Colorado House 2026 Legislative Day 070

Thank you. Please follow me in the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the Pledge of the Lord, of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Representatives Bacon. AML Bacon. Excuse. Barone. Basenecker, Bottoms, Bradfield, Bradley, Brooks, Brown, Caldwell, Camacho, Carter, Clifford. DeGraff. Duran. English. Espinoza. Ferre. Flannell. Froelich. Garcia. Garcia-Sander. Gilchrist. Representative Gilchrist. It's excused. Goldstein. Gonzalez. Hamrick. Hartsook. Jackson. Johnson. Joseph. Kelty. Leader. Representative Leader is excused. Lindsey. Luck. Lukens. Mabry. Marshall. Martinez. Morrow. McCormick. Wynn. Paschal. Phillips. Representative Phillips. He's excused. Richardson. Ricks. Representative Ricks is excused. Rutanel. Rydin. Sirota. Slaw. Smith. Representative Smith. It's excused. Soper. Rep Soper is excused. Stuart K. Stuart R. Representative Stuart R. It excused Story Sukla Taggart Titone Valdez A Rep Valdez is excused Velasco Weinberg Wilford Winter Woodrow Woog Zokai She's there.

With 61 present, 4 excused. We do have a quorum.

Thank you. Madam Speaker, I move that the journal of Monday, March 23, 2026, be approved as corrected by the Chief Clerk.

Assistant Minority Leader Winter and Representative McCormick. Good morning, everyone. It's Agriculture Day here at the Capitol. There's members from various agriculture groups out inside the Capitol that are looking to talk to you all. Please, take time to talk to them. As you all see, there's potatoes in the back. We'd like to thank agriculture for bringing those in. I represent an agricultural district, and I'm proud to do that. These people clothe us and they feed us. They get up before the sun comes up, and a lot of times they're done when the sun goes down. Growing up that way was a good way of life. It taught me values and work ethic, taking care of your neighbors, looking out for one another, and that's rural Colorado. And that's why I'm proud to represent those folks. I'm proud to be the representative of House District 47. And thank you for taking the time. There's a whole lot of people that want to say something about agriculture. I don't think they get their due enough in this building, so if everybody wouldn't mind taking a minute and hearing these members that have something important to say. Also, I just want to bring up the Colorado Farm Bureau has their night this evening. You should have got one of these cards. It's going to be a carboy winery, and it's from 5 to 7. So if you get a chance, there will be producers over there. stop by and say hello and God bless rural Colorado Representative McCormick Thank you Madam Speaker I really appreciate recognizing agriculture too I actually come from an agricultural county. People are surprised to hear that Boulder County has quite a few farms in our county and happy to support them in any way I can. Wanted to let you all know, you did get this on your desk last week, that in celebration of Agriculture Day today, CSU is providing lunch downstairs between 11.30 and 2. Maybe there's a chance we can be there. And then there will be remarks by the Ag Council and committee leadership and the Department of Agriculture at 1 o'clock in the west foyer. And as I mentioned yesterday, the mural is in the east foyer. I don't know how many of you got down there yesterday to take a look at that, but please make it a point to get down there and check out that beautiful mural that celebrates the history of agriculture across our state and across the decades. So here we are in celebration of ag. I got my two bags of potatoes ready to go.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Also, House District 48, ag and oil and gas. I'm very lucky to represent two big industries in the state, oil and gas and agriculture, work hand in hand. I haven't personally worked in agriculture, but I've worked on agriculture lands, and we take care of those lands because we understand that they feed us. So I totally support ag. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker and members. I just wanted to say how important agriculture is. This weekend I was driving around my district in Palisade and Cedar Edge and saw all the orchards in full bloom. It's about three weeks too early, so certainly keep our orchardists in your prayers, and I'm proud to be here with a fellow orchardist as well. But I grew up as a farm laborer. I, for eight summers, picked Olathe Sweet Corn. That's how I paid my way through college. And I will say it was hard work, but it was also rewarding work. And there's many people who wake up every single day working in some aspect of agriculture, whether it's the family farm or a component part of the ecosystem there. So support your farmers and make sure you buy local.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. My hometown, childhood town of LaSalle, Colorado, doesn't make the news very often, thankfully. But I just noticed when I grabbed my bag of potatoes, they come from Strohauer Farms in LaSalle, Colorado. So shout out to LaSalle.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I come here to this chamber as a farmer and a rancher, and I ran for office so that I could make a living to pay for the farm and the ranch, so thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and happy National Ag Day on behalf of House District 63. Blessed to have seven counties, six of which are in the top ten ag-producing counties of the state. excited that I grew up in agriculture 4-H FFA helps put the foundation for our future here in the state speaking of one of my seven counties and ag producing areas we do have Liberty School District here with a lot of our future if you will make sure to go and say hi to them afterwards they drove two, two and a half hours to get here for ag day so you could see youth in development and see what the future holds thank you to everyone in the state for feeding fueling and clothing the world Round of applause for the students here today

fuel the state and across the country, but we produce over a billion dollars of GDP worth of agriculture. And so our agriculture people are most important because the food that we put on the table comes from ag it does not magically appear in the grocery stores our farmers our ranchers who work very hard make sure they have a good harvest and a good season we must stand with our agriculture people it's an important part of the sector here in colorado and well county we say thank you don't make decisions uh for us make decisions with us representative martinez thank

that you have been asking for all year are back in the back corner right from my hometown of Monta Vista. Make sure that you thank some of the producers that are in the building today, and thank them for that, and enjoy your potatoes. Woo-hoo! Representative Richardson.

They're great folks. Great district. Farmers and ranchers are the heart and soul of the heritage of this state. Just to distill it down, they put food on our tables. They put fiber and leather out for our clothing, our shoes, grain and grape for liquor and wine. So without them, we would be hungry, naked, and sober. And nobody wants to live that way. So thank a farmer, thank a rancher.

proud North Dakota farmers and my district has a strong agricultural workforce and a lot of family representation. Representative Bottoms.

American Outpost, which is a collection of homeschoolers across the state and even more than that. And we have a strong Great American Outpost down in Colorado Springs, but we have the Littleton Great American Outpost right over here that is with us that are part of the homeschooling group, so let's acknowledge them. Thanks for joining us.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Judiciary Committee members. We're going to be meeting 10 minutes upon adjournment in room 107. We're going to hear House Bill 1290, House Bill 1283, House Bill 1138, and House Bill 1106. 10 minutes upon adjournment. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members of the Joint Technology Committee and the Joint Committee on Legislative Audit come to the old Supreme Court. We're having a roll call at 715. Please be on time. We're going to be talking about the Governor's Office of Information Technology, Cybersecurity, Resiliency, IT Performance Audit, Public Report, January 26th, Executive Session. And we're then going to have approval of minutes for LAC Interim Calendar and adjourn at 8.50. Please don't be late.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Health and Human Services Committee will meet upon adjournment today in room 112 to hear the following bills in this order. 1324, 1325, 1327, and 1092. We'll see you there. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Transportation, Housing, and Local Government Committee has an action-packed day upon adjournment in LSBA, 1196 and 1316 for action only, Senate Bill 25, Senate Bill 53, 54, 61, and the amazing 1318. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move to lay over Senate Bill 43 until tomorrow.

House Bill 1331 by Representatives McCluskey and Caldwell, also Senators Coleman and Simpson, concerning modifications to legislative interim activities and a connection therewith, reducing and appropriation.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1331 on third reading and final passage.

Yes. Representative Ricks votes yes.

