Colorado Senate 2026 Legislative Day 119 Part 2

Bright.

Catlin.

Danielson.

Exum.

Gonzalez.

Judah. Judah.

Kirkmeyer.

Lindstedt.

Marchman.

Pelton B. Pelton R. Rich. Roberts.

Rodriguez.

Snyder.

Wallace.

Zamora Wilson.

Danielson.

I'm going to excuse Danielson.

Pollock on. Roberts.

The motion is to raise the call. All those in favor say aye.

Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the call has been raised. Mr. Schoffler, please excuse Senator Danielson. Committed report. The committee on appropriations after consideration on the merits, the committee recommends the following. House Bill 1430 be referred to the committee of the whole with favorable recommendation.

Thank you Mr President I move the Senate proceed out of order to take up third reading of the bill final passage The motion to proceed out of order to take up third reading of the Bill final passage All those in favor say aye Opposvie no The ayes have it and that motion is adopted

Mr. Majority Leader. Thank you, Mr. President. I move the Senate proceed out of order to take up Senate Bill 192.

Senator Cutter Thank you, Mr. President. I move Senate Bill 192 on third reading and final passage

May I? That's right. Please add the president.

until later in the day. You have the motion. All those in favor say aye.

Polls no. The ayes have it, and we'll lay over the balance of the third reading of the calendar until later in the day.

You've heard the motion. All those in favor, say aye.

Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The Senate will proceed out of order for moments of personal privilege.

May we have a moment of personal privilege, Mr. President?

Thank you. Members, today we want to take time to honor some of our departing members. Senator Gonzalez, please join us here at the well so we can present you with your crystal of flag phone in your honor and your tribute. At least you made it on time today. Terrible.

Senator Benavidez. Thank you Mr. President and do I have to ask for a moment of personal privilege? Granted. Thank you. You know I knew Julie long before either of us had any designs on coming over here. When she was young out of college and came here and she was feisty and wanted to do a lot of things in organizing. I mean, many of you know one of the people, groups you work with here, CERC, Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition. That had iterations before it became CERC. It had Rights for All People is the first one, and that grew out of Janitors for Justice. And so she was always involved. We were both founding members of the Colorado Latino Forum. And so we were working in the community on lots of organizations, getting things going long before we ever thought of coming here. So when I saw Julie come here, you know, I wasn't surprised that Julie, she leads with her heart. and she is not going to not say what's on her mind and not make things uncomfortable for people. I mean, that's the reality of moving forward and making changes in this world, in this city, in this legislature. And Julie is one of those that is not afraid to do that. And I always admired that in her. And she was one of those rare Chicanas who was educated, knowledgeable, could speak to anything and move forward and get people excited about things. And that's what she did. And then when I came over here, and honestly, I told you about CERC and other groups we had in the community, THE STUFF GOING ON WITH IMMIGRANTS DIDN'T START UNDER THIS ADMINISTRATION. IT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS. IN 2005, MANY OF US, INCLUDING JULIE, ORGANIZED A MAJOR MARCH FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM. THERE WAS OVER 100,000 PEOPLE THAT MARCHED FROM THE NORTH SIDE OF DENVER OVER HERE TO THE CAPITAL. AND WE HAD A HUGE RALLY. SO THIS IS NOT ANYWHERE A NEW ISSUE. THIS HAS BEEN ONGOING. that people needed protections and things weren't happening at the federal level. We all know about DACA, but that wasn't until 2012. People had no protections at all. And these are young people that came here with their families. They didn't have a choice in it. Many of them didn't even know they were undocumented until they were 16 and tried to get a job and realized they couldn't. So it was a community we had to fight for, and Julie was at the forefront. We brought an early bill in 2019 that the administration didn't want, the leadership in either house didn't want, and we, along with our colleagues, wouldn't take no for an answer. We said, we are going to do this. I think Tom remembers that bill because he spoke about it. Wiseman remembers that bill and voted for it. And it was the legislators that said to leadership, we're doing this, and said to the governor, we are doing this. So we have a lot more power than we think we have, and Julie is at the forefront of that. And that's just one example. We did that bill together. It's withstood at least five court challenges, and it is still there. And we worked on many more after that. I'm not going to recount all the bills, but it was important. And I know the majority leader mentioned our Latino caucus. We're a little wobbly right now, but we're going to get our legs back, and we're going to do things. And what we were able to do is to say together there's some needs that aren't always addressed. There's some communities that need to have our voices. And we are going to really miss Julie's voice in this. But I personally know she's not going away. I'm still going to end up working with her in community and doing things with her because that's the kind of person she is. and like I already said, she leads with her heart and as long as people are still being, the most vulnerable people are being hurt by things going on in the world, in the state, she's going to help with that. So I look forward to working with her, not saying goodbye, but working with her in other capacities in the future. But I am sad. As soon as I get here, she leaves. So that's bad, but either way, I'm going to miss you.

Grant.

SENATOR HIMRICKSON. THANK YOU. MR. PRESIDENT, DO I HAVE TO ASK FOR A MOMENT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE?

THANK YOU. SEE, I DIDN'T EVEN REALLY HAVE TO ASK. SO FOUR YEARS AGO, THE DAY PRIOR TO CNADA, I GOT IN MY FIRST, LIKE, REAL, LIKE, real conflict it you could say fight I mean it was a it was a very heated debate um yeah my first my first real fight in this place was the day before CNA DA with Julie Gonzalez and the next session the first real fight that I had in this place as in like I have a bill that is a contentious bill and I'm bringing this bill was with Julie Gonzalez and I think one of my favorite moments will be actually when I was asked like really early on in session by President Benberg like hey have you heard about this bill what do you think of this bill it was for cause eviction and I said oh I'm on that And he's like, you? With Julie? And like, yes. And then that became a thing, because we had like this kind of blow up fight my very first session. And then after that, it was, for a couple years there, there were a lot of bills where it's like, yeah, that's a Gonzalez-Henriksen bill. And you know, algorithmic rents thing. Oh, that's a Gonzalez-Henriksen bill. Revolving loans for mobile home parks so that residents could become owners in a co-op of their park. Oh, that's a Henriksen-Gonzalez bill or a Gonzalez-Henriksen bill. There were several others of those that are escaping me at the moment, but there was a while there. I think it was weird to a few people, and sometimes it was weird to us, But it was an incredible experience, and I am deeply grateful for the friendship that has come from that experience. And I'm particularly grateful for both in those fights together and outside of those fights, the constant reminder that you provided that running policy that challenges deeply entrenched power structures is always hard There is always a cost, and it is always worth it. And I think what I have valued the most about that is the times that I could sit in your office with a heavy weight on my shoulders, unsure of how to proceed, to talk through it with you, and just be reminded that there was somebody else who got it. I am deeply grateful for that. And one other thing I'll say real quick before I'll step aside here is I don't know if it was last summer or the summer before where we ended up at the governor's mansion together. To be told that algorithmic rent setting was being vetoed. It must have been last summer. I WAS IN A PARTICULARLY FRUSTRATED MOOD. I HAD THREE MEETINGS THAT DAY AT THE GOVERNOR'S MANSION. AND EACH ONE WAS A, HEY, I'M BETOING THIS BILL. AND THIS WAS THE THIRD BILL. AND AT THE END OF OUR MEETING, WHICH WAS I THINK PARTICULARLY FRUSTRATING BECAUSE OF some of the arguments that were made for both of us. The governor said to Julie, this is, you know, well, I'm sorry, but give Nick a hug, because this is like the third one today that he's had to go through. I don't remember the exact response, but the response was something along the lines of, something along the lines of, Mr. Governor, it's not my job to fix the harms you're creating. You give him a hug yourself. And I'll leave with that because that is just so quintessentially Julie Gonzalez, and I deeply appreciate it.

Senator Kipp. Thank you, Mr. President. May I have a moment of personal privilege?

So Julie and I were elected the same year, 2019. I started in the House. She started in the Senate. And what I remember of Julie from watching her from the House was that, Like I would come over here and she would be talking and debating and just really making her voice heard. She is a fierce and a passionate person who always fights for what she believes in. She fights for the people in her community and she does what she thinks is right. I think I've had the honor of being maybe on two bills with Senator Gonzalez, one of them. The first bill was her bill, which was basically to help people get professional licensure in the state regardless of their legal status, which led me to another bill that I asked her to be on with me later, which was a bill that allowed DACA recipients to become police officers. I mean, we have a police shortage, and we have people who want to become police officers who are well qualified. Why not, right? And the thing is, is that these bills change people's lives. I had a young man come up to me at an event just a couple months ago and say, give me this note and say, I want you to read this. And so I got home and I opened it, and it was all about how this young man was able to get his real estate license, which changed his life because he was able to pursue a profession he wanted. and this young man also down in Centennial who was able to become, achieve his dream of becoming a police officer down in Lone Tree. And I'm hoping that, you know, the bill has helped other people, but the bills that Julie has worked on are really bills that affect people's lives and make people's lives better. So it has been an honor serving with you And I really appreciate also that at the end of last session I was introduced to Blockus by Julie I think she brought it along for end of session and I introduced it to my family, and I have to tell you, so, you know, anybody who's played Blockus with Julie, right? It's great. So for Christmas this last year, I have four people in my family, So I bought, we have now four blockists. And, you know, if you put four blockists together, you can, like, do super blockists, I'm just saying. So, you know, just an idea for if you ever have time in the future once you, you know, take a small break perhaps from public service or not. But thank you for all you do.

Having the Latino caucus for dinner in the Friars' Fork in Alamosa was an amazing opportunity. Her connection, a lot of times she's just associated as this urban legislator, but she has great rural roots and connections. family from Gardner and time on ranches in Texas. And I just feel very blessed and honored to have had the opportunity to serve with Senator Gonzales in this chamber and really, Drew, wish you the best of luck in your endeavors going forward. And again, stay in touch. I have a great appreciation for Senator Gonzales.

Thank you Mr President May I have a moment of personal privilege Great Thank you Mr President So I just want to start by saying when I got to the Senate I came straight out of nowhere like not the legislature. And Julie was one of the first folks who offered to mentor me. And what she said was, you don't have to have just one mentor. You can have lots and keep your options open. And I've kind of taken that with me throughout my time here. The bills that Julie runs push the envelope. And I have such respect for your courage. You show courage to do the right thing, to do it with your whole chest, and to do it right now. and I have such respect for that and I try to carry that with me because if not now, when? And if not us, who? And that's what I've learned from you. She also does really know the rules and I'll never forget one of the first times I was chairing the cow and Julie wanted to reject a committee report. And I was like, okay, that's cool. What's that mean? And she's just like, no, no, just follow me. You'll see me down here. You're going to call it real quick, and then we're done. And oh my gosh, we got it done. I want to say it was the day before Sinead I. The majority leader and the president were out. We were running it, and we got that committee report taken off. I don't remember what happened after that, but it was the first time I'd ever done anything like that. So I just really appreciate all that you've done for me as a person as well, because I've been able to call you when I'm frustrated, when I'm sad, when I'm confused, when I don't get it. And you've always been there for me. And I'm always here for you as well. I'll never forget some words that Julie shared with one of our good colleagues, who we're not always on the same side of policy. But she said something that sticks with me, and it's called, stab me in the front. And like, that matters. That's about integrity. That's about do what you say you're going to do. And then if you don't fix it and fix it really quickly. And that's integrity. And that's something that you've always had. And then I've got to put in one note for my husband, because my husband doesn't like politicians. I think he likes me a little. But even that is, We're not sure, but he saw Julie doing her campaign thing, and oh my goodness, my husband is top of the line fan for Julie for Senate. So the Marchmans wish you all the best, and love you, and I'll miss you.

Thank you, Mr. President. request a moment of personal privilege? Great. Hola. Hola. First time that we worked on a bill together over here in the Senate was two different rental and housing assistance bills in 2020 because of COVID. And very big bills in a real difficult time. And we were talking in the office, and some of you won't be surprised by this. She says, you be the good cop, I'll be the bad cop. I said, I can do that. And she does a bad cop pretty well in a sweet way. And I agree with what Senator Kirkmeyer shared earlier about your presence, especially in committee, when you're chairing a committee, how you treat the witnesses and make them feel appreciated about being there. the words they have to say are very, very important, and you do that very, very well. And we've continued to run a number of bills in the Senate, and I've always admired not only your presence in the well, but how you kind of grabbed me and just pulled me along and said, hey, do this, don't do that. Say this, don't say that. And it's been very, very appreciative because of your knowledge and your skill on getting the message across. So I appreciate that. I wish you well, and I wish you blessings. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President. May I have a moment of personal privilege? Granted. Thank you. I don't love doing these because I never think I'm going to say the right things. But everyone has said, this has hit it. I've always known. Well, when we're in the House, it's very mysterious. You senators are very mysterious. If you don't know, because we're literally, you know, 100 feet from each other and never have cause to interact. And so I always knew Julie from afar and admired Julie from afar and intersected, interacted at some conferences and things. But I always knew she was a fighter, and she did not back down from a fight. I have been incredibly privileged to be able to work with her on abortion rights issues. My EPR bill, which we've heard a little bit about lately, the recycling system, I couldn't have asked for somebody Priola and Julie carried it over here and I started in the house and I was so grateful because I knew she would fight and that's what you want when you're sending your bill over to the other chamber it's kind of like you're worried and I knew she wouldn't back down and she would make sure we got it done you always want Julie on your side when you are in a fight and some of the maybe bravest things I think I've done, you know, challenging the governor. I remember sitting around a table with a bunch of women and was so happy to have Julie there challenging the governor on his, I think it was he wouldn't say the word abortion. I mean, that was part of it. There were several things, but that was part of it. And then getting to co-author a byline with Julie that we put out that was a little salty as well. But doing those brave things is always easier when you have someone as fierce and dedicated and heartfelt coming from the heart in such a good good way as Julie by your side And I really really appreciate who was it that just said stab

Oh, my good colleague said, talked about stabbing you in the front. And that, I appreciate that so much. And Julie just exemplifies that. If you're going to disagree with someone, be straightforward. Talk to them about it. That's all you can ask for in a colleague. We're all going to have so many disagreements and issues here because, you know, we're here doing hard work and we have a lot of opinions. But she's always direct and always just straightforward and doesn't do things behind your back. And I appreciate that and I value that. And that is really something to be cherished in this place. So I'm going to miss you a ton. But I know I believe in you so much and I know you're going to go on to do great things. And I'm going to say, I know her.

