being said, I just want to urge my colleagues here, vote no on this bill, help mental health. and for the people in my district, I just want to say I encourage the strong family bonds that we create to help us move forward in life and give us that mental health strength. So I urge a no vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, what my colleague said brings up a lot of really good points. And a lot of times when we think that we're being liberated, we're really being enslaved. And we're being enslaved to passions and we're being enslaved to societally. and we're neglecting the people that the support of marriage is intended to protect. And if you're going to enter into a relationship and have children, then children become the focus of the relationship. They become the purpose of the relationship. So it's kind of a don't do the crime if you can't do the time. So with that, I move L-008 to SB-013 and ask that it be displayed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is somebody going to tell you that's a settled question, and this is a different amendment? And you can notice by that that there's 3, 4, 5, and 6, as opposed to 3, 4, and 5, because these build on each other. So before page 2, page 2 before line 13, if a child residing in a household receives state-funded public assistance or benefits, the Department of Human Services or a county department shall require cooperation with the establishment of paternity and the child support pursuant to Article 13, Section Title 26, Article 4 of Title 19. For the purpose of this section that we talking about in this whole bigamy section the existence of a child born to or legally adopted by two individuals self-constitute a marriage-like relationship. This just puts the child at the forefront of this consideration. If two adults are going to act consensually and adopt or conceive a child, then this just establishes a marriage-like relationship that, for the purpose of the law, establishes the protective shield of that marriage-like relationship over that child. Continuing, a person applying for or receiving public assistance on behalf of a child shall cooperate with paternity establishment. So if that is unknown, if it is disputed, that the state has the ability to step in. And the reason for that is because if somebody is going to establish paternity, then they don't just have the right to establish paternity biologically. They have the responsibility of that paternity. they need to and I think it's an appropriate role of the state in this regard because this is a matter of securing life, liberty, or property for that person that child because now that the existence of a child adopted or biologically conceived is evidence of a marriage-like relationship A person applying for or receiving public assistance on behalf of a child shall cooperate with a paternity to establish and child support enforcement unless good cause exists as determined by the department. And so what this section is for is to take the female off the hook for establishing that and then taking that individual to court. so this is a this is number five number four is protective of the child number five is protective of the mother because the mother in this case should not have to go to court should not have to prove that what we have given here is the authorization of the state to actually have to prove paternity. Not alleged paternity, but prove paternity. Unless good cause exists as determined by the department. So perhaps the mother would say that's not appropriate, whatever. That would have to be determined by the, and that would be, I suppose, if the mother wanted to provide support, but that here would be outside the level of public assistance. because now what we also have is the public on the hook for two people entering into a marriage-like relationship, having a child, and then foisting the responsibility of that child onto society at large, and that is not good for the child. So nothing in this section shall be interpreted to create legal parent status for more than two individuals based on solely cohabitating or marriage-like relationships. So this doesn't increase. So the child is still just the child of two parents. They have the responsibility He not lost in the milieu of whatever arrangement is conceived in this brave new world that we have But the child is protected by this amendment, the mother is protected by this amendment, and then society at large is protected by this amendment by ensuring that the father, without forcing confrontation with the mother is exercising responsibility for the child through parental support. So I think for the purpose of the child, the mother, and society at large, this is a good amendment. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the representative from El Paso County for this creative amendment. I will be asking for a no vote for a few reasons. One is that we already have procedures for determining paternity within divorce proceedings and when someone is seeking child support. I don't think it is the role of the state to start mandating paternity tests when there's already mechanisms to do so. And I certainly don't think it fits within the bigamy misdemeanor law. Furthermore, I find it odd to create a whole new definition of marriage within this amendment, of marriage-like. And I think it's odd to create a new definition of marriage, marriage-like. We did just vote, I think, last week on codifying the definition of marriage. I believe the good rep from El Paso County voted yes on that bill. and on sections four and six I think we are ignoring the many ways that people have children whether it is through surrogates adoption or otherwise and so I think this creates a whole mess and truthfully does not fit within the bigamy law and so with that I am going to request a title

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of House Bill 1095. House Bill 1095 by Representative Sucla concerning the authority of certain local governments to publish legal notices in an online publication.

Anything else you'd like to move, Representative Sucla?

That is proper motion. Representative Wynn.

Is there any discussion on the motion? Representative Wynn.

