March 16, 2026 · Finance · 6,231 words · 14 speakers · 120 segments
. The committee will come to order. Please call the roll. Representatives Camacho.
Here.
Garcia.
Excused.
Gonzalez.
Good afternoon.
Hartsook.
Excused.
Marshall.
Here.
Stewart.
Here.
Weinberg.
Excused.
Woog.
Here.
Zokai.
Excuse.
To tone. Here. Mr. Chair. Here. We have a quorum, believe it or not. No, you got a co-prime? I do have a co-prime. It's underway. But I can start. At least in the quorum. The record, we've been joined by Representative Hartsook. Thank you. Thank you. All right, we have the bill sponsors here on 1240. Who would like to kick us off?
Rev Rudinell. Thank you, Chair. I am honored to be presenting House Bill 26-1240 alongside Representative Zokai here. Colleagues, we've gotten a chance to learn a very important lesson while doing this job over the last couple years. And that lesson is that poverty is a policy choice. and we can prove it because the General Assembly has made a choice in the past to dramatically decrease poverty. When we passed the Family Affordability Tax Credit and when we expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit, those two policies together reduced childhood poverty by 40% overnight with the signing of that bill. A study found that the credits lifted more than 52,000 children out of poverty here in this state, giving our state one of the lowest childhood poverty rates in the entire country. We did that, this general assembly, with a tax credit or two. That is what it looks like when policy reflects our values. And today I'm asking us to extend that same logic to a group we've left out. Right now, Colorado's EITC has an age cap. Once you turn 65, you become uneligible. Even if you're working, earning modest wages, and meeting every other requirement, younger workers must meet. Tens of thousands of Colorado seniors would become newly eligible under this bill. Workers who have contributed to this state their entire lives and are still contributing today. The fiscal structure here is super responsible. This bill uses the same revenue growth thresholds as the Family Affordability Tax Credit, takes effect in 2028 to minimize administrative costs, and over a dozen organizations support it, from AARP Colorado to the Colorado Center for Aging to the Women's Foundation of Colorado. We have already proved that poverty is a policy choice when we cut childhood poverty in half over the last couple years. Today, we have the chance to prove it again for the working seniors of Colorado who have earned this credit just as much as anyone else. I ask for your support, and I will be open to any questions.
Representative Zokai. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. I am so proud to be standing here, sitting here before you, presenting House Bill 1240, which is a simple bill that has great impact. It removes the maximum age limit for the Colorado Earned Income Tax Credit beginning in tax year 2028. More and more older Americans are working later in life, and it's not because they want to, but because they have to. Today, nearly one in five Americans age 65 and older are still in the workforce, and they cite rising costs, stagnant wages, and growing wealth inequality that has left too many older Americans without the retirement security that they were promised. In fact, today nearly half of older Americans have no retirement savings at all. To qualify for the EITC in Colorado, you must be a resident who is working, earning a low to moderate income, and otherwise meet the federal EITC eligibility rules. It is a credit designed specifically to support people who are working but still struggling to make ends meet, and it is one of the most effective anti-poverty policies that we have. In Colorado, the credit is calculated as a percentage of the federal EITC, currently about 25% of the federal credit and potentially higher depending on state revenue conditions. Colorado's EITC is structured with a built-in revenue trigger tied to the state's estimated adjustment factor, which measures growth in state income tax revenue. If the estimated adjustment factor reaches at least 2%, the credit increases by an additional 15 percentage points for that tax year. The value of the credit only increases when Colorado's finances meet certain thresholds, ensuring that this program expands only when the state can afford it. So what we are asking today is for the committee to modernize the EITC, allow older working Coloradans to claim the credit in the same way other workers can today, and I urge you guys to vote.
Committee, any questions? Representative Marshall, then Kamash.
Thank you, Mr. Quick couple ones. So it's my understanding the EITC was not even available for single people until 1994, and then the federal government still kept an age restriction between the age of 25 and 65, up until COVID, where they took it off temporarily. What were the policy reasons that they had those age restrictions on them?