Oh, Mr. President. Oh, Madam President, I request a moment of personal privilege. Granted. Thank you very much, Madam President. Members, there is nothing that strikes fear in the heart of a legislator. like when the good senator from Denver walks over to where the statues are. And I'm really being heard. I'm such a greedy. Grab one of these books and flip precisely to where your bill will be. you start to wonder if you even know what your bill does. You anticipate these questions that might come up, but you realize you're never prepared. And on the other hand, to have the good senator from Denver co-prime a bill with you guarantees 100% passage rates because you know that while we might not always agree on policy, she has done her due diligence. And it's not just about what the policy states, but it's about the origin and where it has come from. She doesn't waste time on bills like novelty lighters. Every bill has intention. Please don't mention that bill. And then, while we all run bills with intent to make an impact, we also recognize that sometimes the bills we pass and the laws don't always get implemented the way we intend. But when Senadora runs a bill, she sees it all the way through, even after it's passed and the governor signed it, to see the impact that she wants. I think in true fashion of what Senadora would do, I found this poem and I thought that it described who she is. It says, she rises from her adversity but never forgets her origin. She learns from her past and chooses to keep going forward even when her steps get heavy. She transforms her pain and suffering into strength and wisdom. Yes she may stumble Yes sometimes she falls But just as the sun always rises so too does a powerful woman She is equipped with an intuition that guides her course like a compass She strives to love herself and all that she stands for with a fierce loyalty even when it's difficult. She's not afraid to seek truth, even when it hurts. She is passionate and uses her gifts to inspire and spread light and love. With a mind of wonder and a heart of goodness and grit, she is resilient. She refuses to be navigated by fear and doubt. She knows where she's been, where she is, and where she's headed. She uplifts other people and embodies authenticity and humility. She loves deeply, lives with compassion, and is relentlessly unapologetic. She is designed to be admired, not always liked. She is fierce, determined, and unstoppable. She is a powerful woman. And in closing, I would say we all have the reasons that brought us to this chamber to do this work. But recently, she shared a few photos of her family with me. and I know that when she comes into this building, she brings her mother. She brings her father. She brings her ancestors. She brings her husband, Ben. She brings her community. She brings everybody into this space that has helped create her and make her who she is. And I know without a shadow of a doubt, her parents are proud of her. Her family is proud of her. Her community is proud of her. And we are proud of her. Thank you so much, Senadora, for all that you are, all that you've done, all that you will do. And keep striking fear in the heart of people. You don't have to carry around a statute book. But I guarantee you that when they see you coming, they know you mean business. You're going to get the job done. We love you.

Thank you, Madam President. May I have a moment of personal privilege?

Thank you. Y'all, it's time for a bit of righteous speech-making for the Senadora. it's time to make sure that we understand what's important it's time to raise our voices because when we fight we win all right right when she uh comes and stands by my desk she looks over and she stands real close makes me real uncomfortable. She looks down. She looks ahead. I look up, a little nervous, a little scared. All right, what did I do wrong now? But no, she's got a purpose. She knows what she's doing. She's trying to find out what's going on. She wants your opinion. this senator was the first and only person to come to my house before I was elected who was already elected sat down with my wife and I in our living room asked me to play the guitar, and I embarrassed myself because, you know, she is a virtuoso herself. Come on now. Come on. I am not. And wanted to find out about me. I wanted to find out what made me tick, why I was running. And I came up to you last week, two weeks ago. I don't know, time is flowing. And I said, because I wanted to check in. Am I who you expected me to be? Am I doing what you thought I would do? and I think that's something we all should do. I mean, I've been here six years, but this was the person who came to me and I set my goals and I set who I was and my word, my honor means the most to me and you always hold me to it. And whether you're standing up here and I've got the prime seat right there and you're looking and you're giving your speech kind of squinting your eyes because you mean what you say and I hope I live up to what I said to you. Thank you for being you. I'll miss you.

Thank you, Mr. President. I request a moment of personal privilege. Granted. Yesterday, I was FaceTiming with my husband next to Senator Gonzales, and he was like, Julie, have I known you longer than I know my wife? And we realized that was true, that he, in fact, has known her longer, and he was a big reason why we met. I was, well before I was elected, I was testifying in this building on bills for six years and she came into that life as I saw her as a legislator running bills and I realized, okay, this is kind of the model of how you do things as a person of color. When I was elected, I remember we were, we decided to do a housing package, if you will. And the Honorable Senator, now Councilwoman from Denver, she called us into her office and a good Senator, Senator Gonzalez came in and the three brown girls decided what that package was going to be for the rest of the session. And I was like, okay, I'm following whatever they're doing. but she did set the example for me all the way from the house and I remember that first year I think you were my senate sponsor for almost all of my bills and I felt incredibly honored that someone like yourself felt that I was worthy enough to be my senate sponsor I've been up here plenty of times with you, and I have noticed that you and I share a twitch, if you will, And sometimes we're shaking up here with our hands, but I say that not because she's not prepared or she doesn't know what she's going to say. I say that because it humanizes her and she comes up here and is not afraid to be vulnerable. and it's not lost upon me as many of us have said that she is someone who still believes and walks into every room that government can and should be for and by the people. You have never been interested in power or for power's sake. you have carried communities that systematically and historically have been ignored and have told them over and over again that you belong here. And as people have been talking, I've been watching the lobby, and people have been nodding their heads and watching this happen for you. Three years ago, I think I was in my loneliest time during my tenure here so far and you were there for me and you didn't back down you took the heat and you did not compromise your moral compass and I never forgot that you were the first to say I'm here and I will do what you need. You've been willing to speak clearly in the moments when silence would have been easier and safer. And you have reminded people that morality and politics do not live separately. When I won my vacancy to come to the Senate, one of the first people I texted was the president and said, I need to sit next to Julie. And I did that because I knew you would be a great mentor for me, coming into a chamber that I was unfamiliar with. I have thought about how we honor our outgoing members when someone says, Schauffler, Daring, roll call, or we call you Senadora. And I want to make sure that all of us find a way to continue those traditions. but I want you to know that I feel so incredibly honored to have this opportunity to serve my first two years with you, and they will live in my mind and heart for as long as I live. Thank you.

Oh, I request a moment of personal privilege.

Colleagues, let's be honest. I'm going to miss some of you more than others. I first off want to start by thanking my husband, Ben. There you go. I think these past eight years, as hard as they have been, as intense as they have been for me, they have been as hard if not harder on him. Love, I love you with my whole heart and even though I know that this place drives me nuts which then drives you nuts thank you for letting me do this work fully. and be my full self. That means so much more than words we'll ever be able to say. I want to thank my family. My brother Louie. My sister-in-law Diana. My niece and nephew. my besties, my community, my legislative aides, Abby, Jessica, Kurt, Michelle, Jackie, Amanda, my interns. I want to thank the sergeants, the custodians, the bill drafters, the fiscal analysts, the enrollees, the nonpartisan staff, interns, aides, lobbyists, advocates. Your commitment and service is what makes this building special. And I could not be more grateful for how you all show up to this work. I'm a person who gives my all until I am spent. It has been both my gift and my weakness. And in a moment when we find ourselves confronting such monumental challenges, I stepped up to run to serve my community because I actually believe that no one else is coming to save us but us. and that no matter where we live in this state, the beauty of this work is that it invites us to come together, to listen to one another, and to solve our problems together There are parts of this place that I will cherish Listening to Coloradans directly impacted by broken policies who still trust enough in this experiment of democracy to come to a random room on a set date and time in order to bear their souls and ask for us to act. Seeing an impossible, monumental challenge and breaking it down into disparate tasks until a solution is identified, and then engaging in the relentless work until it is done, until it is achieved. And the last part of this place that I will cherish are worthy adversaries. Because y'all know that I love me a good fight. But if you've learned anything about me over these past eight years, you also know that this place has broken my heart more times than I can count. My first year in office, well, the majority leader was running a bill and actually chairing the cow for the first time. At that time, we were both freshmen. And the majority, we had just come into power, and we were getting fast and loose with the rules. And the minority sued us. Rightfully so. Now, I was trained under Chris Holbert and Pat Stedman. But that lawsuit taught me an important lesson. That the rules matter, especially when you know how to use them to their full effect. that litigation taught me that it's not only what we do, it's how we do it. So then the following year, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the racial reckoning that followed, the murders of Elijah McLean and George Floyd and the ensuing economic instability and the housing crisis that laid bare so many of the structural inequities that had, they weren't new. You just could see them They had just been simmering underneath the surface for so many Coloradans Coloradans who either felt taken for granted or who had never actually felt heard by people like us, people in power. I'm a better woman for having had the privilege to hear those stories. And friends, while there are so many parts of this place that I will cherish, there are so many parts of this place that I am ready to leave behind. From my vantage point here on the north side of Denver, fewer and fewer of my Republican colleagues are willing to critique the rhetoric, actions, and policies of this president, even when those actions negatively impact Coloradans. And too many of my Democratic colleagues are finding comfort in opacity offered either by dark money that pays for campaign mailers and mountain retreats or the opacity of silence. Because saying nothing is so much easier than saying the hard truths out loud. I've had the dubious privilege of chairing three ethics committees over my eight years here. And let me tell you, I have seen those consequences firsthand. I confess that in the midst of heartbreak after heartbreak, when this work has felt impossible, I've asked myself, what is the point? Is this even worth it? but the answer is you do what you can with what you got we do the work the best we can we try sometimes we win and sometimes we fail but in the work itself we learn lessons In eight years, it has been an honor to see over 200 bills be signed into law, even under this governor. Including the abolition of the death penalty, the enshrining of the fundamental right to abortion care in our statutes mere weeks before Roe fell. the passage of the Colorado Voting Rights Act just months before its federal counterpart was eviscerated just days ago. Immigrants in Colorado... have earned respect and are now running for office themselves and building power themselves. I've worked to center the people who are often forgotten. The poor. The undocumented. The prisoners. The queer folks. People of color. Folks who know what it is to struggle. to stumble, because those are the folks who also know what a true gift it is to find an outstretched hand from another person willing to listen,

Oh, thank you. Senator Coleman did a tribute for you. Oh, does he need to request a moment of personal privilege? And present you with this crystal. Oh, oh wow. Thank you. Oh geez. And, and this flag. You got to hold all of it. I'll help you carry it. I just wanted it on the camera. Let's give Senadora a round of applause. We'll take a brief recess for everybody to make Senator Dora feel very uncomfortable. Go give her a hug, show her some love, and then we'll come back and get some more work done. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Members, back in the game. Please add Senator Danielson to the roll. And message from the House. Help.

Mr. Majority Leader.

The motion is going to take up those bills on special orders at the hour of 11.04 a.m. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. The Senate will take up those bills on special orders at the hour of 11.04 a.m. Special orders. Second meeting of the bills. Senator Weissman.

You've heard the motion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Polls no. The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. The Senate to resolve itself into the committee of the whole for consideration of special orders. Secondary bills. And Senator Weissman will take the chair.