House Bill 1332 by Representatives McCluskey and Duran, also Senators Rodriguez and Simpson, concerning the Legislative Department cash fund.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1332 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

concerning the payment of the expenses of the Legislative Department.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1333 on third reading and final passage.

Yes.

House Bill 1183 by Representatives McCormick and Duran, also Senators Cutter and Pelton B,

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1183 on third reading and final passage.

Representative Ricks, you are on mute.

Yes.

House Bill 1109 by Representatives Stuart Kay and Joseph, also Senator Danielson,

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1109 on third reading and final passage.

Thank you, Speaker. Again, I don't question the reasoning or the motives from the sponsors of this. I think they're trying to do the right thing. But this is my fourth year here, and we tried to work on something every single year that has to do with the deaf community It never accomplishes anything It never moves forward and I feel like this is kind of the same thing Now we're going to do a study. Well, we already know we've been debating this for at least my four years here. We know the deaf community needs stuff. We know just down in Colorado Springs, we've talked about this two years in a row, that the School for the Deaf and Blind need a lot of help. I would love to see this $350,000 actually moved to help instead of a study. I don't think studies actually ever accomplish anything. And so to me this is a bad use of this money. It's just another kind of spinning the wheel around but never getting anywhere with this. And so I'm strongly invested in the deaf community, very strongly invested. I have a lot of people that I work with regularly that are from the School of the Deaf and Blind in Springs, and I just think this should be a no vote. Let's put this money where it needs to go rather than another dead end, which is a study.

Yes.

House Bill 1308 by Representatives Basin, Eckern, Woodrow, also Senators Amabile and Ball,

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1308 on third reading and final passage.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just looking at some of the things that this is based on, we don't have a birth rate in the state that is supportive of this agenda. This is cutting lots. There are reasons that these properties are the size that they are. A lot of them are for water runoff to make sure that we replenish our aquifers. That is why, being in a high desert, a lot of these areas were cited for that, like you might not be able to have more than one house inside of an acre for a lot of these. The demographers trying to go through their website, they are mysteriously expecting, despite a declining birth rate, they're expecting somehow after 2025, total fertility is expected to increase slightly. why I don know they don really say they just somehow come across the number of thirty four thousand one hundred now what we have is we don have units per year We do know that the housing rate has been outpacing the growth rate for a number of years We have a record number of vacancies, and we're continuing to build. We're continuing to build to the point where now we're saying, well, we want to penalize the areas for not having their vacancies filled. And instead of dealing with the actual rising cost of housing by dealing with the regulation, dealing with the other costs involved, we are taking this idea and we're violating the zoning. And, you know, looked it up yesterday. The sponsor is correct. It's a zoning as a police state action, not a contract. But it is like a contract in the sense that you have people that voluntarily live in that, and they make an agreement with the state in order to live in that area in accordance with the requirements set forward by the state. And it's perfectly voluntary because you can buy someplace or you can not buy someplace. You could move out to an incorporated area. But if you want to live someplace and have less commute, you're going to live in those areas that allow you to live proximately with other people. And now what the state is doing from, and this is not about local control. This is not about individual control of the property. This is about the state stepping in and saying, we know better. We're going to require you, not going to authorize communities. We are going to require communities to cut these lots up. And what's going to happen is that's going to benefit a few people, and then you're going to devalue the property of everybody else who signed on and you're basically saying to all of Colorado that you should not trust the state of Colorado. Now, I think that's pretty obvious, but it's going to make that statement loud and clear for the rest of the world. That Colorado is not going to abide by its own restrictions. It's not going to protect your property rights. And then what you're going to have is you're going to have demonstrated easily with all the current regulations that you can quickly go from a factor of safety of, say, 50% for civil engineering, I think is correct, but you can quickly take the number of people in an area, and you have to make the assumption that that entire area is going to go that way because eventually the only thing that people will be able to do with their property is to sell. And, I mean, that was stated from the well. We don't care what you do. Just sell your property and we'll find somebody that will follow our rules. And that's going to be the corporate. That's going to be the corporate that have enough money to evade the challenges, evade the things like asbestos that are driving up the cost. We could deal with that. That's going to sap $20 to $40 million out of the economy every year. We're not dealing with that. And instead what we're going to do is we're going to try to solve the housing problem by nearly instantaneously devaluing the property of everybody in Colorado. And so zoning maybe is not in the definition, the specific definition of contract because it is a police state function, but it is a voluntary agreement between people to live in accordingly in order to that in order to maintain their property values in order to in order to you know again live proximately and the state and then allow water to uh seep in you know get into the ground, and now the state has come in, and, you know, with SimCity 4, apparently, apparently this was all done with SimCity 4 because that's the best one, that we're just going to come in and we're going to say, Denver knows best, this is for the greater good, sit down, shut up, and color. So one thing that we know from history is that for the Greater good never is, and this is an example.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's an honor to serve with you. Honor to serve with you. Members, there's a lot to unpack there. I will just offer a couple statistics. This comes to us from a nonpartisan think tank talking about people in your districts. In Larimer County, 79.9% of people cannot afford a home at the price they are currently being built. In Adams County, that's 72.7%. El Paso County, 72.1% of people cannot afford a home. Arapahoe County, 71.5%. Boulder County, 68.9%. Jefferson County, 68.6%. Mesa County, 68.1%. Broomfield County, 65.9%. Weld County, 65.5%. Douglas County, 65.2%. Pueblo County, 62.5%. Denver County, 60.8%. I'm not a Denver legislator. I like working here. But I can tell you my county is at the top of that list. And our local governments are doing everything they can to solve this problem. I suspect the same is true of your local governments. But what we know about housing and affordability is it doesn't happen in a vacuum, it doesn't happen in a bubble, and you can have one jurisdiction doing everything right because housing markets work the way they do. It doesn't mean that if another neighboring jurisdiction isn't doing the same thing, that housing is going to be impacted in terms of price. We have to look at this at a statewide and regional level. The reason why those numbers are so high are not because we're not building homes. We are not building starter homes. Those price points do not exist in our market today. In the 1980s, 40% of our housing supply was that starter home product, meaning that if you were a first-time homeowner, you had a product that you could consider. If you were an older adult looking to downsize, there was a product on the market for you. Today, 9%. It is impossible to divorce zoning from those decisions. What currently happens, and you don't blame the builders for this, is they will buy a lot and they will build as much house as they can on that lot. Meaning in Denver, for example, or in my neck of the woods, if there's a 700 square foot bungalow, they'll scrape that bungalow and build a McMansion. Why would they do that? Because they're getting the most return on their investment that they can get. they have no other options. If we allow them, if we allow you to split your lot, now you're talking about two smaller homes on that lot. You're talking about the ability to actually save resources, to save water because we know that smaller homes use less of all those things They cheaper This is choice for the homeowner If you don want to split your lot nothing compels you to do that But for the sake of private property rights and the ability to do what you want with your land, and I remind you, you bought your land, you did not buy your neighbor's lot. This is that choice. The bill exempts HOAs. The bill accounts for water and resource scarcity, to say that if you cannot provide those things, you can't build housing. The bill accounts for fire and other instances. This is about choice. And if we want to talk about local control, this is the localist of control, where you, the property owner, can do what you need to do with your land to either secure your long-term future or find a home that works for you and your family. So we'd ask for a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yeah, there's a lot to unpack there as well. This is a developer bill. This is a developer bill to allow developers to come in and gently infill by tapping in to existing infrastructure with absolutely no regard for what is going to happen from there. Now, if you want to deal with the cost of affordability of homes, let's deal with the regulation. We know that's going to be 30% and up of the cost of the home. The cost of the home is going to drive up the cost of rent, and that's going to drive up the cost of rent across the board. There are, those regulations have been added in recent years. You roll those back, you decrease the cost of a home by 30%, and then you get a large, you get an actual affordability, and you can do that. What we shouldn't do in this room is go and say, well, we're going to ignore the problems that were created by this room, because I guarantee you, any time you have the people who created the problem solve the problem, you get a bigger problem. This is a bigger problem because what it does is it steps in and it violates the property rights of everybody surrounding. Yes, it does allow somebody to circumvent the – it does allow certain individual property owners, the first ones in, to divide their property, capitalize on that, sell for a profit, devalue all the properties beside them. And then you leave them with the only option of selling their property and then cramming more houses in. Now, I know for the 15-minute cities that this is ultimately the goal, but it is a violation of individual property rights that the individuals entered into with the state. They said, yes, we will abide by your police state actions, and we will live in these zones, and we expect that this will protect our property values, and then we have an actual investment. Now what the state is doing is coming in and saying, we know better. SimCity 4.0 told us, and we are going to override that. And we are going to chop your property up, and we're talking about 1,200. We're talking about one. I mean, one, the way it would read, is 800 square feet. I mean, and you look at cutting your setback from 40 feet to 30 feet. You basically have room for a shed. That's not a starting home. That's a shed. do what you can which is here don't assume that everything you've done here is good what you need to do is undo the damage that has been done here and then the property values will come then the price of housing will come down then people will be able to afford a home You're still, he touched on it, why do you build a McMansion? Because you have to recoup your fixed costs. Harvard has a building that's five by five or something like that. It's the most expensive building on the entire Harvard Yard. And it is, and it's expensive because it's five by five. And you have the most expensive building you could build would be a one-by-one. And so you have to recoup all of those costs. And so this room has put it in place where you have to build a McMansion and then criticizes for building a McMansion. That's not going to change. What you're going to create, because you have a certain level of fixed cost, when you talk to builders that are doing single properties that are having to deal with these asbestos. One just got tapped for $40,000 for having a piece of asbestos on the yard, had to scrape. They came CDPHE and scraped three inches of topsoil off half the yard.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. you don't have starter homes because of what this room has done this room is responsible for the housing crisis this will not solve it this is going to just simply devalue the properties across the state of Colorado it sends a signal that Colorado can't be trusted it can't and it's not going to solve the crisis, which is doubtful that it exists because we don't have a population that's growing and the housing rate has gone up. So this is about an agenda that's far more than what we're talking about here. It's not dealing with that at all. This is about corporatizing housing, and this is about violating individual property rights.