Representative Rubino. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Marshall, for the question. I imagine it has to do with an assumption around when the working age is for the people of this nation. But I think given the cost crisis that we're under and how programs such as Social Security don't allow folks to make ends meet, this bill is necessary. And it has been for a long time. Luckily, states like California and New Jersey and others have passed what we're trying to do here, but Colorado needs to catch up to make sure that our seniors have the resources that they need.
Representative Zokai, did you want to add anything?
Follow-up, Representative Marshall. So it's my understanding at the age of 65, you generally become eligible for Medicare. At the age of 65 in Colorado, you become eligible for the homestead exemption. At the age of 65, you normally, on your work, become eligible for Social Security, and then you can continue to work past that time. Would you think the policy reasons might be that there's already subsidization over the age of 65, and it would be a reason that they would have those age cutoffs?
Real quick, for the record, we've been joined virtually by Representative Weinberg. To Representative Marshall's question, Representative Rubenell.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Marshall, for the question. I think that the resources that our seniors currently have are insufficient, and we need to be doing everything we need to do and can do in the state of Colorado to make sure that they have the resources to withstand this affordability crisis.
Representative Camacho, then Representative Brissette.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. May I dialogue briefly?
You may.
Sponsors, thank you very much for bringing this bill. I have a lot of older adults that I care deeply about in my district. And I don't think this bill goes far enough. I think in this bill it excludes people who are retired or disabled, but as you had mentioned, Representative Routnell, we don't give our older adults enough tools. Why doesn't this bill include all seniors? Representative? I guess we're dialoguing.
Oh, you're dialoguing. Shout back at them.
Thank you, Rep. Camacho. So we are following the same structure of the EITC, which was designed for working adults who are still struggling to make ends meet. I agree with you that we should give credits to everybody who needs them, and that sometimes includes people who are not working, but we also have to take somewhat of a narrow approach given the budget constraints in this state.
So I think I take issue with that because I think this might be an opportunity we can expand. I mean, I think if the concern is that, or how about this? I understand that this bill does not go into effect unless we meet certain income triggers. Why not if we don't meet those income triggers? We open this up to all older adults. Again, I just feel this is very narrow, and that was not contemplated.
Thank you, Representative Camacho, for the question. If your hope is to make sure that all of our seniors have more resources, I'm all in. And I think that's something that we need to make sure to do in all of our efforts. What we're trying to do here is to make sure that our working seniors, the folks that often have the least resources, get the benefits that our working population does when they're under the age of 65. So and this will be my last question it sounds like the sponsors would be open to potentially an amendment that would expand this Is that right Rep Camacho I have to see the fiscal impacts of that and see if it just takes us out of the realm of reality of this trigger ever turning on Because what we have here is something that we can actually feasibly do in a year where we have some extra money. I don't know the fiscal impacts of what you're proposing. I'm certainly open to looking at it. But I also wonder if that would fit better in a different credit because it is fundamentally changing what the EITC was structured to do. And maybe this isn't really a question, but it's more of a comment. If our intent is to help our older adults, then maybe we should think more broadly. Completely open to it. Representative Gonzalez, followed by Representative Gonzalez.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I know you guys are having this bill be effective 2028. So I guess my only concern is, like, what if we face ourselves in another budget deficit where we have to make cuts and then we have to cut health care and medicaid and higher ed and k-12 like that's my concern like i get the intent of this policy i just want to know like what are your thoughts if we face ourselves in another budget shortfall come 2028 2029 23 representatives okay and thank you mr
chair thank you rep gonzalez uh in that situation this would not be turned on so to speak there are certain triggers in this bill and it depends on the estimated adjustment factor in a year like what we're having now, this just would not be on the table. Representative Garcia. Thank you,
Mr. Chair. I guess I just want a clarification really quick because I know I'm hearing what Rep. Camacho is saying, and while I think it's admirable to fight for all seniors, the EITC is earned income tax credit, correct? So you have to actually earn a wage or income to qualify for the tax credit.