Mr. Schaffer, please read the title to House Bill 1335. House Bill 1335 by Representatives Garcia and Wynn and Senator Wallace concerning access to abortion medication services in Colorado college campuses.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For the discussion, Senators Moore Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I rise in opposition to House Bill 26-1335. This legislation forces institutions of higher education with student health centers to stock and dispense abortion-inducing drugs on campus. It compels pharmacies at public colleges to maintain supplies and turns our universities into distribution points for ending unborn lives. This bill must be opposed on principle, on constitutional grounds, I would argue, and because it's very real cost, both monetary and human, to students, families, taxpayers, and our society. First, looking at principles of life, liberty, and limited government. The government's role is to protect life, liberty, and property, not to engineer social outcomes or subsidize the destruction of the innocent. The Declaration of Independence affirms that we are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights, beginning with the right to life. Our Colorado Constitution and the U.S. Constitution were designed to secure those rights, not to mandate their violation. And this bill violates this by compelling private and public institutions to participate in a process many find morally abhorrent. While it offers a narrow religious exemption, it still coerces secular colleges, faculty, pharmacists, and health staff who hold sincere pro-life convictions. This is not liberty. This is state coercion. It nationalizes a profound moral decision and places government in the role of promoting and facilitating it on taxpayer-supported campuses. And abortion is sadly in the Colorado Constitution. But that surely doesn't mean taxpayers are expected to pay for it. If that's the case and we apply that to all of our rights, I'd say the Second Amendment, taxpayers aren't required to pay for my weapons. Sounds absurd. But that's what we're talking about. And some of the arguments that I just heard as far as students having to if they didn have this available at their college they have to drive long distances I mean we just had recently discussions with our Second Amendment right of how those that want to exercise that right would have to drive either out of state to get a weapon But back to the bill. So what is the cost? There are obviously human costs, harm to young women and the unborn. Beyond principles, consider the non-monetary cost to those most directly impacted, primarily young women in our college campuses. Abortion medication is not a simple risk-free solution. recent analysis includes a 2025 ethics and public policy center study of insurance claims that indicate roughly 11 percent of women experience serious adverse events within 45 days things like heavy bleeding infection sepsis or incomplete abortion requiring surgical follow-up That is one in nine young women facing potentially traumatic complications. I mean, last year there was a young woman, Fort Collins, that had passed away after taking abortion medication. And these are not abstract statistics. Imagine a college student far from home, possibly without strong family support, experiencing severe hemorrhage or infection in a dorm room after taking pills provided by the campus health center. Emotional and psychological burdens often follow regret, grief, depression, or relational strain. And studies consistently show elevated mental health risks after abortion for some women. Colleges already struggle with mental health crisis and this builds risk compounding them. And for the unborn child, a distinct human life with unique DNA. From the moment of conception, this bill normalizes ending that life chemically, often without the full counseling or ultrasound that might actually lead a young woman to choose life. And when we talk about my body, my choice, but there's two bodies involved, or more, if you're talking twins. There's another body to consider, one with rights. And Colorado already has strong abortion protections, and this bill goes further by embedding it into everyday campus life, lowering barriers and potentially increasing impulsive decisions with lifelong consequences. Parents who send their children to college expecting an education, not easy access to abortion, will bear the emotional cost when things go wrong, as I mentioned the young woman at Fort Collins. Young women deserve better than being told chemical abortion is just another campus convenience. And looking at monetary costs to students, institutions, and taxpayers, let us examine the dollar and cents and who actually pays The direct cost of the drugs abortion medication from an on pharmacy ranges between $580 to $800 per course. If even a modest number of students utilize this, say dozens or hundreds per large campus, the reoccurring expense adds up quickly. And who funds the student health centers at public universities? Taxpayers, student fees. This represents a direct transfer from Colorado families to subsidize procedures that many oppose. And what are the complication costs? With complication rates potentially in the 5 to 11 percent range for serious issues, many Many cases require emergency room visits, ultrasounds, surgeries, DNC for incomplete abortions, transfusions, or hospitalization. And these costs frequently fall on insurance, often including public programs or university plans subsidized by taxpayers or out-of-pocket for students. A single severe hemorrhage or sepsis can run thousands to ten thousands of dollars multiplied across campuses. This creates hidden taxpayer burden and strains local emergency services. And when we talk about institutional compliance costs, colleges must stock medications with proper storage, security, and liability protocols. They must train staff, update policies, and manage prescriptions or referrals. And this diverts resources from core educational missions, teaching, research, and genuine health services. Private institutions face market pressure or legal risk if they resist. Litigation from conscience violators or botched cases will follow, costing more in legal fees, ultimately borne by students and donors. And there's broader taxpayer and economic ripple effects where the public university relies on state appropriations. Every dollar spent stocking abortion pills or treating complications is a dollar not spent on job training, infrastructure, or tax relief. Colorado taxpayers, including pro-life families, are forced to subsidize an ideological agenda. Long term, the normalization of abortion on campus may contribute to lower birth rates, exacerbating demographic and workforce challenges that strain future entitlement in education budgets. This bill represents big government overreach. It undermines institutional autonomy, burdens taxpayers, endangers young women, ends unborn lives, and dismisses the deeply held beliefs of millions. It prioritizes ideology over evidence, convenience, over caution, and state power over individual and parental rights. I had done some research as far as with the FDA They had actually lowered the barriers for abortion medication such that it increases the risk to young women. And if you bear with me, I'm trying to find. As you can see, I've got lots of research here. And so there were safety standards that the FDA removed. In 2000, the FDA approved the drug, I think I'm pronouncing this right, mifpristone, for chemical abortions. And this was used in tandem with, I can't even pronounce this, mesoprostol to complete a chemical abortion. When originally implemented, there were special measures that were required that the drugs could be safely used. Some of the most significant are, one, the drug may only be prescribed up to seven weeks gestation. And that doesn't happen now. Two, a licensed doctor who can diagnose ectopic pregnancies and accurately determine gestational age must be the one to prescribe the drug. And that's not happening. Three, the doctor must see a woman at three in-person office visits before, during, and after the chemical abortion to ensure she does not have any life-threatening conditions and serious complications, and for the prescribing doctor must report all serious complications. Women suffer from the drugs. And what I'm saying is these barriers were reduced that are not occurring. Where we see situations happening to young women that aren't being reported in highlighting that this isn't as safe as the reports say. There's more into the details that we're not seeing. And I would say it violates the do no harm. and yet here we are bringing it in to the colleges and making this easily accessible. And so I'm very concerned for young women, the health for them, and of course the health for the unborn. And so I oppose this bill, and I encourage us to champion true health care on campuses, focus on wellness, not ending life. And this bill breaches those bounds. And so I would ask that we reclaim them Let us choose life liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the born and the unborn And so I urge a no vote on HB 1335 Thank you Further discussion, Senator Rich.

There is an amendment coming to the desk.

Senator Rich. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L-022 to House Bill 1335. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment removes private institutions of higher education from the definition of an institution in the bill. It is not the place of the state to force private institutions to provide abortion medication to students. Private institutions are private for a reason, and they should retain the autonomy to set policies that reflect their mission, values, and governance structured without being subject to broad state mandates that may not align with their institutional identity. This bill's religious exemption is not strong enough to fully protect institutions with sincerely held religious missions, leaving them vulnerable to potential legal conflict and administrative pressure. Colorado has historically been involved in litigation that reached the U.S. Supreme Court involving questions of religious freedom. Court cases like 303 Creative the Alanis Masterpiece Cake Shop the Colorado Rights Commission and an upcoming case in October St Mary Parish v Roy The state's position has not prevailed, underscoring the importance of crafting legislation that avoids unnecessary constitutional conflict. Stronger protections for religious institutions help ensure compliance with the First Amendments and reduce the risk of costly, prolonged legal disputes that could have been avoided with clear exemptions. Time and time again, it seems like we are in this chamber and we leave out our private institutions or we don't leave them out, we try to tell them what to do, or we thumb our nose at their religious beliefs. I would urge an aye vote on Amendment L022.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in support of L22, and it was actually interesting. I'm on a bill, the funding model for higher education, and we ran the bill in finance last week and offered an amendment to align funding for these kind of institutions with what was in the long bill, and I think this follows suit that there shouldn't be a mandate on these institutions to participate in this program, given that we just added language to the financial funding for higher ed, that notwithstanding improvisions of this Title 23, to the contrary, for the 26-27 state fiscal year, the commission shall not allocate money to a non-public institution of higher education, and private institution of higher education as defined in section 23-18-102. So for denying funding to these institutions, it seems we shouldn't be demanding they offer these kind of services in it seems like a contradiction of priorities. So I ask for an aye vote on L-22.

Senator Wallace. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We worked with higher ed institutions, including private institutions, and took all their amendments on this legislation. We have not heard concerns from private universities about this bill. Furthermore, the sincerely change was made at the request of Catholic institutions and was done in conjunction with them and does line up with the Supreme Court standards around this. So we ask for a no vote.

Aye.

No.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think everyone in this building knows I'm a Christian, and to me, abortion is one of the worst things we do as a society. That life is independent. It's precious. And it helpless These women that are going to college and become pregnant are dealing with a lot of things in their life. And I think there's a lot of things that can be done besides just aborting the child. So with that, Mr. Chair, I have an amendment.

Please read L-27 to 1335. Amendment L-27, amend Reingroso.

So I'd heard support for 027. Further discussion on L27.

Further discussion on L-27. Seeing none, the question is the adoption of L-27 at 1335. All those in favor, please say aye. All those opposed, say no. No's have it. L-27 fails. To the bill, Senator Liston.

Hello? There may be an amendment coming to the desk.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Amendment L-023 to House Bill 1335. To the amendment. Very good. Members, what this amendment does is it strikes to all students from the provision that requires an institution that operates Student Health Care Center to provide access to abortion medication. This ensures that only pregnant women can have access to the medication. If this bill is truly aimed at promoting gender equality, why would anyone, including men who cannot get pregnant, to have access to this medication? Without the amendment, boyfriends and men may exploit young women and pressure them into having abortions. Young women experiencing difficult pregnancies can be especially vulnerable to outside influence from partners, peers, or others. This amendment reinforces the importance of protecting women from pressure or manipulation in a deeply personal medical decision. This amendment reflects concern that broad or vague statutory language may be unintentionally weakened protections for women who may already feel isolated, financially stressed, or pressured by others. So I think this is a good amendment. It's reasonable. It's directed only at the pregnant women and brings some sensibility back to this very sensitive subject. subject. I urge an aye vote on amendment L023.

While I do appreciate the gender inclusive language in this amendment, I do ask for a no vote. Further discussion on L23, seeing the other questions, the adoption

Hang on a minute here. I have a little trouble getting myself squared away, Mr. Chair. All right. Members, I'm here to talk about a condition in this abortion situation that this is not a political thing. This is about trying to think about health and safety of the young ladies that are involved. I've got an amendment I'd like to present.

Mr. Schaffler, please read L-26 to 1335. Amendment L-26.

because it only acts on a pregnancy located inside the uterus. Since ectopic pregnancies can still produce a positive pregnancy test, this risk could be specifically acknowledged in the bill to help ensure proper diagnosis and patient safety. Ectopic pregnancies are dangerous medical conditions that require immediate and specialized treatment. Standard abortion medication is not an appropriate treatment for this type of pregnancy. This amendment helps protect women by ensuring they receive proper medical evaluation and screenings before abortion medication is prescribed, especially in cases where an ectopic pregnancy could pose a serious risk to their health and safety. What I'm trying to do and to say is that the health and safety of these young ladies is of critical importance to me and to the folks that are worried about them. I think this amendment would give some of these situations a better opportunity for better outcomes for the young lady that's there needing to take the medication. I'd ask for a yes vote on L-26.

Senator Zamora Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in support of L-026. As I mentioned in my previous statement that from recent analysis in a 2025 Ethics and Public Policy Center study, that roughly 11% of women experience serious adverse events within 45 days, and this would mitigate those risks. So I urge a yes vote on Amendment L026. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Healthcare providers, again, know both when to make referrals, certainly when to conduct pregnancy tests, when assigning medication around a pregnancy, and if an ultrasound is needed. With that, we don't want to overprescribe or create invasive medical procedures within this statute, so we will ask for a no vote.

Senator Zemore Wilson. As I mentioned last year, there was a death. So, yes, these adverse events do happen. This would mitigate it. I urge a yes vote on L026.

Senator Marchman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just rise in support of House Bill 1335. I want to be direct. Colleagues have invoked the tragic death of Lexi Arguella in this debate, and that loss was real, and it happened in my district, but she died during a 22 surgical procedure This bill does not cover any of that This is just medication abortion two FDA pills dispensed through a licensed campus health center to patients who are no more than 10 weeks along. So these are different procedures, and I just wanted to be really clear on that. So what this bill actually does is a student at CSU or Front Range can walk into the campus health center, the same place she goes for a strep test or mental health referral, and access an FDA-approved medication used safely by over 5 million patients in this country. Right now, a student in Loveland without a car working two jobs trying to make it to class, her window can close before she can get to Denver. And this bill closes the gap. So here's the policy case that doesn't get made enough. Lumina and Gallup surveyed 14,000 students post-Dobbs. 80% said they prefer to attend college in a state with greater reproductive access. Students are choosing Colorado in purpose, and this bill is how we make good on that. I urge an aye vote. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Majority Leader Cutter. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to lay over House Bill 1281 until Thursday, May 14th.

Mr. Schaffler, please read the title to House Bill 1309. House Bill 1309 by Representatives Farola, Constory, and Senator Wallace concerning measures related to forms of abuse in cases regarding a separation of a relationship.

To the committee report. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Further discussion on the State Affairs Committee report. Seeing no questions, the adoption of the committee report to 1309. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed to say no. Committee report is adopted. To the bill, Senator Wallace.

Further discussion?

Further discussion on House Bill 1309? Seeing none of the questions, the adoption of House Bill 1309, all those in favor, please say aye. Any opposed to say no. Ayes have a 1309 is adopted.

Thank you. Senator.

Senator Immobile. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In the Finance Committee, we added one amendment to set up a working group, and this working group will be structured a little bit like the AI working group and the RTD working group where we bring experts together and interested parties and figure out a path forward for constructing roads and transportation in our state. And I ask for yes votes.

I think this bill is the best option, given the circumstances we're under, to protect public services in this state. As a legislator, I think it's incumbent upon us to ensure that communities have access to hospitals and K-12 schools and all the public services, you know, the post board for law enforcement, all the public services that people rely on. And Initiative 175 threatens all of those things. You know, our budget cuts this year were close to a billion dollars. If Initiative 175 passes without 1430, those cuts next year will add another $700 million. So this is an existential threat to so many things that our various communities rely on. And while House Bill 1430 isn't perfect by any means, it is a response to something that needs to be addressed by this body. The amendment we put on the Finance Committee kind of gives the folks that are backing Initiative 175 a choose-your-own-adventure. They could withdraw the measure and come and have a constructive conversation with various stakeholders to try to find a way to adequately fund our roads and our infrastructure, something that I am passionate about doing. or they could move forward if 1430 passes and have 1430 go into effect if their measure passes as a trigger. So those are the options before them in this bill. I think this bill is a difficult thing to do, but it's the right thing to do to protect Coloradans, and I urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to echo my co-sponsor's remarks and just as a member of the Joint Budget Committee, knowing how incredibly hard it was for us to get to a balanced budget this year. And I know so many of you really push back on the cuts that we made. And we ran, you all ran and signed on to a whole bunch of amendments because you did not like the things that we cut, and you didn't want, you got a lot of outreach saying, please don't cut my thing, please don't cut care for my disabled child, please don't cut K-12. And I know you all felt that keenly. And if this bill doesn't pass and that ballot measure does, you will, this year will pale in comparison to the world of hurt that we will be in next year. And I urge you to all support this bill.