Thank you, ma'am, chair. Speaker, sorry, I apologize. Thank you. You know, I agree wholeheartedly with my colleague from El Paso County, and I do believe this bill is actually a disguise. It is a disguise in saying that they want to increase the ability to build more homes, more affordable homes. It's not. When my colleague mentioned McMansions, that's about pretty much what's going to happen. We've seen these massive houses being crammed together. You're just going to see more of that. We do have a problem with housing, but this is not the solution to do it. You can't disguise things under the guise that you're saying that you want more housing built when really what it's going to do is make the rich richer. The problems with this bill and how it's not going to do what you intended to do is because the cost of building a house, the high cost of building a house, is the fault of under this dome. We've put so many laws out there, so many regulations on building. it's not going to lower the cost of building a home. We have international building codes that we saw. That's going to raise everything from $20,000 to $30,000 a home. I mean, with all the regulations you put on our developers and on all of our builders, it will not do what you think this bill is going to do It not going to lower the cost of building a starter home It doesn matter where you put it It's going to cause areas of mass cluster population, number one. It's going to cause people to think that they're going to be able to afford their property taxes. They won't be able to, number two. And it's not going to save water. Like, I don't understand that. It's actually going to increase water in certain populations. When you flush the toilet for one home, it takes up a certain amount of water. When you flush it for three homes on the same property, guess what? That's three times the amount of water. It's not going to save anything. It's not going to save water. It's not going to save pricing. It's not going to save the cost of building a home. It's not going to save the ability for people to be able to afford a starter home. If we really want that to happen, we will lower or take away a lot of the regulations that we have put on our builders. We make it much more affordable to build the home. It's the only way you're going to lower costs. Lower the rest of the cost of living as well. from groceries to fees to everything else that we slap on the people of Colorado. This bill is not the answer. And then you slap a safety clause on it, which takes away the voice of the people to be able to say, hey, maybe this is not what we want. Let's step back and think for a minute. As the people of Colorado, there are bosses, or should be. It's not your voice that matters at all. It's theirs. This bill is not going to save anything, and it's not going to save Colorado. I'm asking everyone to really think about this, and please vote no.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Again, I normally don't come up here on Thursday. I promise you I will not take a full ten minutes. I just want to address some of the remarks that were made up here in this well. When we want to work towards affordable housing, I think we should really take a look in the mirror and understand that the policies that this body, both the House and the Senate, over the last nine, even ten years, have pushed on the people of Colorado, which make it increasingly unaffordable. And while we continue to provide tax credits, that alone does not address the root cause of the cost of living, whether it's groceries or energy or housing. In this particular bill, I think that we should also consider many aspects that there are unaffordable housing, and that is, for starters, the regulations that my colleague from El Paso just mentioned were the six most regulated states in the country, These regulations take time. They take money. It adds up costs. It drives up the cost. When we continue to have a very slow and complicated and complex permitting process, I think that also complicates things for people who want to build. When we continue to push laws that cause frivolous lawsuits, litigations for anybody to be sued for any reason, by anyone, for anything, I think the developers and the builders, they see that as a liability, and they don't want to do business here alone. And you're starting to see businesses not only shut down, but pull out of Colorado altogether. and what you're ultimately going to have is you're going to have corporations running everything and I think one of the things too that we should understand about this policy is the stakeholding process with it and you know I don't I understand the intentions of the sponsors of wanting to the root cause this policy but I think we continue to go after landlords and I think landlords are a big part of the equation when we want to have affordable housing because tenants need landlords and landlords need tenants you know and I hear from many landlords not only in my district but across the state who say we're done we cannot continue to keep up with these policies that come from the gold dome because they continue to prioritize tenants over landlords and while there needs to be a balance and protections for yes the tenants they're Also be a protection for landlords. You know, there are bad tenants and there are also bad landlords, but not all of them are all bad people. And I think we need to understand that when we're trying to address affordable housing and making sure that we have housing for all or affordability, we should be addressing and looking at those aspects as well because it is important. And, you know, I invite you, if you have not done so, talk to some of your landlords in your district to get a good understanding of what these policies are doing to them because these are not big, giant entities. These are mid-level landlords who are suffering like the rest of us here in Colorado. And so, you know, I would like to support this bill, but I cannot. So I urge everybody to vote no.

Speaker, thank you.