Representative Zocay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Rep. Garcia. Yes, that's exactly right. That's why while I support that effort, I do think it fit into a different tax credit and not within the bounds of the EITC.
Follow-up, Representative Garcia.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I guess expanding this to folks who are retired, retirement does not actually qualify as earned income, does it?
Representative is okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That is correct. It would not fit within the definition of earned income or be within this tax credit.
Representative Camacho. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Representative Garcia, for the follow-up questions and the sponsors. I just think I've heard in this committee numerous times that established definitions aren't necessarily we should be holding ourselves to, so I would just challenge the sponsors to think more broadly. Any? Can I respond?
Sure. Representative's okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Rep. Camacho. I am all for stretching a definition. This does have a term of art, and it's tied to what the federal EITC is defined as. And so if we were to change that in Colorado, I think we have some serious issues when the eligibility requirements are tied to the federal EITC, which has a specific definition.
Representative Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So just one other quick question. I know no one can see the future, and we have to legislate with what we're looking at right now. But if this has a trigger that's not set for two years, if the ballot measure that we are looking at for education comes through, we'd be looking at basically no taper surpluses for 10 years. So I'm assuming you all support that, or if not, it doesn't look like there's very good coordination, and it will become performative if the CEA proposal goes through. Has any consideration been given to that?
Representative Rutt, no. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Marshall, for the question. The reason why this trigger is set up the way it is is partially because of the TABOR implications that you're mentioning, but also it's because in those moments when we have a lot of resources, we need to make sure that we're giving resources back to the people that desperately need it, and that's what this bill is doing.
Representative Camacho. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just want to clarify from my own understanding. What I think I heard you say is that current definitions that we're using in other bodies of law are important to make sure that we have consistency in current legislation. Is that correct? Is that something you also believe?
Representative Zocchi. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative. I am saying that the earned income tax credit is tied to our federal earned income tax credit. And if we want to discuss decoupling that, we can do so. But what the bill is here before you is about what the earned income tax credit is currently defined as. And for better or worse, it is tied to the federal definition.
Final question for the committee. From the committee for the sponsors, Representative Camacho.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I guess I didn't really get an answer to my question. Is that or is that not a position that you think is valid? If we're using definitions from other bodies of law or sections to inform our current policy, it's a beneficial thing.
Representative Zocke. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative. I would never broadly say that borrowing a definition from other bodies is always a good or bad thing. I think that it truly depends on the circumstances that we're in. And I have brought bills before this body to decouple from federal definitions. What I am saying is that the bill before us is about the Colorado EITC, and as it stands, it's tied to the federal EITC.
Okay, that's all of the questions from the committee members. We're going to go to the witness testimony phase. We have two folks signed up. If I can get Jay Reining and Jeanette Hensley. And I believe Ms. Hensley might be online. Mr. Reindig, nice to see you, sir. Is the little button in front of you green? I have it turned green, sir. Thank you. Okay. Introduce yourself. Stay here testifying on behalf of. Floor is yours for three minutes. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity for me to testify today. My name is Jay Reinig, and I'm an AARP volunteer legislative advocate speaking on behalf of AARP and the 670,000 members that live across the state of Colorado. I'm here today in support of House Bill 26-1240 because removing the ETIC age cap helps modest income workers avoid a tax hike simply because they've turned age 65. The bill removes the upper age limit discrimination that currently exists with Colorado's state earned income tax credit. Furthermore, existing policy no longer reflects the reality of today's seniors' workforce. More and more older Coloradoans are working into their 60s, 70s, and beyond. While some of these people do that because they enjoy staying active and engaged every day, I personally know more and more seniors that are working because they're falling behind the need for income just trying to keep up with rising costs for housing, groceries, property tax, and health care. Enactment of the bill would put the money into the wallets of the seniors who need it the most and are most likely going to spend it right away when they get it. Because they need it for those housing costs and groceries and basic goods and services. As a secondary considerable benefit of this bill, the spending also creates good economic growth for our local communities, which is good for the entire state of Colorado. In summary, House Bill 26-1240 simply ensures that work is treated fairly at every age. The current ETIC credit restrictions mean that senior workers take home less pay after taxes than identical workers that are age 25 to 64. I'm asking you to please address this age discrimination. On behalf of the AARP and 670,000 members in the state of Colorado, we respectfully ask for your support of the House Bill 26-12-40. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Please hold for questions. We're going to go online to Jeanette Hensley. Please unmute yourself.