Senator Pelton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think it's telling that the sponsors are running a bill to pretty much null and void a ballot initiative. I'm sorry, a constitutional amendment to the Colorado Constitution because of the nature of our infrastructure and the way it exists right now. It is terrible. This chamber saw that I had to bring a resolution here because I had one county in the seven counties that I represent One county 70 of their highways were in low drivable conditions So when you look at the map, you look at all the highways, you'll see yellow, green, and red. Red means low drivable conditions. 70% of the highways in Morgan County are poor or low drivable conditions. So we're bringing this bill to prevent the citizens, prevent the citizens from getting a constitutional amendment to actually make it a priority to fund infrastructure. 26 years ago, Amendment 23 passed. What did Amendment 23 do? Oh, it's a constitutional amendment that funded education. Because the people of Colorado said, we want our education system funded. And now they wanted that as a priority. Now the citizens of Colorado, because this body has not done a good enough job to fund transportation, to make it a priority that this body says, we appreciate what you're doing, citizens, to the Constitution, but we don't like it, so we're going to make it null and void. So I got this great email today from this Common Sense Institute, and it talks about transportation funding initiatives 175 and House Bill 26-1430. so the overview is the condition of colorado's roads and bridges has long been central to debates over this over state transportation spending and recent declines in infrastructure quality have prompted both a ballot initiative and an offset bill in the final days of the colorado's legislative session now i will say that the ballot initiative has not been in the final days it's been in the work for a while to make sure that we can do something about our crumbling roads and bridges. Initiative 175, state revenue spending, supporting road transportation, would constitutionally, I want to make sure that we always go back to that. This is not just a ballot initiative, it is a constitutional amendment because our founders made sure that they knew that they weren't perfect. So they gave us an option to make sure that the people can amend the constitution on their own. Would constitutionally require state revenue collected from specific transportation-related taxes and fees to be spent only on road transportation. Now, is that too much to ask? The stuff that we buy, that we purchase, the taxes and the fees that we pay for our vehicles, for maintenance, for any of that stuff that we do on our vehicles, shouldn't that go back to the roads? That's what they're asking. In practice, it would remove existing state revenue toward road and bridge repair and construction, road safety, related planning and engineering, and fund the Colorado State Patrol. In response Colorado lawmakers have drafted and currently considering House Bill 26 the bill which would take effect only if the voters approve initiative 175 I want to read that again. Colorado lawmakers have drafted and are currently considering House Bill 26, 1430, the bill which would take effect only if Colorado voters approve initiative 175. so i i ask you how often is it that we run legislation to null and void a constitutional amendment that may may win at the ballot there's no guarantees it will if i was a batman i would definitely put my money on it because i think it will because that's how poor our infrastructure is right now 175 would reduce fuel taxes or i'm sorry 1430 would reduce fuel taxes vehicle fees and road uses fees for four years while creating a support road transportation fund or srtf to receive revenue affected by the initiative i think it's amazing that in a year of cuts that when the rjvc member on our side kept saying we need to make some substantial cuts that we're doing it to infrastructure in this bill. Not to other things, but to infrastructure. That's what this bill is going to do, make huge cuts, thereby setting our transportation system even further back. House Bill 261430 would dramatically blunt Initiative 175's practical effect Rather than allowing the measure to direct funds towards road and bridge construction and repair, the bill would reduce the taxes and fees that generate transportation revenue and use the newly directed dollars to replace existing state transportation obligations, leaving little net new money for road construction and repairs during the bill's four-year window. Again, four years, this bill goes into effect. The ballot initiative passes. Four years, null and void any new transportation money. We've been talking about over and over and over about how we need money and new money to fix our roads and bridges. Our roads and bridges that are crumbling. I was up here for not even a month when I came up here in January. A chunk of the bridge that went over Interstate I-76 fell off at Sedgwick County. But just right before that, I got to hear the governor, we've spent the most money on roads and bridges. Well, great. I don't see that. We must not be that important. So the key findings of this that I'm reading from the Common Sense Institute, the passage of 1426-1430 would dramatically blunt initiatives at 175's proposed effects. aside from $20.5 million in the first fiscal year, enacting 26-14-30 would result in zero new dollars during its effective years in 2027 to 2030. Okay. Without the effects of 26-14-30, Initiative 75 would direct over $2.4 billion in new road revenue to be spent on road transportations, repairs from fiscal year 27 to 2030. New revenue. Revenue that should be going there that we're taking somewhere else. revenue that we should be using to fix our infrastructure that we're going to be taking that we're using for something else this is money i mean every year i always have to look and ask my jbc member all the time on my side how much hutf money is he taking from counties how much that's what i would always say what is the budget where the governor's office has how much money are they taking away from the counties because that always gets swept away a chunk of it gets swept away. It's likely that upon 1426, I'm sorry, House Bill 261430's sunset, the state will revisit the issue and could extend the offsets, reduce other transportation-related revenues, or use newly dedicated dollars to backfill existing general fund obligations. Here's what I've got to say about that. Please don't pull the ballot initiative. Please put it up there. Please keep moving forward with that. I think in four years, we'd be better off with it in the Constitution than not. What ballot initiative 175 would do on its own? Initiative 175 would add a new section to Article 10 of the Colorado Constitution's effective January 1st, 2027. the measure defines road transportation to include construction, surface repairs, maintenance, and operation of public roads and bridges, primarily for motor vehicles, driver safety improvements, directly related design, engineering, and management costs, and fund the Colorado State Patrol's costs. That's what Initiative 175 would do. The measure defines the effective revenue sources broadly. They include state sales and use excise taxes and fees imposed and collected on motor vehicles and motor fuel, plus two-thirds of the state's sales and use taxes collected on motor vehicle parts. not all the taxes just on motor vehicle parts equipment materials and accessories affixed to a vehicle so if you go down and buy um tires or let's say wheels you're going to go buy wheels not the tires let's say the wheels and i want some really cool wheels on my pickup go down there and by the wheels, the sales tax for that would go directly to fixing the roads, not to whatever else we decide. Dedicated revenue, legislative council staff estimates $343 million in fiscal year 26-27, a half year impact, 690 million for 2728, and reaching $1 billion in fiscal 2040 in dedicated revenue to fix roads. To fix the roads You know a lot of this stuff could have been curbed especially in rural Colorado especially when I was on the TPR the Eastern District TPR when we were making these decisions because if they would allow us to get rid of some of our transit money and trade it we would trade it to Boulder to Denver for anywhere say, here, take our transit funds, let us have your asphalt funds. Because we have a transit system, but we don't use all the money. So let's trade. Let's do that. No, that can't happen because they want you to specifically spend it on transit. So how would 1430 change the outcome? 1430 is designed to counteract Initiative 175. If Initiative 175 passes, the bill will lower revenue from several sources that would otherwise flow through the HUTF funds or be counted as transportation-related revenue under the initiative. The bill reduces certain transportation tax and fee rates from January 1st, 2027 to June 30th, 2030, conditional on the passage of Initiative 175. Again, it's conditional on a constitutional amendment. It's conditional. The people have the choice to change the Constitution, to make it a priority that funding is going to roads and bridges. is the gasoline to excise tax from 22 cents to 14 cents per gallon, special fuel excise tax from 20.5 to 13 cents per gallon, the late registration fee between $2,500 and $100 per month, between $1,550 and $62 per month. Certain registration fee rates, They would cut certain registration rates by 38%, the road safety surcharge by 38%, and the road usage fees from $0.06 to $0.04 from January 1st, 2027 to June 30th, 2030. So there's a really cool chart on here that shows, like, if Initiative 175 passes with 1430, everything's null and void for four years. And then on the other side, if it passes a loan, I mean, you get a lot of money, $690 million in 28. 29 gets $714 million. 2030 gets $739 million. dollars. I'm just going to tell you, nothing erodes the trust better with the people as when you take away their choices, take away their democracy. That's what you're doing here. if this ballot initiative passes and we are so arrogant to think that if this bill passes that the people will not be disappointed upset and darn right mad we're crazy to think that because they will be the people of Colorado want better roads the people of Colorado are tired It tired of driving and fixing their vehicles because of the roads It's the number one thing I hear in my district. And I've had the distinct pleasure of growing up on both sides of the hill. That's what I say, both sides of the hill. You know, spending time in Basalt for almost 15 years, and then over on the Eastern Plains. and I have never seen the roads in this poor condition. I've never seen Floyd Hill the way it's conditioned. I've never seen I-70 all the way up from Georgetown to Frisco. I've never seen this kind of condition of our roads. I mean, Glenwood Canyon is kind of nice now, but it took a lot of work to get there. And if you go on the eastern plains, when I took the when I took the press out there and we went and looked at all these roads and I took them to four of my counties and I said it's not just in one county let me take you to four different counties and we drove all over in my district and I said stand here and watch when the trucks go by and the violence when those trucks were hitting those those chunks of asphalt that were missing was absolutely crazy. And I said, that's what I'm talking about with damage. We had one guy call me up and say, I had to put in a brand new crank case in his truck

The people of Colorado know that their roads are among the worst quality of any state in the nation. And they also know as a consequence those roads are not safe. They're not safe to drive on. They're not properly maintained. And in response to that and the fact that the people's legislature has done little to address this issue over the past years, citizens, businesses, business organizations have come together and said, we want something done about it. So they put together Initiative 175. And what does Initiative 175 do? Very simply, it says all of this revenue that we collect, gas taxes, excise taxes, road fees so forth that is supposed to go to maintaining the quality of the roads of the state of Colorado should in fact go to that In fact it would ensure that about billion over the next four years would go to the upkeep, maintenance, improvement, improved safety of the roads of the state of Colorado. In my opinion, that is a great thing, the citizens coming together and saying, we're tired of the roads of this state not being properly maintained, and we're going to do something about it. And what is the response of this legislature, or at least some members of this legislature, is to say, well, we don't like your initiative. we don't like what it does we don't like the ability to vote on it and in fact if it passes we're going to have in place some legislation that completely negates it and that's what this House Bill 1430 does and that is why I strongly oppose 1430 I think it's a very disappointing piece of legislation I'll keep it at that There's other words you could use, but I'll just say to me, it's a disappointing piece of legislation that folks would want to come together and say, well, we don't care that the citizens of this state, the businesses of this state, the economic development organizations of this state have come together and said, it's time to fix the roads. it's time to get the quality up to where they need to be, and it's time to improve the safety of the roads of this state. And the reaction, if this bill passes, is going to be, we don't care. We don't care what you think. We're going to pass a bill that says that initiative will be meaningless, that that $2.5 billion that was to be spent to improve the quality of the roads, to improve the safety of the roads is not going to be there. So I do hope, very much, sincerely hope, that this bill is not passed. It's not passed here. It has passed in the House, but hopefully it will not pass here in the Senate because I think it will send a very bad message not only about the lack of concern of the quality of the roads of this state, but it will also send a very bad message about this legislature's view of the ability of the citizens of this state to make their views known on important issues and to vote on them. And essentially what this bill says is have your vote, have your discussion, but it's not going to mean anything in the end. So I would strongly urge a no vote on House Bill 1430, which is a slap in the face to the people of this state, in my opinion, who want the roads of this state improved. They want the revenue we collect to go to improving the quality and the safety of our roads. They want government to perform one of the critical key functions that it's supposed to perform for its citizens. That's all this initiative 175 does. It just asks the government to do its job, to keep its commitments. And this piece of legislation is a very disappointing override of that process. So I urge a no vote. Senator Rich.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And members, we're having a great discussion about this important piece of legislation as well as Initiative 175. I stand in opposition to 1430. There's been a lot of great arguments that have been made. And, you know, it just seems to me, and I'll reiterate it again, when I talk to my constituents down in Colorado Springs, El Paso County, for that matter, people around the state, time and time again, I think we all hear it on both sides of the aisle, is that we need to fix our roads and bridges. Colorado has continued to slip. We used to be considered what I want to say the 32nd worst state, and now we're down to like the 40th or 42nd. and if we don't do something about our roads and bridges here this year, pretty soon in the next two, three, four years, we're going to be number 50, which I don't think anybody wants. And I think that the sponsors of Initiative 175 had finally heard it loud and clear, not finally, but the citizens, all of us, we all have stories. The good senator from Mesa County has recounted a couple of stories. We all have had personal stories or stories from our constituents that they tell us time and time again, we need to fix our roads. And that's what Initiative 175 does. And then, unfortunately, at the bottom of the ninth inning, when it looks very clear that the signatures can and will be obtained, to put the initiative 175 out of the blue, suddenly 1430 comes to, I'll say, maybe this is not the intended consequence. I won't cast aspersions on why they do it, but, well, if 175 passes, then we're going to make the citizens feel all the pain, and we're going to eviscerate and take money away, that several hundred million dollars away from roads and bridges and put it into the social spending. So if you pass this initiative 175, everybody who votes for this will feel the pain. We'll make sure of that. At the very time when we need to be putting more money into roads and bridges, we're going to do an in-run around and take it away, which is not right. It's not fair. It's like holding a gun to your head and saying, if you pass this, you will feel the pain. It's not the right way to do it. We need to prioritize our spending That what we here for That what the Joint Budget Committee has had to do to make tough decisions That what we had to do on the various amendments to the budget We've all tried to make little changes here and there, but that's what the Joint Budget Committee does, is to prioritize. Finally, the citizens have said, look, we've had enough. You're not allocating enough money. The money that we spend on HUTF is supposed to be for years and years. That's why the HUTF fund was created, is that those expenses for gasoline and automobile parts and everything that's related to highway transportation, that's where that money is supposed to have been going over the years. But it's been consistently diverted time and time again. And so now we're here with some of the worst roads in the nation. It's embarrassing. It hurts our economy. It hurts our tourism. It hurts our reputation. And most importantly, it is hurting the citizens of Colorado. The majority who spend their excise taxes and their taxes willingly to have our roads fixed, and yet the legislature just continues to ignore them. So finally, the citizens are saying enough's enough. I do have one question to one of the bill's sponsors, if I may, is that it's been brought to my attention that the fuel distributors are not included in the working group. And they spend $500 million, the fuel distributors. Would one of the sponsors like to answer that question? Why are the fuel distributors left out of the working group? Senator Mobley.