Is there any further discussion on the motion to reject the TL-THL?

Yes. Hold on, hold on. Representative Sucla, go ahead.

Is there any further discussion on the motion to reject the committee report? Seeing none, the question before us, hold on. Got it. Sorry. I will rephrase. So the motion is to reject the committee report. The motion is, Rep. Winn, restate your motion, please.

Got it. So the motion is to adopt the committee report. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. The no's have it. The committee report has not been adopted. Representative Wynne.

Sorry. I got my script. Yeah.

What amendment are you moving, Representative Wynne?

Thank you. That is a proper motion. Amendment L5 has been displayed to the amendment.

Representative Wynne.

Representative Nguyen, I'm going to ask you to withdraw Amendment L-005. Unfortunately, it has come to my attention that this is to the committee report that was not adopted. Oh, no. The committee will go into a brief recess Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. proceed. Could you withdraw your previous motion?

You mean L-005? L-005. That is a proper motion. Amendment L-005 has been withdrawn. Representative Wynne. I'd like to move to

0-0-6 to the committee report. It has to be displayed. Representative Wynne, would you like to restate?

And it has to be displayed. The motion to move Amendment L6 to House Bill 1095 is proper. And it has been displayed. To the amendment, Representative Wynne.

Any further discussion on the amendment? Representative Sucla.

Any further discussion on Amendment L-6? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of Amendment L-6. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. The ayes have it. Amendment L-6 passes. To the bill, Representative Sucla.

Is there any further discussion on House Bill 1095? Seeing none, the question before is the passage of House Bill 1095 as amended. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. The ayes have it. House Bill 1095 as amended passes. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 64.

Representative McCormick. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 26-064.

which established the Agricultural Future Loan Program. And we know we have hard data that shows that Colorado is leading the nation in a way that we don't want to be leading the nation, where we're losing agricultural land, especially over the last five years. from farms and ranches across our state. And we do have many tools for land conservation, but there's not currently a short-term NIMBLE loan program that is specifically focused on protecting viable farms and ranches for the primary sake of their agricultural value. And this loan program was set up to help get new farmers and ranchers to be able to purchase land so they can continue the purpose of that land into the future. And as we know, land is very expensive, and many of those new farmers and ranchers do not have the ability to get a loan for those large amounts. And often the agricultural value of the land is not enough to pay for market value of that land. So this bill adds a new category of loans that are allowed under the existing Agricultural Future Loans Program. It adds a definition of an eligible entity that includes organizations in Colorado, namely state-certified land trust and water conservation and conservancy districts. And these entities can apply for that loan through the existing program and be able to work with the Department of Agriculture and their financial institution that actually handles these loans to be able to sell to that farmer or rancher that is interested in continuing the agricultural production on that land. This program has been very successful over the years. Back in 2021, it received $30 million of state COVID stimulus funds. and there have been 7 million in grants and 23 million to the revolving loan program. So as these farmers get this loan, they are paying it back usually within a few years and that money can be reloaned out to new farmers for us to be able to save ag land. And I'm happy to be on this bill with my co-prime sponsor and I urge a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm also honored to be on this bill with Representative McCormick. Members, we're losing farmland in Colorado at an alarming rate. Over the last five years, 1.6 million acres of prime farmland has been taken out of production, including a number of prized ranches within my district. The ability to get the next generation into farming and ranching is important. Many don't have the capital to be able to go right out and purchase a farm, and certainly to borrow money on the open market to buy a farm is not always feasible. It's not always worth it. The state set up a future farmer loan program. We're adding to that program for the entities in which the money can pass through to irrigation and conservation and water districts. what happens is they're able to leverage well it's really private dollars, loan dollars move the land into conservation easement, and then sell to a new farmer at a discounted rate. That allows the next generation to be able to get into agriculture. It allows the state to provide one more opportunity, along with numerous other opportunities for new farmers that we have out there. And I certainly would encourage a yes vote.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of House Bill 1258. House Bill 1258 by Representatives Soper and Tatone, also Senators Roberts and Pelton R., concerning death.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

To the committee report. Representative Soper.

L7 is displayed to the amendment. Representative Soper.

Representative Chetone.

Seeing none, the question before us is its passage. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? L7 is adopted. To the committee report.