floors of yours for three minutes. Thank you. My name is Jeanette Hensley, and I am a representative of the Colorado Center for Aging. We are a nonpartisan, all-volunteer statewide group who advocate for older adults, and we support House Bill 1240, the state-earned income tax credit age limit. Now, new statistics show that poverty among seniors is on the rise, reaching about 15% in 2024, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. And the seniors now have the highest poverty rate of any demographic group, and they also are the only group whose poverty rate has increased within the last year. And the latest Census Bureau also shows that seniors continue to face significant economic challenges. Traditional poverty rates among the Americans age 65 and older ticked up in 2024, rising to nearly 15 percent. And this is in contrast with declines in poverty observed for children and the working age adults during the same period. So therefore, you can see that this is a need for older adults. Older adults also age 60 and older in Colorado, about 20.3% of them in Colorado are approximately 1.3 million of them, and 7.9% of them, or almost 8%, are living below the poverty line. That's from the Colorado Multi-Sector Plan on Aging. And over 20% of Coloradoans 65 and older live in households at or below 200% of the federal poverty level. So you can see this is an area where older adults definitely are needing some additional support. Now, people say, well, they receive Social Security. So among the Social Security beneficiaries, those that are age 65 and older, and now you cannot receive Social Security until you're 67 or older or almost 67. And 12% of them are men, 15% of them are women, and they receive about 90% of their income is from Social Security. Now, the average Social Security benefit in Colorado is between 12 to 14%, I mean, 12 to 14,000 a year. That's not a lot of money. So, therefore, you can see that many of these older adults are having to go back to work. Now nationally people age 65 to 74 are still working 26 or 27 percent in 2023 and we working and that expected to increase to over 30 percent by 2033 And in 2022, for those that were over 75, 8.3 percent of them were working And that's going to increase to 10% by 10% by 2033. So we're talking about older adults that truly need this. And the refund for this is approximately $324 a month, I mean a year. Now that's as a single woman, that's enough for me and my dogs for about a little over a month of food. So therefore, we are asking for you to support this bill and to pass it, please.
Thank you. Committee, any questions for the witnesses?
Representative Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I just have one quick one because the witness from ARP said the state is discriminating against people over age of 65 by not letting them have the ITC. I'm just, you know, age discrimination at the federal level is illegal. So if that's true, should we not have been sued already to overturn that?
Or is that just embellishment on saying it's a discrimination? Mr. Renick. Thank you for the question, Representative Marshall. I'm not an attorney, so I'm probably not going to give a good legal opinion. but from a personal perspective it just doesn't sound like it's the right thing to do to all of a sudden you hit age 65 and this credit just drops off. I don't know what other word to use to describe it other than discrimination but that's my term. Thank you for the question.
Follow up, Representative Marshall.
Okay, any other questions for the witnesses? Seeing none, thank you so much for your time this afternoon. We really appreciate it. Final call for witnesses on 1240. Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is closed. Amendment phase, bill sponsors. Mm-hmm. Any amendment from the bill sponsors? No amendments, Mr. Chair. Any amendments from the committee? Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. Wrap up. Bill sponsors.
Representative Zocay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee members. I think we have said all of the pieces that need to be discussed on this bill, but I will just note that older Americans are working longer because the economy is not working for them, because wealth has concentrated at the top while the cost of living has risen for everyone. And allowing older working adults to claim the EITC is an effective and important policy tool that we have. And I urge a yes vote today.