Senator Lista. Very good. Well, thank you for that. So to the fuel distributors, whomever, you know, I can't name all their names, but maybe that's good to know. Maybe they should be. You know, the last time I checked, $500 million, that ought to bring them a seat at the table. They've earned it. So I would hope for the benefit for this working group and whoever, whatever the groups are going to be on it, Certainly the fuel distributors, for the huge amounts of money, the $500-plus million that they spend, I would say that they've definitely earned it and that they should be, as well as the other groups. There ought to be citizens at the table from all parts of the state, not just the Denver-Boulder metro area, But from the eastern plains, the western slope, all over, they should have a voice. And that's really what Initiative 175 is about, is to bring a voice of the people, a voice of reason that is finally moving highway transportation funding up not just a notch, but at the top. And yes that will cause the legislature all of us to reprioritize our spending So I won beat this to death Mr Chairman and members You know how I feel. I think you know how the citizens feel, because they're your constituents. They come to me and they come to you time and time again. Not just them, but the publications, the newspapers. It's well documented that the citizens of Colorado are demanding action, and if we don't give it to them, they are going to vote overwhelmingly for Initiative 175. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members. Please vote no on 1430. I know you will. Senator Peltner.

Senator Frizzell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We heard this bill in transportation only yesterday, last night. Oh, finance. I'm not in transportation. I'm in finance. I'm here in the Senate chamber. Sorry. So we heard this bill last night in Senate finance, and there was some testimony. and I'm going to really want to talk about that because it's important. But the first thing I really want to talk about, and several of my colleagues have had this conversation, so I don't want to be too duplicative, but I think it's really important, and one of the reasons I'm standing here and I'm going to be pretty passionate about this topic is I believe that transportation infrastructure is a matter of statewide concern right now. It is a matter of statewide concern. It is and has been a matter of statewide concern. You can talk about the wear and tear on vehicles. That's real. numbers that I see is that motorists pay an average of $1,700 annually in extra vehicle operating costs here in the state of Colorado. 71% of our highways have less than 10 years of life remaining. So if we don't start investing now, what are we going to have then? I can speak somewhat knowledgeably about this because at one point in my life, I was a civil engineering student and we designed roads. And I took a number of classes in redesigning roads. And it's complicated to design roads. There's a lot of work that goes into it. You have to have just the right materials, and they have to be layered just right, depending on the type of road And if that underlayment starts to break down you have to kind of start all over and that is expensive It's incredibly expensive. Colorado, and we've heard this in the last several minutes with my good colleagues, talking about how Colorado ranks amongst the worst in the whole United States for road conditions. With over 3,600 miles of highway in poor condition. We're not talking about average. We're not talking about okay. Poor condition. Over 800 miles of highway in Colorado are considered beyond repair. that's what I just was kind of referring to if they're beyond repair you have to start over we have not paid attention to our transportation infrastructure in the state of Colorado and I'm talking about our roads and our bridges and I'm talking about widening our roads because we have had a lot of people move into this state and they drive. And we haven't widened a highway in the Denver metro area in quite some time. In fact, in the Denver metro area, we see a lot of reducing the size of streets so that we can accommodate bicycles and scooters and the like, which is, that's fine. That's a local governance thing, and if that's what the citizens of that area want, by golly, that's what they should have. But this transportation infrastructure that we have, the roads, the bridges, in the state of Colorado, they are overutilized and underfunded. They're underfunded. and there was a bill passed a few years ago I remember it was before my time in this building but I remember hearing it referred to as the transportation bill that's not a transportation bill but the citizens of this state had a real expectation that that bill was going to solve some of the problems with our transportation infrastructure They had the expectation that those dollars, the increase in taxes and fees that they were going to see, were going to be spent on things that they said were important to them, like their roads. And that really hasn't happened. we've collected additional fees for for HUTF from deliveries you know that 20 I think it's 29 cents you have to pay every time something's delivered goes towards HUTF highway user trans tax what is it highway user I'm phoning of them HUTF Highway User Tax Fund Yes It goes into that And those HUTF funds get distributed Some stays with the state some go to cities some goes to counties for the purpose of assisting with transportation infrastructure. And that's really important. They rely on those dollars a lot, to the point where there was a bill when I was in the House a couple of years ago where we were talking about using HUTF funds as a bit of a club, if you will, with our municipalities, that if they didn't conform to state requirements for, I believe it was transit-oriented communities, that the state would withhold those funds. And boy, did you see the municipalities and the counties losing their minds over that because those dollars are important. They're critically important to those communities. We have a transportation system that's underutilized, but yet it continues to be prioritized over roads and bridges and making our roads able to accommodate the traffic that they see. That's a whole different topic. But one of the things that I want to talk about is the testimony that we heard yesterday, because it was fascinating. It was fascinating. The people who first came and sat down were from school districts, and hospitals. And they talked about how super, super, super concerned that they were that if Initiative 175 passes, that they are not going to have any money to treat sick people and that rural hospitals will close and that kids won't get educated. And it's drawing... I still don't understand how they're getting there because hospitals don't get funds from HUTF. School funding doesn't come from HUTF. All 175 is saying is that, hey, Colorado, use the money collected from transportation-related taxes and fees, because there's a lot of them, and spend it on road transportation. That's what 175 says. It's pretty simple. So I fail to understand how the funds that are supposed to be spent on transportation infrastructure are presumed to be funneled to school funding and hospitals. Not getting that. Perhaps the bill sponsors can educate me because I'm apparently not smart enough to make that connection. This is the other thing So we had those folks come and talk and share their concerns And you know what? I totally get it. I understand why the hospitals are concerned, because we keep year after year reducing their Medicaid provider rates every year. We balance the budget on the backs of hospitals, and the rural hospitals are hurting. And I think that that's a different issue that we need to talk about, and we need to figure that out because it's a huge problem. But they are not receiving funds from HUTF that I'm aware of. so we've had this conversation before about the state of our roads several times in fact and one time I kind of quipped that the state of Colorado roads are so bad that if you close your eyes when you're going crossing the state line from Kansas into Colorado you know exactly when you cross the state line, because the roads go from really quite good to abysmal and you're hitting potholes. And these are on interstate highways. And I don't drive with my eyes closed, to be clear, but I think you get the idea. And the reason why that's important is I had the opportunity, and I saw several of you their last fall for the site selector conference because they trotted out some legislators to show how very, very interested the legislature is in economic development. I'm very interested in economic development and I was really happy to participate in that. And I got to sit there and listen to several of the presentations made by cities and counties to these site selectors. And it's incredible. The questions that they ask, they're very detailed, because this is a competitive business. Business is competitive. So attracting new businesses to the state of Colorado, you have to pull out all the stops.

Senator Lindstedt.

Do you have an amendment?

I didn't hear you at all.

There is an amendment at the desk.

Senator Linstead.

To the amendment.

Further discussion? To L13. Seeing none, the motion before the body is the adoption of L13 to 1430. All those in favor say aye.

Opposed, no. The ayes have it. I'm sorry, L13 to 1430 is adopted. Senator Kirkmeyer.

Exactly. Amen.

Yeah.

Amendment L12, amend the Finance Committee report.

So last night, an amendment was passed that created a transportation funding working group. under the premise of, we'll put this group together, we'll sit down and talk with you over the course of the next few months, all the way somewhere into November, and see if we can't figure something out. But before we're willing to do that, you have to drop your ballot initiative. Now, you know, I'm just telling you, if I'm on the side of 1430, and trying to get to this, I'm thinking, yeah, you should drop your ballot initiative before I talk to you. And of course the people who have the ballot initiative are thinking, why would I drop my ballot initiative when I have no guarantee that you're actually going to do anything? Or maybe they're thinking, why would I do that? I dropped my ballot initiative for a group that you say you're going to put together now after you've introduced a bill to try and nullify the ballot initiative I'm putting on the ballot. Why would the people trust? Trust us. Because that's essentially what this transportation funding working group amendment did last night. It's like, you should trust us. and the people on the other side with the ballot initiative were like oh but you introduced a bill and now you're trying to hold it kind of like hold our initiative hostage if we work with you and throughout the process in the amendment that was put on last night basically says that members will get appointed by a certain date you already heard another amendment today about how we're going to change the makeup of the group today again. I didn't even look at what all of the members are because, quite frankly, that's not the biggest issue to me. But it talks about appointees of authorities shall make their appointments no later than June 19th. So now we're to the middle of June or later, two-thirds through June. The facilitator shall convene the first meeting June 29th. Great. We're all the way now basically to July 1st, July 4th, in there. The working group should meet at least once every two weeks beginning June 29th and throughout the week of November 2nd. No later than September 7th, the working group is supposed to submit a preliminary status report to the transportation committees in both the House and the Senate. And somewhere in here, yes here it is, it talks about how all this stuff, no later than November 13th the working group shall submit a report to the transportation committee again, both committees. The department shall be available to assist the working group, that's nice. I'm assuming that's the Department of Transportation. It's nice that they're going to work with the working group on transportation issues. That's their job by by the way. I think it's amazing we have to put that in law to tell them to do their job, but apparently we do. And then it says that this section is repealed effective July 1st, 2027. And then it also said in the amendment that section 12 of this act takes effect only if the petition for any ballot issue that would be part of the statewide ballot for the general election held on November 3rd is dropped. That, one, that you can't file with the Secretary of State on or before May 27th, 2026, another ballot initiative. Not that, just so you all know, you couldn't do that anyways and not make this election cycle. So you can't file when you couldn't have filed anyways to try and affect this election cycle. And it also says withdrawn, that you have to, the people who are putting forth this ballot initiative, who have gone to all the time and the trouble to get a ballot initiative going, they're already about 75% of the way through on collecting their signatures. We all know this That expensive They out talking to people out getting them excited we going to get our roads fixed we going to get money towards those roads and we going to get them fixed And they saying you would have to withdraw on or before June 15th Or none of this matters. Now let's think about this. The appointing authorities, they make their appointments in June 19th. but you have to withdraw your ballot initiative before you even see who's appointed to the committee that you're supposed to be working with. Hey, trust us. Just trust us. The next thing is, they're not even going to start meeting until June 29th, but you have to withdraw on or before June 15th, your ballot initiative. We're not even going to get to work until the end of June. and you don't even know who's on the committee you're going to work with. And the election is November 3rd. It's November 3rd. And the first preliminary report comes out in September. So you're not even going to see a preliminary report, but you little special interest group people who had the audacity to follow the Constitution, exercise your right to petition, and have a ballot, go through the ballot board, the title board, get your ballot, print your petitions, and start collecting signatures for this working group to happen. You have to withdraw that by June 15th. But we're not even going to give you a preliminary report until September 7th. So think about it. Do we honestly think that the people who put all the time into exercising their right to petition their government to tell them how ticked off they are, that the roads are crumbling, and that they need to be fixed, are going to actually withdraw their ballot before they even know who's on the committee, they even start meeting, or before they have any preliminary report, before they get any guarantees that there's actually going to be transportation money go towards transportation projects? That there's going to be more funding? Money, by the way, that they pay in taxes and fees for transportation-related things? That they're going to have to just, like, I don't know, believe, trust us? Why would they do that? Why would they trust us when they see this kind of non-commitment? Look, we'll work on that. We'll maybe get around to it. We'll get a report to the Transportation Commission, who hasn't been doing their job. We'll get a report to the Transportation Senate Committee and the Transportation House Committee. No later than November 13th, 10 days after the election. 10 days after the election. The only good news there is it's, what, seven or eight weeks prior to when your first bill needs to be introduced or submitted. So while I think it was a great idea to put together a transportation funding work group, we missed the boat. We missed the mark here. We missed the mark with this. We got halfway there We said yeah we should work together See if we can come up with a compromise See if we can come up with something that can work within our budget and at the same time provide additional funding to transportation and fix our roads We missed the opportunity. But don't worry. I've got this amendment, 12th. And what it does is this. It says that instead of June 19th having members appointed, you have to have them appointed by May 29th. Instead of the working group starting on June 29th, we've got them going on June 15th. instead of reports due by November 2nd, we've got resolutions decided by August 3rd. We should have a plan in place by August 3rd, or the first report by August 3rd. Instead of a preliminary report September 7th, it says July 15th. A preliminary report needs to be in place by July 15th, so everybody knows where they're at. So everybody knows, are we getting to a compromise? Are we getting to a good close? And then it says, instead of the final report due on November 13th, 10 days after the election, a few months after you've withdrawn your ballot initiative, it also says, no. The report is due by August 10th. August 10th. plenty of time for you still to get rid of your ballot initiative if you've truly worked out a compromise. If everyone has truly come to the table in good faith and you've worked out a compromise, this is, yeah, we're going to put new money towards transportation, fund our roads, fix our roads, maintain our roads, and at the same time, we're working with you on your budget. But we want you to hear us. the people who pulled the petition want to be heard and pushing them off until November 13th is not getting us there so I'm asking today that we take a responsible step forward that we try to work in harmony in good faith with the people who put forward the ballot initiative we just have to have this fix in place by about the first week in September. That's when ballots start getting printed. That's when the ballot gets set. Somewhere in that first week or so of September. It's when it gets set. And so if you're the person carrying the ballot initiative, exercising your right to petition, wouldn't you want to have some guarantee that there's actually going to be transportation funding? There have been several times where people who have pulled ballot initiatives, where they've been told, look, just work with us, pull your initiative, we'll take care of that. We won't do that. We'll change things. We'll work with you on it. And then six months later, we get into a legislative session, and all of a sudden there are bills that change everything and make it go back and make it worse. The people who run ballot initiatives don't trust us. They don trust us They don trust us to follow through They just don trust us But if we truly trying to come up with a compromise we not necessarily down to our last chance but it would certainly be a really good faith effort if we pass this amendment, said here are the dates, we put ourselves on a timeline, says we're going to have a guarantee that we're going to get this fixed, that we're going to come up with a compromise, that everyone can live with. And we're going to do that by the middle of August. And it says August 10th, but there's always room to wiggle around there as long as you get it done before the ballot is set in the beginning of September. How sad. How sad. I tried this amendment in appropriations this morning. And I just want to say how sad. How sad that we have to give an ultimatum that says pull your ballot initiative or we're going to screw with your ballot initiative and we're going to screw with the voters of this state. I ask for an aye vote on 11-12, on L-12.