No, just. Oh, I'll just, like, talk. Yeah.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Is there any further discussion on the committee report? Seeing none, the question before us is its passage. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The committee report is adopted to the bill. Representative Soper.

Okay. The amendment is displayed. To the amendment, Representative Soper.

Seeing none, the question is its passage. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? L6 is adopted. To the bill. Representative Soper.

Representative Chitone.

Members, the majority leader policy requires distribution of multi-page floor amendments by 4.30 p.m. the day before the bill is heard. This bill was received on March 9th at 4.07 p.m. and was distributed, but was accidentally stamped as being received on March 4th. You received a corrected copy this morning, and it is now properly displayed. Representative Chitone.

A no vote on the amendment. Is there any further discussion on Amendment L-004? Seeing none, the question before us is this passage. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no.

Amendment L-004 is locked to the bill. Is there a representative so far Thank you Madam Chair Members I move Amendment L and ask that it be properly displayed I'm going to ask that it be improperly displayed. That is a proper motion. L-008 is displayed. Representative Soper.

The amendment has been withdrawn. Is there any further discussion on House Bill 1258 as amended? All right. Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of House Bill 1258 as amended. All those in favor say aye.

All those opposed say no. House Bill 1258 as amended is adopted.

Representative Martinez. Thank you, Madam Chair. It's an honor to serve with you.

I move House Bill 1090 and the Education Committee report.

Members, we just had a few technical cleanups in the bill with this, and then we'll also explain. We'll move a couple amendments that reflect the bill changes in more depth once we get to the bill. So we just request an aye vote on the committee report.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I did just want to put on the record we did strike a section related to the licensing of teachers and the requirements that they have to go through to get licensed when they have received their bachelor's degree in another state but didn't go through the complete process of licensure. We took that out because the conversation was incomplete, but I just want to put on the record that the conversation is incomplete, and hopefully someone will pick it up for the future.

Aye.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So House Bill 1090 reflects kind of my work that I've done in the legislature around those that have gotten in trouble, those that have made some mistakes, and really wanting to get their life together and being able to become productive members of society, you know, really in helping out and being able to lend those life stories, those experiences into those that they're helping. And so with House Bill 1090, this bill is really aimed at those that are otherwise qualified to be teachers in the space that it may be have made a mistake in college or right when they turned 18 for a misdemeanor offense. And that's on their record. And so when they're applying for a teacher job, licensure, they have to bring this information up. They have to be able to present this and kind of relive past traumas, experiences, and then really having that weight on them that really is unnecessary. Myself and my good co-crime from Penrose have been working on this for a year plus on this, trying to figure out what really makes sense and being able to really help out those that need. And so I'm really glad that we were able to bring this forward. And so through a lot of stakeholders with the Department of Education, we found out in essence that in the business world, you have kind of a statute of limitations. The professional world doesn't look at misdemeanor offenses beyond seven years. And so but that was not true for the teacher licensure program. They were looking at that from eight years on to 12 years. And we asked them, we said, well, you know, has this been helping out the process? Have you been, is this really helping out our teachers? And the answer we got told was, well, we don't, unless it pertains to crimes against children or youth or the at-risk population, we actually don't really look at that. And so we said, why then, if that's the case, then why are we still doing this? Why are we still making them submit all this information when we're not using it? So we are proud to present this bill for you today. And I'll turn it over to my amazing co-prime. Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to my amazing co-prime. I appreciate his diligence and persistence in making this bill possible. The best song that I have for this bill is the song that starts out, so you had a bad day, right? Like there are times in our lives where you just have a bad day and you make some bad decisions and maybe those bad decisions spiral into a situation where you find yourself with a misdemeanor and we just think that you should not live with those bad days indefinitely, that there should be a time at which society says, we're going to forget that day happened. And in this space, we're saying that that is seven years. After seven years, we no longer want to know about that bad day unless it involves particular populations of people that you would, as a teacher, be very much connected to. And so that is the impetus for this portion of the bill and we thank you for your support. Representative Martinez. Thank you Madam Chair. So after we got out of committee and just because due to what we were attempting with this there ended up being multiple statutes that needed to be addressed as well so we will run a series of amendments that accomplishes exactly what we had laid out in the bill again that misdemeanor offenses beyond seven years wouldn't be in the initial application. So that's what the next series of amendments will be. So with that, I move Amendment L2 to House Bill 1090 and ask that it be properly displayed.