Look, I guess there's a couple of different ways that you can view folks coming up here into the well and speaking. I just feel particularly argumentative. I suppose you probably could look at it that way. I look at it instead of this is a topic that obviously there needs to be a lot of discussion around. And there is not necessarily the easy kind of off-the-shelf solution. And some of the solutions that are being brought forward, we're just not entirely comfortable with. Now, I have said before, I'll say again, that I very much appreciate my colleague from Larimer County, his work in this space. This is not the only affordable housing related policy that you will see from the representative from Larimer County. And that's because working very hard in this space to try to find solutions. I will tell you that right there of the number of counties that were mentioned that he brought up in statistics, Douglas County was right there. And Now it wasn't top five. But Douglas County was on that list, and I understand that. I won't attempt to argue that Douglas County has had issues, continues to have issues, and has a lot of work to do in the affordable housing space. I get that. However, I just do not believe that this is the policy that addresses that adequately. The conversation has started to turn a little bit, which I appreciate. I believe that my colleague from El Paso brought up the whole picture. I want to dive into that a little bit more. That land cost is not the single contributing factor, not the single deciding factor to increase in housing prices. yes it has played a part but to say that we're able to surgically go in and attack this from a land standpoint by lot splitting doesn't address the other issues it doesn't address the other pieces i find that to be a common theme here is that a lot of times we're not really trying to get at the root cause. We're trying to find a solution, and I applaud those efforts because there is a solution that does need to be found. However, we're not driving at the root cause. My mind, some of the other factors that contribute to an affordability issue have to do with even labor costs, construction costs, materials costs. That's just on the construction side. The labor and materials just on the construction That driving towards it You want to go even further about labor and materials specifically You can talk about how that impacts the infrastructure the impact fees I know that in Castle Rock, we had to increase our impact fees. That's what you're paying right off the bat, to be able to get your sewer lines and your water lines, everything that you need to be able to connect to the municipality in the ground to make that a home one that you would even want to consider buying. Those impact fees go up every single year. And that's very difficult for me to sit and witness, but those impact fees are also driven by material costs and by labor costs. We're not even having, in this discussion, the conversation about the impact of rising insurance costs and property taxes. and property taxes are a major, major impact in all of this. But yet we're looking at splitting lots. We're looking at, in this policy, saying that it's really the lands that is driving the prices up and it's the lands that we need to address. I get, look, I've sat in so many, and we'll continue through the end of this year, public meetings about land use. I understand the not in my backyard attitude. I get it. I see it. However, I don't believe that it's wise for us to just summarily dismiss that. That is a concern. If you buy a large lot because you want the peace and quiet, you want the views, you want the things that afford that area through the zoning that has been painfully decided, and then somebody comes and then builds another home behind you, beside you, wherever that is, look, you tell me that you wouldn't be annoyed a little bit. That you moved to a specific area for a specific reason to be able to attain, and this is particularly profoundly true in Douglas County. The open space, the peace and quiet, public safety notwithstanding, the open space and the peace and quiet are major contributing factors to why people are looking to build in Douglas County. Does that mean that there is probably some unaffordable homes? Yeah, you bet. But I'll tell you that there's a developer that I spoke with recently that wanted to come to market with $900,000 homes. I'm not trying to make an argument that that's affordable, that that's a starter home. I get that it's not. It was never meant to be in this particular area. However, because of delays with construction, increase in costs in materials, and all of the other external factors that go far beyond the land, those homes now are looking at hitting the market somewhere closer to 1.7, 1.9, upwards of $2 million because the developer has needed to be able to get that cost back because of all the external factors that go into his development. That doesn't get solved by lot splitting. That doesn't get solved by this particular piece of policy. even to be able to build quote-unquote affordable, which would be an AMI whatever your idea of that is it 60 AMI whatever that is even to be able to build that builders developers are having to use LIHTC They're having to use MIHA credits to be able to, you know, the low-income housing tax credits for LIHTC. They're having to use those credits in order even to get those built. And with a lot of those becoming more difficult to come by, now the increases on the other regular for market side are increasing. My point is simply this. When I've talked long enough, I probably can't say simply. But my point is this. There are so many different factors that go into this. I do applaud the work that my colleague from Larimer County is trying to provide in this space, and I know that he will continue to provide in this space, and there's a lot of times that he's not wrong. There are very many pieces that we need to address. This, however, I believe is just going a little too far and actually creates more just difficulty, strife, neighbor to neighbor with the entire development conversation, I would ask for a no vote on this and ask that we continue to work on some other things.

Thank you, Speaker. This will increase property taxes because when you do some kind of addition, you do some kind of upgrade, if that's what this is considered. I see it as a downgrade, but it would increase property tax. But let me give you the path of affordable housing. It doesn't matter what state you're in. This is the path for everywhere for affordable housing. First is mobile home, then modular home, then townhome condos, and then starter homes, and then you go up from there. It's interesting that the group of people that are trying to say, hey, I have a fix on this, are the same people three years in a row that have put all kinds of requirements on mobile home parks and attacked mobile home parks and are going to put some of them out of business. Now, that's the first step of affordable housing. There has been more regulations on all housing, which includes the modular homes, which makes it more difficult for that step. We actually had legislation come out of this building nine years ago, ten years ago, that made it very easy to sue townhomes and condos. And most people don't realize this, but we did not build townhomes and condos in the state of Colorado for eight years. Common Sense Institute put out a lot of statistics about that. Not one condo or townhome in eight years. Why? Because of the regulation coming out of this building. Well, that is a major, a major step in affordable housing. And the same group that is trying to fix it now is the same group that made that impossible to build those. And about a year and a half, two years ago, we started building condos and townhomes again. That's a very important step. And so to destroy all of that and then jump straight to starter home or smaller housing to say that's our goal, well, this bill does nothing to accomplish that. This room has destroyed that first three layers, really four layers, and then trying to say, well, let's jump over all of those and do these starter homes. But this bill has nothing to do with starter homes Zero This has to do with putting something else on your own existing property A tiny home something like that that you can put off of the side a renovated shed whatever they got planned for this, but you've already destroyed all of the beginning, but now you come back and say, well, we have the new plan. The new plan is we're going to lot split and put all these extra spaces, whatever they are, on the existing property. This does nothing to help. It continues to hurt. Always be careful when the people that destroyed everything comes and tells you they have the new solution, and that's what's going on right here.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I believe this solution, one of the main solutions and the priority solution is staring us in the face. So when I go home, I go to Union Station, and I get on the train, and I take it to the airport. And as I'm riding that train, I'm looking out the window, and I see all of these warehouses, all these different buildings that are abandoned. They have spray paint all over them. I talked to a developer where I live that would have no skin in the game about this solution. He said that it's, and I brought this up before, you buy whiskey by the barrel, you sell it by the lot, by the shot, you buy land by the acre, you sell it by the lot. But what we need to be doing is we need to, and this is something that is very interesting. I own a real estate company. It costs half price of what a house in Kansas, in the state of Kansas, it's half price to buy a home than it is in the state of Colorado. Half price. Why? Two by four costs the same in Kansas as it costs in Colorado. The reason is because of the regulations. When we were in transportation, we had an idea. I don't remember which representative brought it, but the idea was talking about co-ops. There's only 10 of them in the state, never heard of them before. And why don't we take all of the infrastructure is already there. The roads are in place. The water is in place. The electricity is in place. Let's clean up the city of Denver, and let's turn all of those warehouses that are spray painted into affordable housing. and that would be the first start of doing this so that when I'm riding that train, everybody else is riding that train, they're going to see some beautiful, beautiful co-op housing and that would be the start. Let's clean up the city by the infrastructure that's already available there and let's do that with these warehouses and that would be the start to our cure for affordable housing. Thank you.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1241 on third reading and final passage.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just wanted to go over what this bill does, and I appreciate the representative from Douglas County letting me add into this as a provider in this state so that the carriers aren't out of money and the providers aren't out of money. We have providers in the state that are not getting contractual changes from the carriers because they're just going through Snell Mail, and it gets buried. This bill, like many of the bills I've seen in Health and Human Services, adds an email component to what's already regulated in state and then allows a provider to spend their money if they want this contractual changes received via mail. It is no cost to the carriers. It is only a cost to the providers if they opt out of the email system. These involve rate changes, reimbursement changes, and can affect patient affordability when they come to our clinics. Thank you for letting me get on this bill. Thank you for letting me make it better. I'm just kidding. I'm not, but it's a great bill. and for the providers in the state who continue to face shortages and cuts by this assembly, this is a good bill so that we are in the know of what contractual and material changes happen in our contracts so that we can best support patients. I urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move the following bills be made special orders on March 24, 2026 at 10.18 a.m. House Bill 1339, House Bill 1214, House Bill 1242, House Bill 1260, House Bill 1188, House Bill 1006, House Bill 1197, and House Bill 1269.

Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1339.

It started with members of our communities who came forward with painful stories of sexual abuse and rape and who asked something very simple of us, to listen and to not look away. When serious allegations of sexual assault and abuse are raised, especially by those who have carried that pain in silence, We have a responsibility to respond with integrity. As a survivor of domestic violence, I know what it means to question whether your voice will be heard. I know what it feels like to carry something heavy and wonder if anyone will believe you, see you, and hear you. And I also know what it means when someone finally does. That is why this bill removes Cesar Chavez Day from the Colorado statue. This bill is not meant to erase history, not to dismiss the labor movement, but because when we choose who we honor in law, we must be willing to reevaluate that honor when harm is brought to light. And we must be willing to center those who too often go unheard. But this bill does more than that. It creates something stronger, something broader, something that belongs to the people. It was always meant to recognize our farm workers, because this story has never been about one person. It has always been about the workers. In Colorado, agriculture is not a small piece of our economy. It is the cornerstone. It generates roughly $47 billion in economic activity every year and supports over 195,000 jobs across this state. In rural Colorado farm workers make up a crucial part of the workforce helping sustain local economies and communities every single day And many of those workers are our families who make up a significant share of the agriculture workforce and help keep this industry moving forward. But behind every number is a story, a family, a sacrifice, a legacy. I know that because it's my story. I'm the daughter of migrant farm workers. My family worked in the fields. My mother worked in those fields. She would wake up before the sun, work long days, and she would still come home to take care of her family. She believed in the promise of this country, even when that promise didn't always show up for her. And like many families, our journey was not easy. There were moments of struggle, moments where survival was not guaranteed, and moments that shaped who I am today. As a survivor, I understand resilience in a very personal way, the kind of resilience that is not loud, the kind that does not ask for recognition, and the kind that keeps going anywhere, anyway. This is the same resilience I see in the farm workers across Colorado. This bill is about honoring them, the workers who harvest our food, the families who pass down traditions of strength and sacrifice, the communities whose contributions are often invisible but absolutely essential. Farmworkers are not a footnote in our history. They are the backbone of it. And today we have an opportunity to recognize the truth in a way that is inclusive, forward-thinking, and rooted in dignity. By creating Farmworkers Day, we are not taking anything away. we are giving something back. Back to the people who have carried this work for generations. Back to the families whose stories deserve to be centered. Back to a community that has shaped Colorado in ways we can never fully measure. This is about listening to survivors. This is about honoring workers. And this is about aligning our laws with our values. And let me be clear about what this moment means. To our Latino community, this is not about turning our backs on history. It's not about, it is about telling the truth about it, holding it with honesty, and choosing to honor the people who carry that history on their backs every single day. We can be proud of where we came from and still have the courage to grow. We can honor our roots and still say that harm has no place in who we choose to lift up. And to survivors, especially those in our Latino community, we have too often been told to stay quiet, to protect reputations over truth, to endure instead of speaking out. I see you. I believe you. And today, this body has an opportunity to stand with you, not in words, but in action, because silence has never protected us, but accountability can. This bill sends a clear message that we will not ignore harm, no matter how difficult the conversation, that we will not elevate legacy over lived experience, and that in Colorado survivors, we'll never have to wonder whose side we are on. We are on your side. And at this time, we're lifting up the true hearts of this story, the farm workers, the families, the generations who rose before the sun and built this state with their hands. This is not about erasing. This is about restoring. Restoring dignity, restoring truth, and restoring honor to the people who have always deserved. So today, we choose courage, we choose honesty, and we choose to stand with both survivors and the community that shaped so many of us. I respectfully ask for your yes vote today.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It is truly an honor to serve with you. Members of the committee, it is with heartache and with sadness and with anger and joy that I co-prime House Bill 1339 with Majority Leader Duran. My heart aches for the victims who were silenced, ignored, or who feared exposing the man for the predator that he was. My sadness is for the way this country continues to uplift predators, rapists, child molesters, child rapists as heroes instead of holding these people accountable. I'm grateful that Dolores Huerta finally built the courage to expose the abuses of the man who has been hailed as a hero of a movement. I'm grateful to the brave women who were assaulted as girls who never gave up the drive to bring this man to justice. And sadly, these same women and others who are still grappling with the abuses will never see true justice because Cesar Chavez is dead, much like the Epstein victims and survivors. But today, we can continue the process to remove the constant reminder that protecting these men is more important than justice for victims by changing Cesar Chavez Day to Farm Workers Day. This is where I find joy. Esmeralda Lopez, one of Chavez's victims, said, the movement, that is the hero. Chavez was just a man who helped lead a movement, but he did not do it alone. There were thousands leading this movement. The farm workers were the ones who held the line for fair work practices and pay. The thousands of women like my grandmother and my aunt who worked the fields and raised their kids. They sacrificed. They risked everything for this movement. By renaming this day as Farm Workers' Day, we are honoring the movement and the thousands who fought and continue to fight for fair work practices for farm workers. We are not honoring a man. My grandmother, my dad, my aunt, and my uncle, they were migrant farm workers back in the day. They would travel the harvesting circuit and pick potatoes, onions, peaches, and corn. They would have to shack up with dozens or so farm workers, men and women, in shacks during the harvest, jump on the back of trucks, hitchhike, or spend precious cents they earned per bushel, barrel, or basket for bus tickets to the next job. This state honors workers like them and the countless workers, women workers, women fighters, who have largely been forgotten while the country and this state honored a single abusive man. And we can correct that today. By creating the Farm Workers Day, we have the opportunity to elevate this population who make it possible for you and I to have food on our tables, who do the grueling work and the grueling heat or the bitter cold so we can feed our families, who work day in and day out so that the crops don't spoil. And yet even today we see efforts to roll back the rights these farm workers have fought for so hard Why are farm workers unique and why do we need to make sure this movement continues It because they as well as domestic workers are exempted from overtime protection in the Fair Labor Standards Act nearly 90 years ago. When most employees get overtime after 40 hours, those who are responsible for our ability to eat healthy and nutritious food are not given this protection. and what we are seeing happening is to not even give them this protection until 60 hours. That's a shame. Naming March 31st as Farm Workers' Day will only help keep the original and continued basis for this movement front and center while providing a small concession to the victims and survivors of the exploitation and abuse women experience in all spaces. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and it's an honor to serve with you. It's an honor to serve with you as I am the chair today. Chair, thank you, Madam Chair. Sorry, it's like a second Monday. Members, I also rise in support of this bill for perhaps similar but also different reasons from the sponsors. certainly it's appropriate to get away from a day named for a specific person after all the impetus behind having a day like Cesar Chavez Day was to recognize farm workers so let's name the day for who we're really celebrating the men and women who work tirelessly to help harvest the crops that Colorado so desperately depends on. Agriculture is Colorado's largest economic sector. And there's 42,000 men and women who work in agriculture here in Colorado. 6,000 of those are H-2A workers, predominantly from Mexico. For eight summers, I was also a farm laborer. I picked Olathe sweet corn, waking up every single morning at 4 a.m., and you dealt with whatever came from the environment to hit you. I mean, some days were hot, some days had the heavy dew, and tractors got stuck. Some days the topper didn't make it into the field ahead of you, so you had the tassels of the corn in your face. There were always different things that were faced. But what I will say is that I didn't just depend on the hourly wage. We also had incentive payments for the amount of corn we could pick as a crew and be able to get those out. Aside from my brother, everyone else was from Mexico. Aside from myself, everyone else learned Spanish. But what I will say is I probably made more in those eight summers picking sweet corn than I have really any year since, certainly with this job. And especially for the individuals who are part of the H2A program. Those individuals will go back to their home country. They're also farmers in their home country. They invest in their own farm. whether it's in Mexico or Argentina or whichever country it is, and they make valuable investments back. And I remember one year meeting the son of one of the workers and he was proud because he was going to be going to college at well at that time it was Mesa State College now it Colorado Mesa University And he was proud of the fact that his entire family was being uplifted. And this is a form of, I would say, diplomacy because it's access to learning about the American culture, earning a wage that you never would have earned in your home country, and then also looking at that long-term vision of being able to uplift that family. But that's only 6,000 out of 42,000 farm workers. So who are these other farm workers? Well, it's easy to stand and to say that there's a difference between the farmer who owns the land and the farm worker. But they're the same. the farmer who owns the land he or she is going to be waking up also at 4 a.m. or earlier or if you're a rancher all throughout the middle of the night especially during calving season they're the same and it's really important that we remember that they're the same workers I had a conversation over this weekend with one of my friends who's an orchardist and he said that for many years he actually didn't take a dime. They didn't know how they were going to make it. They continued to mortgage more and more fields and he said he continued to make sure that anyone that was working for them was put first. They put all their investment there. But he said it was touch and go throughout the mid-90s to the mid-2000s and that they did not know if they were going to make it. And he said if they had failed, there would have been dozens and dozens of individuals that relied on being able to work in the peach orchard industry that would not have had a job. And he said they obviously knew that many, many families relied on them and that they put every effort into trying to expand new markets to be able to obviously pray for whether it was not having a late frost or for more rain or snowpack. It seems like farming is so unpredictable. And farming is also not like factory work, which is also really important that we make sure we make this distinction clear.