Senator Amabile. Thank you, Madam Chair. So we did see this amendment in appropriations this morning, and we communicated with the people who are working frantically behind the scenes here to try and come up with a deal. And this was not what they wanted. And so people are still working, and hopefully we will get to a good place. And I ask for a no vote on this amendment.

I ran down here as false speaker. Thank you, Madam Chair. I know. I rise in support of this amendment. If we're going to be serious about negotiations and negotiations with the ballot initiative folks, listen, I'm completely against about doing that aspect of it because I think you just run the ballot initiative and get it done, and we will send a message to this state saying that they wanted this as a priority. However, if they want to have negotiations, this is the best way to do it. Negotiate right here with this amendment. Make sure it happens. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. I'm renewing my request for a yes vote on L12. Members, two years ago, I worked on a property tax compromise. We had two ballot initiatives, 108 and 50. 108, not so bad. 50, not good for the state of Colorado. Not good at all. We didn't have the threat of a bill hanging over our heads that said, If your ballot initiative passes, we're just going to nullify it, because that's essentially what 1430 does. What we had was a bill that wasn't good for the state of Colorado and one that wasn't so bad. And during our negotiations, I can't tell you how many times I heard from the governor's office and from members of the House, just trust us, we'll fix this the first week in January. Knowing full well that fixing The property tax problem the first week in January negated everything happening in that property tax year and wouldn't fix the problem. And so we were able to work it out and push people together and come together in a working group and make it work. The same people who were involved in the property tax measures from two years ago are also involved in this. And they heard all of the lines, just trust us, just trust us. And you know the response I kept hearing is, we don't trust you. We trusted you before, and you didn't follow through. And that's what's going on here. So we can't even get a working group that meets in good faith. Why would they trust us? I would ask for an aye vote on Amendment 12.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, members, I too sit on the Appropriations Committee and heard all of this that we've been speaking about, the good Senator from Brighton. And, you know, it was brought to us by somebody here today that, you know, let's let the legislature fix this. You know, we don't need to send it to the people of Colorado. We know best because we're here day in and day out, and we know all of the nuances and trust us. And as the good senator had said, so all she's asking, and I sit right next to her. I saw the amendment. I've got it right here from what we had this morning, is just to change the dates just by a few days, so that this can be properly handled by the working group. It certainly isn't trying to gut the bill. It won't gut the bill. It will make it better. So the old adage, let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is a reasonable attempt to make a bill that we all have reservations, a lot of us have reservations for, to give the proper people, the so-called working group, an opportunity to make this bill better. Members, I urge and I vote on Amendment L-12. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's an honor to serve with you. We're not in the House, but that's cool. For old times' sake. I was never in the House. But, yeah.

Igualmente.

So, folks, I want to address the obvious on there that this bill is counterintuitive, and when I'm reading through it, I'm scratching my head going, whoa, this bill proposes to salvage some services by reducing taxes. So it starts out talking about how the proposed initiative, Initiative 175, in order to, in response to that proposed initiative, it's necessary to avoid reductions for services including K-12, public education, health care, and higher education, goes on to say, therefore the General Assembly finally declares that it would direct additional general fund money to transportation This act will lower the gasoline excise tax the special fuel tax and the road usage fee tax to ensure that state transportation funding is not increased. So it's cutting back by about a third on the amount of money collected and charged at the gas pump. in order to increase revenue. So initially I'm scratching my head going, all right, that's rather counterintuitive. But I find this article by our own Denver Post reporter who looms large here in the room. And I've got to read at least most of it. because it provides the explanation and helps clarify for all of us what this bill does and why the people ought to understand not only the bill, but also how it affects their vote in November when 175 comes up on their ballot. I will make some changes for sake of decorum in naming legislators in here, but otherwise, quoting, Democrat lawmakers are threatening to undercut a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at forcing Colorado to spend more on roads, which they warn would bust its already teetering state budget before it ever reaches the November ballot. They announced a bill they planned to introduce Friday that's designed to counteract Initiative 175, a measure they said could divert money from other state priorities to meet its mandate. A construction industry-backed proposal would require the state to spend some $2 billion per year, including $540 million from the general fund, on road transportation projects. The proposal, which hasn't yet qualified for the ballot, immediately drew concerns from Democratic lawmakers who are reeling from making regular $1 billion cuts in recent years to make up for ongoing budget shortfalls. Dozens of outside groups, including the Colorado Hospital Association, the Sierra Club, and Greater Denver Transit, released a concern letter in April calling for backers of the initiative to withdraw it. How curious is that? Underscoring the fiscal pressure, lawmakers just recently sent a spending plan to Governor Jared Polis for the next fiscal year that had to bridge a $1.5 billion deficit. The Restore Our Roads Coalition is still gathering signatures for its measure, which would ask voters to require that the state revenue collected from transportation-related sources be used only for road transportation. This makes sense. The measure would, in effect, take money from other priorities, such as Medicaid and education, to pay for roads, the lawmakers argue, which I think we all need to understand that's where some of that gas tax goes. I'll read that again. The measure would, in effect, take money from other priorities, such as Medicaid and education, to pay for roads, the lawmakers argue. It could also make it more difficult to spend some transportation funding on transit programs. What we cannot do is fill a pothole and close a hospital, said one state representative, a Fort Collins Democrat working on the legislative account. And that's the situation that we will be faced with should Initiative 175 go into the state constitution. That state representative and other top Democrats have drafted a bill that would shift state spending to meet obligations outlined in the measure and then cut the gas tax to make, and here's the real key, here's the explanation of it all, and then cut the gas tax to make more room for other spending under the state's spending cap set by the taxpayers' bill of rights. So this is what we need to understand and what the article plainly lays out. that this money coming from gas tax, these three sources have been used on items other than roads. But once the people say we want that tax money to be spent on roads because our roads stink, then that would then require there be less money spent on the other pet projects and therefore to counter that this bill will reduce the amount of money that can be collected by gas taxes so that it frees up the Tabor Cap gap so that they can tax more to spend on their other projects. So it just negates the whole thing. It's a real tricky chess move on the people, and I find it really distasteful. In effect, the representative said, the bill would create close to a net zero effect on state spending if Initiative 175 becomes part of the state constitution. Supporters of the initiative, which is being backed financially by the Colorado Construction Industry Coalition, have said the measure is necessary because of the dire state of Colorado's roads, which we all can see that, along with general frustration that taxes and fees on motor vehicles go to broader transit-related issues and not just roads. The initiative would require that the effective funding be spent on fixing roads and bridges, road planning and engineering, driver safety, and the Colorado State Patrol. We are not spending enough money on roads. Voters know it. Tony Milo, director of Colorado Contractors Association, told the Denver Post for a short story published earlier this week. They know the taxes they are paying on motor vehicles and for using motor vehicles aren't going to roads. They are frustrated about that. After the Democrats' proposal became public Friday afternoon, the coalition appeared steady in their approach. Initiative 175 is simple. It funds roads without a tax increase using revenue that is already supposed to go to roads, something a majority of Colorado voters, especially rural Colorado, support. Grand Junction Mayor Corey Kennedy, a supporter of 175, said in a statement, this new bill inserts the will of legislators over the will of voters. The state representative, like other opponents, called the initiative an irresponsible measure that would gut core services for Coloradans. He and other lawmakers hoped their legislative move will force supporters of Initiative 175 to pull down the measure versus spending time and money to campaign for an ultimately ineffectual proposal If its supporters pull the proposal from the ballot lawmakers said they will be willing to discuss better funding for roads The state representative said lawmakers have been in touch with supporters of the initiative, including sharing a draft of the bill. Conversations can be had about how we can responsibly address transportation funding in the state. Another state representative told, and chair of the Powerful Budget Committee said, but these conversations cannot be had until they take down their irresponsible ballot measure. Any deal would have to happen relatively quickly since the legislative ends May 13. That would be tomorrow. The state representative said the majority Democratic leadership is prepared to move quickly to make sure the bill is to neutralize the initiative lands on Governor Polis' desk. As for landing a deal, if supporters of the initiative were to agree to pull it down, he turned to an end-of-session adage, we can pass a bill in three days. But he added, I'd rather pass it sooner. The initiative is the latest salvo in a battle that has pushed state budget priorities through the ballot box. In 2024, voters approved Proposition 130 requiring that the state direct $350 million to law enforcement without specifying where the money should come from. In response, lawmakers passed House Bill 1084 this year, which would require citizen-run initiatives to identify where the money needed for their measure would come from. This is an interesting twist. A state senator who was sponsoring the anti-initiative 175 bill also sponsored House Bill 1084. Proposition 130 was a statutory change, he noted, which gives lawmakers some leeway in how they implement it. Initiative 175 seeks to change the Constitution, a much higher bar for any action. Another sponsor of the bill, a Boulder Democrat on the Budget Committee and sponsor of the new bill, said, people need to be wary of special interest groups directing state funding without regard for the bigger budget picture. That allows outside groups to swallow up ever more money from the budget at the expense of the rest of the state's priorities. Any individual ballot measure might look kind of good, and if they spend enough money to advertise the benefits, they might be able to get it passed. So we've got to be on the offense here in order to stop that from continuing to happen. Wow. Okay, so all that to say, the bill counteracts the will of the people. we need to not take this kind of attack. It just seems duplicitous to me that we go with a bill to anticipate what the people's expression of their will is to fund the roads, which is just an essential task of the government to facilitate our transportation, our commerce, and to say, yeah, well, if you try to do that through changing the state constitution, we will counterbalance that by reducing the amount of money collected at the gas pump so that we will negate what the people have expressed their will to do. I'm just frankly appalled by a bill like this. I can't imagine the kind of imagination that came up with this. We've got to say no and say no very loudly

Senator Catlin.

Mr. Majority, seeing no further discussion, the motion for us is the adoption of House Bill 1430. All those in favor say aye.

Mr Majority Leader. Thank you Mr Weghalen. I move to lay over the balance of the calendar until later in the day.

Majority Leader Rodriguez. Thank you Mr. Chair. I move the committee to rise and report.

that for久 since the November event happyenses, like being in Ib Babac with a Shaw in the future. I kind of have a huge host of those proposals on my Consultant that wasn't for big departed. Nothing else later. I mean just for that effort though半 by a gold

May 12, 2026. Mr. President, your committee, the whole base, leave the report as had in consideration the following attached bills being the second reading thereof and makes following recommendations thereon. House Bill 1335, House Bill 1309 as amended, House Bill 1430 as amended, passed on second reading in order to revise the place in the calendar for third reading and final passage. House Bill 1289, House Bill 1429, laid over until later in the day on May 12, 2026 and retained their place on the calendar. House Bill 1281, laid over until May 14, 2026 and retained its place in the calendar.

Thank you, Madam President. I move the report.

amendment S001 Senator Rich moved to amend the report of the committee of the whole to show the following Rich floor amendment L22 to house bill 1335 did pass amend re-engross bill page 3, line 18, strike 10A and substitute 10A and page 3, strike lines 19 through 22 and substitute college as defined in section 23-71-102.

Senatorial 5. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, yeah. D, motion.

Senator Wallace. Thank you, Mr. President. As we mentioned during the debate, we worked closely with institutions of higher education, including private institutions, none of whom expressed any concern. We took all of the amendments on this legislation. Folks are not asking for this amendment, and so we ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Mr. President. I'm just going to reiterate again that private institutions are private for a reason, and they should retain the autonomy to set policies that reflect their mission, values, and governance structure without being subject to broad state mandates that may not align with their institutional identity. I think it's very important that you consider this. Whatever's going on over here.

Thank you, Mr. President. I'm just going to renew my motion for S-001 to House Bill 1335.

It could be. Amendment S-001. Thank you, Mr. President. I move S-001 to House Bill 1430. To the amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. Members, this amendment just simply puts some dates that are realistic on the transportation working group that hopefully we can get everyone together and come up with an idea that works for both those who want to protect the budget and those who want to have funding for transportation. So I ask for an aye vote on this amendment, S-001.

Seeing there is further discussion, Senator Gonzales.

Further discussion? Senior for discussion of motions, the adoption of S-001 to House Bill 1430. Are there any no votes? Senators, Mr. Majority Leader. Kip, Danielson, Gonzalez, Benavidez, Judah, Wallace, Cutter, Amabile, Doherty, Roberts, Exum, Colker, Snyder, Lindstedt, Sullivan, Ball, Henriksen, Bridges, Weissman. Please add the president. With a vote of 14 ayes, 21 no, zero absent excused. S001, the House Bill 1430 is lost. seeing no further discussion in motions adoption can be the whole report are there any no votes with a vote of 35 I's 0 no 0 absolute excuse can be the whole report is adopted House Bill 1335 1309 is amended 1430 is amended past second we know revised past Third reading and final passage, House Bill 1289, House Bill 1249, sorry, 1429, lay it over until 512-2026, retaining its place on the calendar. House Bill 1281, lay it over until 514-2026, retaining its place on the calendar. Introduction, oh, message from the House.