Representative Routinow. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the folks who testified today. Thank you, committee, for listening to us. Like I mentioned at the top, poverty is a policy choice. This is an opportunity for us to make a choice to reduce poverty dramatically in a population that is very vulnerable, often disproportionately suffers from disabilities, and doesn't have the resources to be able to put food on the table or a roof over their heads. I urge you to make the choice to reduce poverty today. Thank you.
Closing comments from committee.
Representative Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So in the opening, you made the comment that Illinois, California, and New Jersey all do this, which immediately stuck my antennas up, and I wasn't going to just talk out of my mouth. So I did a quick Google and confirmed what I thought anyway of the state governments with the worst fiscal problems. Illinois, California, and New Jersey consistently rank among the U.S. states with the worst fiscal conditions. I don't think this is very fiscally responsible because there was good policy reasons that they did the 25 and 65 cutoff, just like there were good policy reasons of how they set up the Social Security system. It's not supposed to be just free money for everyone. And having all these other items that are getting in together, there's a lot that disturbs me about how this. credit is being put together there were a couple items I was thinking of doing but yeah I'm not going to belabor the point because I think I've talked privately with the two sponsors on it but I really cannot be a no for multiple reasons on this bill I just don't think it's very responsible how it's put
together thank you representative Camacho thank you mr. chair and I want to thank the sponsors for bringing the bill because I agree with you repr no poverty is a policy choice, and I would just encourage the sponsors to think more broadly, because I think there's a lot more work we could do for older adults, and this bill is probably just a little bit too narrow, but I'm a yes for today.
Representative Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I definitely want to commend the sponsors for bringing this. I think what we see is when the elderly have to go back to work, it's because their savings and their retirement isn't working for them, and these are the people that we actually do need to target right now for tax relief. I want to encourage the representative from Denver, if he's so passionate about this, to bring his own tax credit that can do this next year and expand beyond this and see how the good representative from Douglas County reacts to that. But I do want to thank you for this. I think it is an easy fix to support those who, after they've put in a lifetime of work, they've retired and then they have to go back to work what kind of a society are we living in when that's the case so thank you for bringing this and i'm an enthusiastic yes
thank you mr chair and sponsors i i commend you for your work on this and i think the intent behind it is very very noble indeed i do agree that policy or poverty is a policy choice because the policies that this building has come out of has made our economy increasingly unaffordable. Too many regulations for small businesses that are small, you know, are mid-middle class, are low-income people, are senior citizens. All of that are the policies that this body has pushed over the last few years that have made this economy increasingly unaffordable. I really wish that we could address the root causes of the cost of living for our senior citizens to make sure that we have an economy where we don't have to have tax credits because we help them make sure that we save money for them in the long run. I just can't get there today but I do commend you for your work and in the intent and the principle behind it and so I will be respectful no for today any other closing comments from the committee hey the committee will stand in a brief recess please don't leave the room Thank you. Thank you. The committee will come back to order.
Representative Zocay, a proper motion routes 1240 to the committee on appropriations. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1240 to the Committee on Appropriations with a favorable recommendation. Second.
Second by Representative Garcia.
Please poll the committee. Representatives Camacho.
Yes. Garcia.
Yes. Gonzalez.
Respectfully, no. Hartsook.
No. Marshall.
No. Stewart.
Yes. Weinberg.
No. Luke.
No. Zocay.
Yes. Tatum.
Yes. Mr. Chair.
Yes. That passes 6 to 5. Okay. Next bill up, we have 1188 with Representatives Camacho and Detone.
Representative Detone is in another committee presenting a bill, so Representative Camacho, if you would do us the honors of batting solo.
Do you have an amendment on this one? Do you have an amendment on this one?