No.

Keep going. If that was water being knocked over, we are in a drought. But to continue on, it's really important that we make the distinction for why farming is not like factory work. If you're working in a factory, you just pass the cost of labor onto the consumer. So you just raise the widget price, dollar more, to pay for any increase in cost. Farming is not the same way. Farmers don't get to dictate what price the buyer will pay. They'll be told by the wholesalers, this is the price we're going to pay for your fruits or your vegetables or a pound per beef or lamb. And they're really beholden to that. So that means to make ends meet, you really need to be focused on the efficiencies on the other side Also unlike factory work when the harvest is on the harvest is on Meaning, when peaches are ripe and they need to be picked, or the corn is ripe and it needs to be picked, you try to time it really well with staggering when you've planted the seed in the fields. but you may have a great year with warm days and cool nights and even though you tried really hard to stagger your fields all of a sudden you have everything on at one time and you need to work really around the clock to be able to get that harvest out otherwise no one makes a dime and fruit or vegetables left in the field is completely lost that's no one gets anything at that point in time. Farming is beholden to the weather. You don't know if we're going to have a El Nino movement in which there's rain, say in August or September. That can also disrupt the harvest. Everything is so dependent on what happens in the weather. And there can be days when, as a farm worker, you're ready, you're willing, you're able to get out and pick, but You can't. Either you had some cold weather or you had rain that delayed things, and so you're basically sitting at home twiddling your thumbs doing nothing. And so then when you can get into the fields or the orchards, you definitely want to give it your all, especially knowing that there are those incentive payments. It's important to understand how that payment system works because it is definitely not at all like the factory worker side. And I do want to make that clear. Lastly, for why I'm really proud that we're naming this Farm Worker Day, throughout my district, we actually, at the end of harvest, everyone in the agricultural sector comes together in their respective communities, whether it's Delta, Olathe, Palisade. And there's a big dinner at the end of the harvest season in which everyone comes together who's part of the agricultural community, and we celebrate. We celebrate the harvest. We pray for next year that it also would be a good year, hopefully no frost, more water, precipitation. But it's a celebration of the men and women who made the harvest possible. And changing the name to Farm Worker Day further celebrates those individuals who wake up every single day putting food on our table, and we should thank them. Thank you.

Representative Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair, and it is a delight to serve with you. It is a delight to serve with you, homie. Members, I appreciate the sponsors coming forward with this bill to at least mitigate and correct some of the mistakes that we have seen time and time again. We have seen patterns, and this is not meant to be political, because these type of abuses transcend party lines and race and identities and creeds and religions. and it knows no bounds. When people who abuse women and children, especially children, we have seen a culture that we must be able to openly talk about it and not see it as a taboo We must also invite people to come forward and I appreciate the sponsors who are trying to correct the recent allegations that have been coming out in light of Cesar Chavez. And I know that the people who were impacted by this are grateful that Colorado is taking a step in the right direction. There is much work to be done in this aspect, especially for la comunidad hispana y latina que trabaja aquí, who has worked in the fields, in the homes, in anything else, to really work and give them to families that they really need for them. And I know that the community is seeing because we want to take action to really correct the sexual abuse of not only women, but also the young, of the children, that we see not only here in Colorado, but in any part of the country. And, you know, our farm workers do deserve to be appreciated and recognized to make sure that we at least stand with our farmers in the agriculture sector, which is so important. And that's why we went up to the well here today to at least talk about honoring our agriculture sector and the people who work in it, because a lot of them are Hispanos, Chicanos, Latinos, whatever you want to call it, because they do work hard and they want to make a living and they want to be able to stay here and provide for the families. And I know, you know, we must stand with the victims. I agree. And I think this is something that I've been watching closely since even before the Epstein files. You know, Harvey Weinstein back in 2017, the Me Too movement that started, where people started to come forward, and that was Hollywood. And if you don't think that people on all sides involve high powers and principalities, people are part of that Epstein list. I would like to see the Epstein client list, just for the record. But to the bill, I think that we should stand with our farmers and the like, because it is important to make sure that we stand and honor those people, because right now these allegations are very serious and substantial. so I commend the sponsors and to that now I will just end with this Epstein didn't kill himself thank you to the bill representative Espinosa thank you madam chair it's an honor to serve with you it's an honor to serve with you members I rise in support of this amendment as you know last year I I was on the resolution because my own family history includes being migrant farm workers. We go nine generations back in the state of Colorado, and during much of that time, my parents and generations before them were migrant farm workers, traveling and working the land. So when they dropped out of the migrant farm worker stream in Utah, which is where I was born and raised, They embraced the movement to protect other farm workers. I grew up boycotting grapes. My parents boycotted beer. All of that was a part of ensuring that the harms that they had lived, and especially having worked in the beet farms with the short-handled hoe and the other issues that they endured, would not be endured for other generations. It was the movement and not the man that my family embraced. And when we originally named this day, we named it after the leader of that movement. And only one of them, because we know there were multiple leaders, including Dolores Huerta at the time. But we named it because of that man. Having learned that he engaged in conduct that we find reprehensible that becomes heartbreaking to those of us who thought that we were just working off of what he did publicly and not what he did privately It was very devastating to our community and to me personally to my family history And then the question became, what do we do? Do we just not honor this day anymore? Some people have said we need time to mourn and therefore we should do nothing. However, I think we cannot let this day stand, and if we do nothing, then this day will be honored next Tuesday as Cesar Chavez Day. So it is important that we act, and it is important that we act now. And I think it is fitting that the name that we chose was Farmworker Day, because even Cesar Chavez would say it was not about him. It was about the people he worked for and the movement he was leading. so to put the honor to put the name in the place where it belongs the time is now and the need is urgent so i encourage everyone to support those farm workers who were a heart and soul of what we were all working for who my parents and family members fought for and so i support and encourage everyone to support this resolution this bill thank you