Message from the Revisor.

Introduction of resolutions. Mr. Schaffler, please read the title of HJR 1031.

Mr. Majority Leader.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move House Joint Resolution 1031 layover until Wednesday, May the 13th.

Senate Joint Resolution 26 by Senator Rodriguez, Representative Duran, concerning adjournment, Sine-DA.

The majority will be fined $1 for referring to the President as the chair, and the motion is to layover SJR 26 to Wednesday, May 13th, 2026. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. Man, but the ayes have it. The SJR 26 was later with Wednesday, May 13, 2026. Third reading of bills. Consent calendar. Introduction of bill. We can't introduce any more.

Veto. Oh, that's not an option. Appropriations.

Announcements.

Very nice Further announcements

Nice.

That's excellent. Further announcements? Mr. Majority Leader, come on down.

You are in the motion. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed note. The ayes have it. The Senate will recess until 3 p.m. today.

Mr. Majority Leader.

I move a call to the Senate.

Senators, Amabile. Bazley. Ball. Benavidez. Hey, you guys! Bridges. Bright. Carson. Catlin. Catlin. Cutter. Danielson. Doherty. Exum. Frizzell. Gonzalez. Hendrickson. Judah. Kip. Kirkmaier. Koker. Lindstedt. Liston. Marchman. Mullica. Mullica. Pelton B. Pelton R. Rich. Roberts. Rodriguez Here Rodriguez Simpson Snyder Sullivan Wallace Weissman Zamora Wilson Amabile Bazley Catlin Cutter Doherty

The motion is that the call be raised. All those in favor say aye.

Opposed, no.

The ayes have it and that call be raised. Committee report. Committee on appropriations. After consideration on the merits, the committee recommends the following. House Bill 1250 be referred to the committee of the whole with favorable recommendation and with a recommendation that it be placed on the consent calendar. Message from the House. Mr. President, the House has passed on third reading and transmitted to the Regisers Statute. Sine March 35, amended as printed in House Journal, May 2026. House has passed on third reading and transmitted to the Regisers Statute. Sine Cathy 155, Sine Gaulk 3, Sine Gaulk 2, Sine Gaulk 184, Sine Gaulk 152, and Sine Gaulk 78, amended as printed in House Journal on May 11, 2026. House has passed on third reading and returns herewith, Sine Gaulk 178, Sine Gaulk 103, Sine Rupt 191, Sine Gaulk 188, and Sine Gaulk 186. The House is passed on third reading and transmitted to the Revisors Statute, Senate Bill 23, amended as printed in House Journal May 11, 2026, and amended on third reading as printed in House Journal May 12, 2026. The House is postponed indefinitely, Senate Bill 183. The bill is returned herewith. Message from the Revisors. We hearwith transmit without comment as amended, Senate Bill 2, 3, 35, 78, 152, 155, and 184, with comment as amended, Senate Bill 23. Committee reports. Committee on Transportation and Energy, after consideration on the merits, the committee recommends the following. House Bill 1273 be postponed indefinitely. House Bill 1112 be postponed indefinitely. Special orders. Second meeting of the bills. Senator Ball.

You have the motion. All those in favor, say aye.

Oppose no. Ayes have it in motion to adopt the Senate Resolve Subcommittee, the whole city of Red Special, West Circuit of Bills, and Senator Ball will take the chair. The committee will come to order, and the code rule is even further relaxed for everybody. Mr. Majority Leader.

The motion is for the Senate to proceed out of order and take up House Bill 1429. All those in favor say aye.

Those opposed.

The ayes have it, and we will move out of order and take up House Bill 26-14-29. Will the clerk please read the title to House Bill 14-29?

Senator Kirkmeyer.

Is there any further discussion on the bill? Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of House Bill 1429. All those in favor say aye.

Those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill is adopted. Mr. Majority. Leader. Will the clerk please read the title to House Bill 1289?

Senator Weissman.

Is there any further discussion on the finance committee report? Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of the finance committee report. All those in favor say aye.

Those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the report is adopted.

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

Those opposed, no. The ayes haven't. The report is adopted.

Is there any further discussion on the bill?

There is an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please read amendment L-76?

Senator Kirkmeyer.

To the amendment.

Senator Weissman. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I do appreciate truly from the Senator, from Brighton, to see the amendments in advance. That's good respect, colleague to colleague members. Nonetheless, I do need to ask for a no vote. The issue we're talking about here and going back to the 25 bill is an example of what I call tax sovereignty, which is we are a dynamic conformity state. The feds sneeze, we catch cold. That can have budget impacts on us. There are two reasons I'm asking for a no vote on 76. One full-year impact of this is nearly $90 million. Right now we are narrowly over the TABOR revenue limit. Should we go below when things like wars and tariffs don't tend to have great macroeconomic impacts? Should we go below, this is going to drive dollar for dollar, $90 million in cuts, two things that we've talked about around here and that are important to us, like services and supports for IDD caregivers, like transportation. The other problem with 76 is what in tax we call horizontal equity. This fails to treat comparable taxpayers comparably, in that if you are working on an hourly basis, you might benefit from this. If you are working on a salary basis, even for a meager salary, like a lot of our public school teachers, you're not going to benefit. So I need to ask for a no vote.

Is there any further discussion on L-76? Seeing none, the motion is the adoption of L-76. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The no's have it, and the amendment is lost.

There is an amendment at the desk. will the clerk please read amendment l75 amendment l75 thank you mr chair i move l75 to 1289

partnership, we are requesting the removal and repealing provisions contained in HB 26-1289. Specifically, the amendment would remove sections 21 and 22 relating to the repeal of the fuel allowance provision and sections 23 24 26 and 27 relating to the repeal of the tobacco and nicotine allowances that support pre and proposition EE funding mechanisms These allowances are not subsidies or loopholes They were established to offset the substantial administrative compliance reporting and tax collection costs imposed on distributors and wholesalers acting on behalf of the state. So I ask for an aye vote on L-75.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. And as with the last amendment, I do appreciate the Senator giving me a chance to look at it before we're talking here today. Nonetheless, I need to ask for a no vote. Members, relative to the bill that is in front of us, 75 would remove over $2 million per year from preschool program funding. It would also remove millions of dollars from transportation funding. I know we want some of that transportation funding to fix the roads in Morgan County too. So respectfully, we need to ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in opposition to 26-12-89. as legislators we get a chance to tour some places within our districts. We get to talk to our constituents. We get to see how the machine works. We get to see the people who are really trying to earn a living in our districts. This last summer I had a chance to visit a distributorship in my district that was distributing and when I saw this bill, something just jumped right off the page at me. Big flags, big red flags. And I'm like, oh my gosh, I saw how that happens. It's incredible. So I think we can all agree in this chamber that slavery is probably a bad thing. Requiring people to work for free is probably a bad thing. contracting with folks and then just agreeing to not pay them for the work that they're doing is probably not a good thing. It's probably not anything that anybody would want to stand up for. And so I got to visit this distributorship, and they apply tax stamps to cigarettes. Now, this is normally something that the government would do. It's a government function. The government would apply a tax stamp that says the taxes and the fees or whatever were paid on this. We don't have a facility outside in the parking lot that applies these tax stamps. So what do we do? We ask the distributor to do this for us and we give them a credit to do this such thing. So we are contracting with the distributor to do work for the government. And we pay a price for that. There is a price for that. The distributor is not going to do this for free. They're not interested in working for free. So they accept the credit, the fee, to do this work. So I got a chance to visit with distributorship, and it was incredible. There was a warehouse, and there was a very cordoned off section that was high security. like all the employees couldn't get in there except for the one or two that had the ability or the clearance to be in there because What we're dealing with here is a tax stamp on cigarette packages. And so it was incredible how the order would come in for cigarettes and then the cartons would come along and they would be carefully opened and very carefully this machine would apply tax stamps to each packet of cigarettes that came through and then very carefully it would all get put back together and then it would be prepared for shipment out to whoever ordered that, whatever store ordered it. And so as I watched this process and the incredible security, all the very detailed equipment that it took to pull this off, I was amazed that, wow, yes, indeed, makes sense for the distributor to do it. But they shouldn't do it at their own cost. I mean, this is essentially a function of the government. And so I watched that and I realized that there was a credit that was applied to this process. The government, the state government is paying the distributor to put a tax stamp on. Pretty impressive operation, impressive work. And when I dug into 1289, I found that one of the sections within 1289 pulls back the credit, It pulls back the funding that we were going to give to that distributor to apply those tax stamps. And so we were just going to say, hey, you get to do that work for free. For the privilege of doing our job for us, we're going to not pay you for that. It was pretty interesting to see that component. And so I heard this bill in committee and I ran an amendment in committee that said, hey, instead of not paying the distributor for the work that they're doing, how about we bring that duty back and we just go ahead and have the state government apply the tax stamps instead of asking the distributor to do it for free? Makes sense to me. We're going to have a contract with somebody and we're not going to pay him. We can't really expect him to do that. And so that amendment was knocked down on committee. I was disappointed but not surprised. And so I thought there's got to be another way to approach this because this is a function. This is a job creator that's doing work inside of my district, inside of all of our districts, and yet we're asking them to do work on behalf of the government, and then we're not paying them for it. So I thought the next best way to handle this is to just go ahead and strike that piece out of the bill. And let's not ask this job creator business inside of my district, your districts, to do this for free. So with that, I have an amendment.

Amendment L-80.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And so amendment...

L-80 to 1289.

I just, yeah. I move amendment L-80 to 1289.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So what this amendment does is it essentially pulls that section out so that we're no longer asking this job creator, distributor in northern Colorado to do this work for free. And I feel like that only the right way to go about this We shouldn be asking our folks to do work for free I don think any of us would agree with that with that process And anyway I would encourage an aye vote on L

Thanks, Mr. Chair. We did chat a little bit about the tax stamp issue in committee. This is sort of a shrunken version of the prior amendment that was a more sweeping cut through the cigarette and nicotine excise tax parts of the bill. The way that I look at this is depending on our profession, a lot of us might sort of incur cost related to practicing a profession or being in a line of business. I pay hundreds of dollars a year to the Office of Attorney Regulation Council so that they can oversee attorneys generally and for the privilege of me to have an active status law license. I know if you're in child care, there's going to be regulatory costs with that. That is how I situate, you know, being in this business that has a history of being regulated, and I think appropriately so, and page 19 of the fiscal note will detail the various places to which funding flows from these taxes, more of which are voter approved than not. I think those are worthwhile endpoints. I'm going to ask for a no vote on this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, members, I sit on the Appropriations Committee, and we just heard this bill. Was it just Monday? Losing track of the days. I think we just heard this bill Monday. And this is a very, very complicated piece of legislation. What this bill does is it constitutes a wholesale restructuring of how Colorado approaches taxation. What stands out to me is the overall direction of the policy choices being made. We're tightening or eliminating broader-based provisions that apply on a whole wide range of taxpayers and topics while expanding or creating much more targeted incentives. And once you start going down that road, it becomes less and less about a consistent system and more about making a case-by-case decisions about who should benefit and who shouldn't. I can say this is very complicated. It's a different approach, and it produces a level of uncertainty that I don't think would be very helpful. I'll just say this. When people outside this building look at a bill like this, which virtually nobody outside this building has looked at, in fact, a lot of people inside this building have not looked at, they're not parsing every subsection. You know, this is a 75-page bill, and the fiscal note alone, of which there's been six different fiscal notes, of which each fiscal note is roughly 30 pages. Like I say, it's extremely complicated. They're not tracking every credit or add back. They're looking at the overall picture, and this picture paints one of consistent change, constant adjustment, and a tax code that's in motion year after year. Nobody, businesses, individuals, they don't know what to plan on. Is there an exemption one year tax credit this year it not here this year And that matters because predictability is a huge part of what makes a place like Colorado what once was attractive for investment That maybe not so true today. If the rules keep shifting, it's harder to plan, harder to commit, and harder to take risks. Are we moving towards a system that people can understand, that businesses can understand, that they can rely on and plan around? Are we moving toward one that's increasingly complex, increasingly tailored, and increasingly subject to change? And to my point, like I say, if you go through the fiscal note, which I'm not about to, but you just look at all the different changes and the sponsor of this bill, you know, we've offered at least three different amendments, at least three, probably more, where we tried to take a bill and just work around the edges and make it a little bit better. But no, it's perfect in this case. Everything that's been presented is absolute perfect. There's repealed tax credits. There's new sales and use tax, new exemptions, changes to the income tax credits. The list goes on and on. There's pages and diagrams here that people have probably hardly looked at. And, you know, I just have a hard time with all of this. Things are going fast and furious. I realize that we want things to move along, but I think the process needs to be slowed down a little bit. So with that in mind, Mr. Chair and members, I'm asking that the bill be read at length.