is um so again this is uh going into what we had said there's a couple different statutes um that that this also pertains by the change of this and so um that's what this amendment um is for so we ask for an aye vote representative luck thank you madam chair and just from my side to provide clarity what this does is it links it to another section of statute um related to when a license can be suspended and it encompasses misdemeanors that we thought we were encompassing initially but weren't things that have to do with sexual abuse and domestic violence. This is one of three amendments that will look exactly the same but that are as individual pages because we didn't want a multi-page amendment and that deal with different sections of the statute as conforming amendments.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, this is just the second of three amendments that all look the same to conform each part of statute to what we've outlined. I ask for an aye vote.

Aye.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Amendment L4 to House Bill 1090 and ask that it be displayed slightly to the right.

Representative Martinez. Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, this is just the series of three amendments that we have submitted, and in regards to that statute that we talked about, we request an aye vote.

Aye.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members, for the help and support on that. Again, we think that this is a good bill. This really just makes sure that otherwise qualified teachers have an easier path to getting in the teaching field, being able to really contribute. And, again, I think that those teachers are going to make some of the best teachers that we have by being able to give their life experience to the students. And really, this is removing a barrier that was really unnecessary. And this, again, creates a better path and show that we care about an easy path for teachers in the state of Colorado. And it's been an honor working with my co-prime on this and hopefully successful.

I'm sorry. Forgive me. So many amendments. I actually have one more to move. This is amendment L006, and I move it and ask that it be displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment comes out of a conversation we had in committee related to the start time for the seven years. We have chosen the time that other businesses have used in many instances, and that is the date of disposition of the conviction, and so we ask for an aye vote.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1191. House Bill 1191 by Representatives Johnson and Bacon, also Senators Frizzell and Weissman concerning the examination of a school district that receives state education fund money for capital construction projects for qualified charter schools in the district and in connection therewith making the state auditor examination of the school district records discretionary rather than mandatory

To the bill. Representative Johnson.

Representative Bacon.

Is there any further discussion on House Bill 1191? Seeing none, the question before us is this passage. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. House Bill 1191 is passed. Madam Majority Leader.

You have heard the motion. Seeing no objection, the committee will rise and report. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The House will come back to order. Mr. Schiebel, please read the report of the Committee of the Whole.

Representative Camacho. There are amendments at the desk Mr Schiebel please read the title of the Totone Amendment Representatives Soper and Totone move to amend the report of the Committee of the Whole to reverse the action taken by the Committee and not adopting the following Totone Amendment L to House Bill 1258 to show that said amendment passed and that House Bill 1258 is amended passed Representative Totone.

Please speak to your amendment.

please vote no on the amendment. I'd ask for a no vote as well. No vote. Further discussion? Seeing none. And Representative Titone, just to clarify, you were asking for a no vote on the amendment. Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the adoption of the Titone amendment to the report of the Committee of the Whole.

Members, please proceed to vote. Vanessa. Representative English is excused. Please close the machine. With seven aye votes, 50 no votes, and eight excused, the amendment is lost.

Representative Soper. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Temp. I move the Soper and Zocay amendment to the Committee of the Whole report.

Please proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a little bit awkward, but apparently there was a misnumbering, and so this just replaces the amendment that was offered with this new amendment that is numbered correctly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. I hope this doesn't invite more questions than answers, but I feel it's important for the legislative record to say we did confirm the promiscuous king's wife was of age, and now we do ask for a yes vote on this amendment.

Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine. Members, please proceed to vote.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Pro Tem, I just wanted to let the Health and Human Services Committee folks know that we changed the order of the bills being heard today. We'll be in this order 1229, 1241, 1249, 1244, 1262,

Froelich. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. The Transportation, Housing, and Local Government Committee will meet at 1235

Representative Ricks Thank you Mr. Chair Business Affairs and Labor We'll be meeting at Upon adjournment tomorrow In room 112 We're going to hear three bills HB 1247 HB 1273 HB 1091 And I'll see you there

Representative Camacho Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. Colleagues, I have received permission to be absent on Thursday, March 12th. I will miss you all.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. I lay over the balance of the calendar until Wednesday, March 11th, 2026.

Mr. Speaker Pro Tem, I move the House stand in recess until later today.