Thank you, Madam Chair. It is an honor to serve with you. It's an honor to serve with you. Members, I rise just to simply thank Dolores Huerta for her bravery in coming forward and sharing her story. at 96 years old to share with us one of the most painful moments of her life and something that she has kept to herself for nearly 60 years. I can't imagine the amount of strength and how scary that must have been for her to come forward and share this story and may it remind all of us that it's never too late to share our stories. I also want to note that the reason Dolores Huerta kept this a secret for 60 years, in her own words, is because she did not want to hurt the movement. and the amount of strength that that must take. That she allowed her rapist to continue to take fame and glory because she felt that sharing the truth would hurt the workers and the movement that they were building. And I fear that had she come forward 60 years ago, she may have been right. It might have hurt the movement. And so I want us all to think about the position that we put women and girls in, that they have to live enduring unspeakable cruelty because they might not be believed or because it might hurt what they are trying to accomplish. I want to thank her from the bottom of my heart for coming forward and for pushing us to now change this day. And I want us to remember that reason that it took this long. Because farm workers still are among the most exploited in our workforce, facing harsh conditions different standards for overtime a lack of collective bargaining and as we all stand to support this name change I hope that that can also be reflected in the other votes that we take and that we continue to support workers and to live on the legacy of Dolores Huerta. Thank you.

Members, again.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise in highly support of this bill. this is exactly for exactly all the reasons the previous colleague just stated I couldn't imagine being her when he got all the glory of what was happening and what had happened to her you know I also want to say previous colleagues had mentioned to roll back protections of the farm workers from a 40 hour work week

Representative Leader.

thank you for that but it's to change the name to the farm workers and I believe it's part of it not to argue but the 40 hour work week to change that is unconscionable but it is back breaking work and extreme heat and this is why I support the farm workers name change when it's 90 degrees in March we need to really look at the fact of what that heat is going to be like So we need to continue to honor our farm workers with this name change and enjoy the fruits of their labor that they have done and pay them for that. You know, I didn't bring a prop, but I do see everyone going into the break room enjoying all the potatoes that were brought here. So to me, silence is complicity, and I absolutely stand in rise in support of this bill for the name change to the farm workers. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This bill was heard yesterday in State Affairs, and during that committee I asked two questions. The first question was as relates to the date and why it's being kept as March 31st because that is Cesar Chavez's birthday. In talking with the bill sponsor offline, I better understand some of the dynamics that are at play with respect to that particular conversation, and we'll just leave that on the record for maybe a pickup at a later time. Perhaps there are better days that could be selected. The other question I asked, though, was to the heart of this vis-a-vis due process. This man was celebrated in countless ways for a very lengthy period of time And to remove that celebration and honoring without substantiating evidence is problematic to me And so I had asked what evidence exists to support the claims that are being made against him. As the bill sponsor noted, there's no way to adjudicate this in any formal way. The man has since passed, And so there can be no trial. There can be no finding of guilt. And so we're left with a historical record. And my question was, because I am not deep into this conversation, are the bill sponsors content with the historical record that has been laid out? Is it sufficient to make this change? And their responses, especially the representative from Adam, County was persuasive to me that there is enough evidence to go forward with this particular change. I do just want to lay it on the record, though, that we ask those questions, that this isn't just a knee-jerk reaction, because I don't think anyone would want someone who is innocent of any charge that is just made in the world to lose the honoring that they otherwise are entitled to receive. And so I appreciate that the bill sponsors did their due diligence in ensuring that this change is not hastily done and not unfairly done to the gentleman that is being removed from this place of honor. So just wanted to say that.

Thank you, Assistant Majority Leader. I rise in strong support of this, and I rise in strong support after reading page three. of the bill. Given the deeply disturbing allegations of sexual abuse by Cesar Chavez, the General Assembly cannot in good conscience continue to celebrate a state holiday that bears his name. The decision is not about erasing history or diminishing the contributions that have shaped Latino communities across the country. It is about honoring the courage of the girls and women, including the renowned labor leader and co-founder of the farm workers movement, Dolores Huerta, who suffered in silence for decades before bravely speaking out. And I just wanted to go over a couple statistics. We have 900 substantiated child sexual abuse cases each year in our state with only 19% of kids that will come forward bravely because they suffer in silence. 8% of Colorado students report unwanted sexual comments, jokes, gestures. 4% unwanted sexual touching. That's 70,000 students in our state that experience harassment. Tens of thousands of adults in Colorado experience workplace or public sexual harassment each year. One in three adults in Colorado experience some sort of sexual violence. So let's stand for those women and girls as well. Let's stand for the brave women who go against party standards to bring stuff like this to light. We are told, survivors are told to stay quiet. Yes, they are. To protect reputations over truth. This body has the chance to stand with victims. We will not ignore harm, is what I heard. We are on your side for victims. Is that inside this building too?

Thank you very much. Thank you. Page three of the bill says deeply disturbing allegations of sexual abuse. He had no due process. We're just saying that. Some of us have had due process. Let the record speak for itself. We should stand for victims inside this building as well. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And I wanted to share with you all, members, why I'm supporting this effort. I do believe that all the reasons that were already contemplated are super important, but I wanted to share more around the Bracero Program. My granddad was part of this agriculture worker program. That was a 22-year agreement between the U.S. and Mexico between 1942 and 1964 to bring 4.5 million Mexican workers for short-term agricultural and railroad contracts to fill the wartime labor shortages. And although promising fair wages and housing, labor is forced discrimination, poor conditions, and wage theft. Workers were subjected to humiliating, mandatory, and hazardous disinfectization procedures upon entering the U.S. where workers were stripped and sprayed with pesticides, including DDT and Linden, to prevent lice infestation, which caused illness, skin issues, and toxic exposure. So I think that as we are talking about the great work of labor movement that came from the Bracero program, we know that it's up to workers to organize and make sure that their employers do better for them. And I'm very proud to support this and know that there's more work to make sure that we're standing with workers.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First, I just want to acknowledge the reasoning behind this name change from Cesar Chavez Day to Farm Workers Day, which is important. And I don't believe that when a woman or anyone is violated in this way, the person who violated should be honored and respected, which they shouldn't because this is the reason why we're seeing this bill. But at the end of the day, we need to ensure that we are protecting women, children, men, everyone from sexual assault, sexual harassment, all the things, because none of these things are okay. And to now honor workers through this name change of this bill title is important It speaks to what we will tolerate as a state and what we won tolerate as a state But I want to say on the record, we must protect all victims and not just certain victims when it's convenient to do so. So I want to acknowledge and elevate that what happened is not okay, is never okay, and what continues to happen is not okay. And I will just leave it there, but I'm here to do my job as an elected official, and I support this bill. I support the name change, but more importantly, I support policies that's going to protect kids and all people that have been victims of sexual harassment or sexual violence. So I would encourage us to do more, to go even further than this bill title and make sure that we are doing our job as elected officials in the state of Colorado, protecting people from being victims of sexual assault. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I think it's fitting that we're having this conversation today when it's Ag Day. When everybody came down and started talking about how important Ag was to their districts, what I thought of over and over and over again was the farm workers. The farm workers in every corner of the state who are working long hours doing back-breaking labor to feed us. Many of them are immigrants. Many of them are descendants of immigrants. We have to honor that history in this building any time that we're talking about agriculture. It's something that I think about. I also think that it's super important in this moment to recognize that farm workers are still struggling for living wages, decent working conditions, dignity in the workplace. We have some of those conversations happening in this building right now. And so I'm proud to support this. Is it a bill? This feels like it's a resolution, but it's a bill. I'm proud to support this bill. I'm proud to stand with our farm workers because the work of the individual who I will not name was really them. It was really the farm workers who drove that movement and continued to drive that movement. And so I'm proud to be a yes. Thank you, members.