House Bill 1289, concerning modification of certain tax expenditures and in connection therewith making and reducing an appropriation, be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado, Section 1, Legislative Declaration, the General Assembly finds and declares that 1A, Regular evaluation and maintenance of the tax code is critical to a high-quality tax system. B, the Office of the State Auditor and the General Assembly regularly review tax credits, deductions, and exemptions, along with other tax expenditures, and recommend streamlining implementation, assessing ongoing fit with the original purpose, and eliminating outdated or ineffective tax expenditures. C, this act is a single-tax policy change that makes changes to existing tax expenditures and eliminates others to improve the administrative efficiency of the tax code, reduce administrative burden, better align certain tax expenditures with the General Assembly's intent in enacting the tax expenditures, and conform Colorado's tax code with provisions commonly used in other states so that Colorado is less of an outlier compared to the rest of the country in how taxpayers compute their taxes owed. D, any net district revenue gain resulting from the tax policy change in this act is incidental and de minimis. And E, therefore, consistent with the Colorado Supreme Court's holding in Tabor, found versus Regional Transportation District 2018 CO29 that a tax policy change that causes either no net district tax revenue gain or a net district tax revenue gain that is only incidental and de minimis does not require voter approval under Section 24A of Article 10 of the State Constitution. This act is not a tax policy change that requires voter approval. 2A, eliminating the administrative and bad debt allowance for fuel tax distributors serves the purposes of one reducing a duplicative benefit and two better aligning Colorado tax code with those of other states B according to the Office of the State Auditor 2019 valuation of the tax expenditure the Internal Revenue Service already provides a tax offset for bad debt and most surrounding states don't have a similar tax expenditure. C, any revenue gain realized as a result of eliminating the administrative and bad debt allowance for fuel tax distributors is incidental and de minimis. 3A, eliminating the vendor allowances for the cigarette tax, cigarette inventory tax, tobacco products tax, and nicotine product tax, serves the purpose of, one, better aligning Colorado's tax code with most other tax codes, which don't have similar allowances, to reimburse the cost of a tax collection, and, two, removes a redundancy in Colorado's tax code since businesses are already able to deduct these costs from their taxable income, be any revenue gain realized as a result of eliminating the vendor allowances for the cigarette tax, cigarette inventory tax, tobacco products tax, and nicotine products tax as incidental and de minimis, 4A, eliminating the sales tax exemption for property used in spaceflight better serves the purposes of 1. aligning the tax code with those of the vast majority of states that don't have a similar tax expenditure and 2. modernizes Colorado's tax code since the Department of Revenue's biannual tax profile and expenditure report shows that virtually no taxpayers claim the tax expenditure B. any revenue gain realized as a result of eliminating the sales tax exemption for property used in spaceflight is incidental and de minimis. 5A, eliminating the income tax deduction for wages and salaries because of Section 280C of the Internal Revenue Code serves the purpose of making Colorado's tax code more neutral between taxpayers. According to the Office of State Auditors 2019 and 2024 evaluations of the tax expenditure, only certain types of expenses and businesses qualify for the tax expenditure, which results in Colorado's tax code favoring certain types of business activity over others. B, any revenue gain realized as a result of eliminating the income tax deduction for wages and salaries because of Section 280C of the Internal Revenue Code is incidental and de minimis. 6A, reducing the fuel loss deduction tax expenditure from 2% to 1% serves the purposes of, one, better aligning the tax expenditure with how much fuel distributors lose in transit, and two, removes the redundancy in Colorado's tax code since distributors are already able to deduct those losses from their taxable income. B, any revenue gain realized as a result of reducing the fuel loss deduction tax expenditure is incidental and de minimis. 7A, restricting the enterprise zone, new employee health insurance tax expenditure so that it is only available to those businesses with fewer than 50 employees, serves the purposes of eliminating redundancy and better aligning the tax expenditure with the 56th General Assembly's intent in creating the tax expenditure. The 56th General Assembly created the tax expenditure to incentivize businesses and enterprise zones to offer health insurance to their employees, but as a result of the 2010 passage of the Federal Affordable Care Act, these businesses are already required to offer their employees insurance. Any revenue gain realized as a result of restricting this tax expenditure is incidental and de minimis. Eight, restricting the Enterprise Zone Research and Experimental Income Tax Credit serves the purpose of better aligning the tax expenditure with the 56th General Assembly's intent in creating the tax expenditure by limiting the tax expenditure to businesses that make the largest and most impactful increases in their research and developing spending. Any revenue gain realized as a result of restricting this tax expenditure is incidental and de minimis. 9A, the purpose of updating the method for Waters Edge combined reporting for future tax years is to better reflect the original. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Motion is withdrawn. Thank you, Mr. Schauffler. Thank you, Mr. Schauffler. And thank you, members.

Senator Zamora Wilson.

Senator Frizzell thank you Madam Chair Members we heard this bill in finance and it's just got a little bit in it for everyone, just sprinkles of different things. So I just am going to start off my conversation this evening with whose money is this that we're talking about? The revenue that this bill is going to generate comes from closing existing tax preferences, deductions, and exclusions that Colorado businesses currently rely on when planning investments, structuring operations, and deciding whether this state is worth the cost of doing business here. When the legislature eliminates those preferences, it takes money that businesses already counted on keeping. Let's call that what it is, a tax increase. I really want to concentrate a little bit on two items because we've heard about opportunity zones and opportunity zone investment is really important but I want to talk also about the innovative motor deduction tax credit because I find this to be particularly puzzling. We have, and so I'm, this fiscal note, as massive as it is, is chock full of amazing information. Amazing. And I especially found the chart, sorry, let me look, on page 13. So on page 13, table 2A, where it talks about income tax revenue impacts, This is an amazingly valuable piece of information right here, so I encourage you to flip to page 13 of the most recent fiscal note of the many fiscal notes that there have been. And that's okay because a bill this size and this complicated, it takes a few rounds to tweak it and totally understand. But I'd just like to point your attention to, oh gosh, a little bit more than halfway down on Table 2A, where the Innovative Motor Tax Credit is listed. And if you were to tie that with the bill, that would be Section 7 of the bill itself. So, this Innovative Motor Vehicle Tax Credit is also described on page 5 of the fiscal note, and it just goes on, and I want to be really clear about this. The Innovative Motor Vehicle Tax Credit is available for purchases of electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. The bill makes bidirectional changes to this credit for tax years 27, 28, as follows. So for tax year 2027, the base credit amount is being increased per this bill, for this policy, from $1,000 to $2,000. For tax year 2028, the base credit amount is being increased from $500 to $1,000, double both years. For tax years 2027, and 28, the bill allows an additional tax credit of $2,500 for purchases of qualifying vehicles with a manufacturer's suggested retail price, otherwise sometimes known as an MSRP, of less than $40,000. And then purchases of vehicles with MSRPs less than $35,000, they are already receiving this additional tax credit under current law. So let's be clear that we're expanding this tax credit considerably. Last, for tax years 2027 and 2028, the bill disallows the credit for purchases of vehicles with an MSRP greater than $50,000.

As am I, Senator Frizzell. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I just wanted to kind of put my thoughts about this, Bill, from that perspective out there for the world to digest The other thing that I really kind of wanted to talk a little bit about would be the wildfire hazard mitigation credit And so once again with this fantastic fiscal note God bless our fiscal analysts, page 13, table 2A. Interesting, the wildfire hazard line is right below the Innovative Motor line. And the information about that can be found on page 5 also. And so it's talking about how for tax years 2027 through 2030, the bills increasing the maximum credit from $1,000 to $2,000 raises the income limit for a landowner to be eligible for the credit from an inflation-adjusted limit of $120,000. to an inflation-adjusted limit of $300,000. So I'm guessing you have to make less money in order to avail yourself of this tax credit and allows for the credit to be carried forward for five years. It's also expanding the allowable cost for a landowner for which they can claim the credit. So I have a lot of experience with wildfire mitigation. I think that I've talked from the well about my experience during the Heyman Fire in the southwest area where I lived during the Heyman Fire. Don't live there anymore. And we underwent massive efforts towards wildfire mitigation, given the fact that the subdivision that I lived in was situated immediately next to Pike National Forest. And as it turns out, the federal government's never been great neighbors when it comes to forest health, at least in the past. Perhaps they're better now. And so we, as a community, worked really, really hard to mitigate our properties, to thin out scrub oak, cut down dead stuff, remove dead stuff, make sure that our trees were not infested with pine beetle. I mean, like, you can't really prevent that, but you can take measures. And so this is the thing, and this is my comment about this, is I feel like we need to encourage wildfire mitigation because one of the big issues that I hear about from my constituents, and I know you do too, is that insurance costs, homeowner insurance costs in the state of Colorado are insane. And a lot of it's because of hail and some of it's because of wildfire. It's both. Those are the two biggies, especially hail. Now, we should be having this conversation about how do we incentivize people to mitigate their property for wildfire? How do we do that? we should be having the conversation of how do we incentivize people to harden their roofs. Well, there was a bill for that this session, as a matter of fact, which is no longer, sadly. But this is a conversation that we need to keep having, and I would submit to you that we need to look at this wildfire hazard mitigation credit and perhaps not be rewarding people for buying EV cars because I don believe in incentivizing behavior but when it comes to really helping citizens in Colorado and communities together, trying to lower their homeowner insurance rates, this might be a really valuable conversation. It's one that I look forward to having at length next session. But perhaps I'm done for now, at least on that topic. And I find several things in this bill to be particularly concerning. And I'm just going to close because I know that I have some colleagues here who are very eager to chat. about this bill as well, so I don't want to hog the podium or anything, especially when our time together is so short. But I really wanted to also point out in Section 6 of the bill where the wage and salary deduction for businesses is being reduced. And I think that that's a really big problem. we are in this particular, just this one thing, right? It's like, oh, well, I'm just going to look at Section 6 here really quickly. So just in the bill summary, Section 6, because I'd be happy to read that whole Section 6 for you, but, you know, again, I want to be respectful of my colleagues here. So Section 6 for income tax years commencing on or after January 1, 2027, also eliminates the ability of corporations to deduct from their income tax liability any amount included in federal taxable income pursuant to, oh, here we go, Sections 951A or 951A, subparagraph A, again, not an attorney here, of the Internal Revenue Code with respect to a controlled foreign corporation. Wait, I think that I'm reading the wrong thing. Sorry, that was the second section six. For income tax years commencing on or after January 1st, 2027, repeals the state corporate income tax deduction for wages or salaries paid that are not allowed to be deducted at the federal level pursuant to Section 280C of the Internal Revenue Code. So in this way, we are conforming to federal code, which is fascinating because it feels like we're kind of trying to decouple when we can here. And I just want to say, with respect to this, we're removing a deduction for businesses. And I think that it's important to understand that there may be businesses that benefit from this and that we should not be penalizing folks who want to do business in Colorado and making it harder for them to be successful here. I ask for a no vote.

Thanks, Madam Chair. I'll yield the podium in a moment and allow the Senators from the West Slope to speak. but I didn want the senator from Castle Rock to feel that she was merely having a conversation of one So briefly members to what was just said Look the way that the EV credit features in here is in 23 we passed a big bill concerning how tax policy can help in our energy transition and help people save money the federal environment of tax policy was one thing at that time. It has subsequently gone into the wood chipper with some other provisions that used to be federal law and government. So we need to adjust what we're doing here. What's not changed is the tax credit goes away after the 28 tax year. We have been working on this part with CO since last fall. We are trying to land as close to net zero as we can. Some dollar figures do adjust up a tiny bit because a lot of federal incentive has gone away, but we're bringing down the maximum MSRP eligibility by tens of thousands of dollars. So a lot of people will, if they choose to buy a more expensive EV, great, they won't get the tax credit anymore. That's how we preserve general fund balance. Also, to the point of how this bill bears on the business base broadly, I just wanted to point out that many of the provisions here actually are aimed at businesses. Section 9, community food access, that is a business and small farm tax credit. SECTIONS 10 AND 12 FOR INDUSTRIAL CLEAN ENERGY, INCLUDING A NEW BIOMETHANE ALLOWANCE, GEOTHERMAL ENERGY, THOSE ARE BUSINESSES THAT CLAIM THOSE CREDITS. SECTION 13, THE HEAT PUMP CREDIT HAS ALWAYS BEEN DESIGNED SO THAT BUSINESSES CAN GET A PRETTY GOOD CHUNK OF IT. WE WANT TO PROMOTE THE BUSINESS SPACE AND SKILLED WORKERS TO INSTALL THAT TECHNOLOGY. IT CAN HEAT AND COOL AND SAVE PEOPLE A LOT OF MONEY. WE HAVE A NEW PURCHASE CREDIT FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION FUEL OR SAF. PEOPLE DON'T BUY SAF. BUSINESSES BUY SAF. WE ARE INCLUDING IN THE ADVANCED TAX CREDIT FRAMEWORK, OPTIONALLY, IT'S NOT A MANDATE, BUT OPTIONALLY, SELLERS OF BATTERY LAWN EQUIPMENT THAT WAS REQUESTED BY SELLERS, BY BUSINESSES OF THAT EQUIPMENT. WE'RE CONTINUING AFTER A BRIEF PAUSE THE ALLOWANCE FOR EQUIPMENT USED IN SPACE FLIGHTS. THAT IS ONE OF OUR MORE BESPOKE TAX PROVISIONS. That is for businesses. And starting 2027, we are resuming an enterprise zone tax expenditure for renewable energy projects in those enterprise zones. To the point of opportunity zones, Colorado taxpayers will continue to be able to get those tax benefits. All they have to do is invest their money in Colorado. The feds can say you're going to get a tax break if you're a Colorado taxpayer and you're doing a project in Nebraska. They can say that. I don't know why we as Colorado would give away tax breaks for people who aren't even investing in our state. So just a little bit of a way of response to some of the discussion we just had.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the good senator from the Air Force Academy talked a little bit about opportunity zones, And I was thinking about that because the governor was in Grand Junction yesterday for an economic development event, and he went on and on about opportunity zones and what a good thing those have been for the state of Colorado. Well, when you get to the fiscal note on this bill, House Bill 26-1289, page 3, starting for tax year 2027, the bill creates an addition to taxable income for the purposes of calculating Colorado income tax for certain investors in opportunity funds. Opportunity funds... are investment vehicles that invest in designated low-income areas known as opportunity zones. The federal opportunity zone program was scheduled to expire after 2026 and was permanently extended by the H.R.1. Investors who reinvest capital gains into qualified opportunity funds within 180 days may defer federal taxes on those gains. It is in the... If the investment is held for at least