Representative Camacho, tell us about 1188. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. House Bill 26-1188 is a sunset continuation bill for the Colorado Division of Securities and the Securities Board, implementing recommendations from the Department of Regulatory Agencies 2025 sunset review. bill ensures that Colorado continues to have a strong regulatory framework and protects investors, maintains a fair securities market, and oversees financial professionals operating in our state. Specifically, the bill continues the Division of Securities and Securities Board until 2037, allowing those entities to continue their work, safeguarding Colorado investors, and enforcing securities laws. Let me briefly walk through major sections of the bill. Sections 1 through 3 implement the core sunset recommendations by extending the repeal date for the Division of Securities and Security Board to September 1st, 2037, ensuring these regulatory functions continue to operate for another review cycle Section 4 clarifies deficiency letters and communications related to examinations conducted by the Division of Securities are confidential and not subject to disclosure under the Colorado Open Records Act. Section 5 is the most substantive section of the bill. It modernizes the administrative enforcement process used by securities commissioners, particularly with respect to preliminary cease and desist orders, summary license suspensions. Sections 6 through 9 update the update and clarify the licensing and notice filing requirements for investment advisors and investment advisors and representatives doing business in Colorado, ensuring individuals operating in the state are properly licensed unless an exemption applies. Section 10 clarifies the appointment process for the Securities Commissioner. Sections 11 through 13 makes a series of technical updates and modernization changes. Finally, Section 14 establishes the effective date and applicability of the Act. Before the committee today, we are also bringing one amendment related to administrative hearing timelines contained in Section 5. The amendment will adjust timelines for cease and desist process, changing certain deadlines from 15 days to 45 days and others to 60 days to ensure respondents have a realistic opportunity to prepare for hearings. The amendment also has a similar adjustment in the summary suspension process, extending hearing schedule requirements to 45 days. This amendment is technical but important. It maintains the bill's goal of allowing the Commission to act quickly to protect investors while ensuring fair and workable due process timelines for respondents. In short, House Bill 1188 continues Colorado's security regulatory framework, modernized enforcement procedures, and ensures the Division of Securities can continue protecting Colorado investors for the next decade. I respectfully ask for your yes, Bill.
Committee, any questions for the bill sponsor? Okay, thank you so much. We will go to the witness testimony phase. We have two witnesses, Neil Marks and Tung Chan.
Director Chan, as you're here for questions only, we will go online to Mr. Marks. Mr. Marks, if you could unmute yourself, state your name,
identify who you're testifying on behalf of, and the floor is yours for three minutes.
Thank you, Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Neil Marks, and I am co-owner and advisor representative of Prime Financial Strategies. We're a Colorado registered investment advisor. I hold the Certified Financial Planner designation, the CFP, the Chartered Financial Consultant designation, Accredited Investment Fiduciary, and Accredited Estate Planner. I am here on behalf of NAFA Colorado, representing hundreds of financial advisors who serve Main Street families and businesses across our state. NAFA Colorado supports reauthorizing the Colorado Division of Securities. Our members believe deeply in a regulatory environment that protects consumers, ensures fair and transparent markets, and allows financial professionals to help Coloradans build secure financial futures. Over the past several years, NAFA Colorado has built a constructive working relationship with the Division of Securities and Securities Commissioner Chan. The Division consistently demonstrates a willingness to engage stakeholders, listen to industry, and ensure that regulations are effective and not burdensome. This balanced approach fosters an environment where both consumer protection and economic growth can thrive. NAVA Colorado engaged in the Sunset Review, and we're here today to highlight a few important points. First, we support maintaining clear and fair processes around enforcement actions. For example, issuing the preliminary warning letter before a formal cease and desist order helps resolve misunderstandings quickly and collaboratively, collaboratively, often preventing escalated action while still protecting the public. Second, we believe the recommendations for deficiency letters strike the right balance between transparency and fairness. Third, advisor registration, including requirements for those doing business in Colorado but residing elsewhere, continue to function well. The Securities Division plays a critical role in ensuring Colorados have access to professional guidance and safe investment opportunities. Reauthorization allows this work to continue, strengthens the partnership between regulators and industry, and ensures that Colorado's consumers remain well protected in an increasingly complex financial landscape. For these reasons, the recommendations from the report, NAFA Colorado respectfully urges your support of House Bill 26-1188. Thank you for your time and for your commitment to Colorado's investors and financial professionals.
Thank you. And Commissioner Jan, I hear you're – my understanding is you're here for questions only. Okay, so would you like to say anything? Okay. Any questions for the witnesses? Any questions at all?
Representative Garcia. I just have one question just around the need to, like, where is the movement for making the deficiency letters not subject to CORA? What was happening and why is this a change that's being adopted? Commissioner Sheehan.
Thank you, Chair Woodrow. Thank you, Representative Garcia, for the question. historically we have taken the position that these letters are private because we want to give industry an opportunity to come into compliance we don't want people to use those letters against each other we don't want it to be used as leverage from one private institution to another however there was some questions about the language this year and we wanted to clarify unambiguously that they are private. It is consistent with almost all the other states and also with the Uniform Securities Act that was promulgated by NACUSL. Any follow-up, Representative Garcia?
Representative Hartzell.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Quick question. So looking at what's impacting firms in the state, that all makes perfect sense, given the technology. If you're a firm in this other state, you do not have a physical presence here. You're doing things online. what is that impact and how is that going to be regulated if you're out of state doing business in state?
Commissioner. Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Representative Harsel. Sorry. So currently there is a drafting, we believe it was a drafting oversight that says that if you are targeting Coloradans, but you happen to live across the border in Wyoming, you technically under this statute right now wouldn't have to license with us. And we think this was the clause we think was put in the wrong place because obviously for equity's sake, if you're in Wyoming and you're competing with Colorado firms for the same clients, but you're not regulated and you don't have to take the exams, and now you're a Coloradan and you think, well, if they're selling here, They must be just as regulated and, you know, there's as much consumer protection as any of the Colorado firms. It leads to misunderstandings and unfair competition. So we are trying to rectify what we think was a mistake in the, an oversight mistake in the drafting by taking out the requirement that says if you are, you only have to have a place of business to be regulated by the Division of Securities. The way most states work and the way you see almost all the other states work and also under the Uniform Securities Act is that if you are investment advising for Coloradans, it doesn't matter if you're in Wyoming or New York or D.C. If your clients are here, you have to be licensed by the Colorado Securities Commissioner. And that is true for every other state. So because of that, we think that there are a lot of folks who have just been licensing with us regardless of the way the statute has drafted, but we think that this is an important cleanup to make sure it's really clear.
Any follow-up questions? Any further questions from the committee? Thank you all for your time this afternoon. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, members. Thank you. Last call for witnesses on 1188. Seeing none, the witness testimony phase is closed. Amendments. Bill sponsored.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. There's one amendment. So with the Chair's permission, I move L001 to House Bill 1188.
It's been a motion and a second by Representative Gonzalez.
As discussed in my opening remarks, this amendment extends out timelines from 30 days to 45 days in a few different places and also to 60 days. and why this is important is we want to make sure that people have the opportunity to be prepared for any hearing or response that they may make and having a little bit more time especially in this context is not a bad idea so I'd ask for a yes vote.
Any questions on L-001? Seeing none, is there any objection to L-001? Seeing none, L-001 is passed. Any other amendments? Phil, sponsor? No other amendments. Committee, any amendments? None. The amendment phase is closed. Wrap up. Representative Camacho.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. As discussed, this bill is critical to making sure that we continue to have protections. We continue to have protections, so the bill vote yes.
Closing comments from the committee. All right, seeing none, a proper motion routes 1188 as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. Chair, I move House Bill 1188 as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Please poll the committee. Second by, thanks, Representative Stewart. Second by Representative Stewart. Please poll the committee. Representatives Camacho.
Yes.
Garcia.
Yes.
Gonzales.
No.
Hartsook.
No.
Marshall.
Yes.
Stewart.
Yes.
Weinberg.
No.
Wug.
No.
Zocar.
Yes.
Tatum.
Excused.
Mr. Chair. Yes. That passes six to four with one excused. Okay, folks, that concludes our business today in finance. We've got a handful of bills up on Thursday. Check the calendar. Until then, finance stands adjourned.