Aye.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1214. House Bill 1214 by Representatives English and Jackson also Senator Amabile concerning the continuation of the Colorado Licensing of Controlled Substances Act and in connection there with implementing the recommendations contained in the 2025 sunset report by the Department of Regulatory Agencies Representative English

To the bill.

We have a committee report.

Yeah, there's not one here.

Hold on one second. Did you make an amendment?

Was there an amendment made in committee?

Okay, then there's no committee report.

Okay, but we'll bring the amendment now.

Okay, wait.

To the bill.

Go for it. Representative Jackson.

Representative English.

Representative Jackson.

L001, give us a second.

L001 has been properly displayed to the amendment. Representative Jackson.

Representative English?

Is there further discussion on the amendment? Representative

Representative Johnson

Representative Jackson.

Representative Johnson.

Representative English.

If you're suggesting that the amendment says something else, then that would be a completely different amendment because that's not what this amendment says. further discussion on the amendment representative Bradley

Further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, the question before you is approving Amendment L-001 for House Bill 1214. All those in favor, say aye.

All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it. the amendment has been adopted to the bill.

Representative English.

Representative Johnson.

we have a thing where it hard to get answers from departments It hard when we trying to look at legislative oversight with executive branch oversight And this is why I move L002 to House Bill 1214 and ask that it be properly displayed Give us a moment.

L-002 has been properly displayed. Representative Johnson.

Representative Jackson.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Representative English. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just going to wrap it up by saying this. First, I'm going to speak to this amendment because it's wanting to go from 2033 to 2041. However, what this bill actually says is that those that are licensed to do this work can actually do their job in a meaningful way to where it's protecting the patients that they have. And two, they came up with the sunset date now for 2033 for a reason, because the people aren't doing the work. The ones that are licensed to do this work in this space are the ones that's doing the work. And so the 2033 date is assuming that it is in the capacity of the work they do and the timeline that they see fit. Now, if this comes back around, when it comes back around to sunset again, then I'm sure it will be a different conversation. But all the conversation and the dialogue that's been outlined, it certainly sounds to me like that can be a whole separate bill to fix an issue that my good colleague over here is bringing to the forefront. So that would be my recommendation. But in this moment, in this instance, we would ask for a no vote on this amendment because the amendment that was brought by the BHA actually fixes the issues that we saw in the bill as it was currently drafted. Thank you.

Aye.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the next House Bill 26-1242. House Bill 1242 by Representatives Paschal and Jackson, also Senator Roberts, concerning interlock restricted license requirements for impaired drivers.

I haven't moved it yet.

I move House Bill 26, 1242, and the Transportation, Housing, and Local Government Committee report and the Appropriations report. Two appropriations. Two appropriations.

Yeah. So in appropriations, an amendment was run to add an appropriation of about $15,000 for programming for the DMV drives program in order to incorporate the requirements of this bill. And I ask for a yes vote. Is there any discussion?

So in Transportation, Housing, and Local Government, we ran two amendments. The first amendment helped clarify the individuals to which this interlock bill applies. The language was not quite clear enough for the DMV to be able to write their program, so we made it clearer. That was the first amendment. The second amendment was there was some question about luxury vehicles have a higher cost for installing the ignition interlock device. And this amendment clarified that the ignition interlock manufacturer can decide what qualifies as a luxury vehicle. And I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1242.

Oh. Okay. Basically, what this bill does is it accomplishes three objectives. One, it eliminates the waiting period for a driver. They can actually get the interlock within two months instead of having to wait for nine months. It also closes the gap for a first offense as clarified by the amendment that we saw because we know that they should not necessarily be treated differently than the other drivers. And the third thing that this bill does is it expands affordability access, And the cost should not be a reason someone drives without a device. And the bill adopts a financial assistance model, which raises income eligibility from 130% to 150% of the federal poverty level. It requires certified manufacturers to provide free standard installation, free removal, and a 50% monthly device discount. And it requires manufacturers to notify every customer of the program at scheduling and at lease execution. So no one misses it for a lack of information. And we ask for a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So just a little bit more on why we are running this bill. So firstly, what is an ignition interlock device? What this is, it's basically a breathalyzer that you install into your car's ignition system. You breathe into it, and if you are below the legal limit, then you're able to start your car. If you are not, you can't start your car. So it is an extremely effective tool for keeping drunk driving off the road. A little bit of stats. Colorado lost 236 people to suspected impaired driving in 2025, which is a 10% increase over the prior year. In fiscal year 2024, there were 16,332 impaired driving case filings, And that includes 1,053 felony DUI cases. And in Colorado in 2025, ignition interlocks blocked 26,161 times an ignition interlock blocked somebody starting their car when they were above the legal limit. So these devices are attached to statistical information. It goes back to the vendors. so we know what's happening as someone is using one. So those 26,000 and change events were events that could have turned into a DUI. It could have turned into a DWAI arrest. It could have turned into a crash, deaths, injuries, but they were all prevented by interlocks. This is a tool that works very well. The evidence is not ambiguous. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Governor's Highway Safety Association, MAD, rates this very highly. The National Traffic Safety Administration rates ignition interlocks as a 5 out of 5 countermeasure for preventing DUI offenses. and our current law as my co-prime explained has some gaps in the law and so the this bill is attempting to close those gaps and we ask for an aye vote further discussion on the bill

Representative Carter.

Representative Jackson.

Representative Paschel.

Representative Jackson.

AML Bacon.

Representative Paschal.

So you no longer have the suspended license choice?

Yes.

Yes, ma'am.

Representative Aml Bacon.

Representative Paschel.

Representative Carter.

my response to that would be is, you know, nobody forced anybody to get behind the wheel under the influence in the first place. No one forced them to do that. No one forced them to potentially put the community and themselves in danger. And what this bill is aiming to do is have a level of accountability to prevent future driving under the influence and also giving people who are involved in that situation an opportunity to go about their daily lives and drive with this device. And as was already mentioned, the people who are on Interlock right now, they pay for it themselves. And so this would be the same thing that happens, except for there is no assistance when it comes to indigent people who have the interlock device.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I completely understand the arguments for this, but I have to explain. We keep talking about criminal justice reform in this building. We keep talking about our increase in the number of individuals we are putting both in the Department of Corrections and in these county jails. we are in the process of increasing the amount of money an individual will have to spend and we are also increasing a penalty. If we're going to be about criminal justice reform, at a certain point we need to be about criminal justice reform and not putting more individuals in jail. So I understand the sponsor's comments. I understand I'm not going to change anybody's mind because you all going to be a yes vote but I also want to make sure you understand why I going to be a no vote Representative Jackson Thank you Madam Chair And I just want the record to reflect that I too am a proponent and have been for a long time of criminal justice reform and am a strong believer in preventative measures. And at the same time, I am also an advocate for victims. And in this situation, we're talking about victims of vehicular homicide. We're talking about victims of vehicular assault. And so if there is a way to prevent that from happening, then that's something that I think we should be doing as we look at our criminal justice system and the reform thereof as a whole. And I would ask for a yes vote.

Mr. Schiebel, will you please read the title to House Bill 1260. House Bill 1260 by Representatives Garcia and Wilford, also Senators Cutter and Bright, concerning programs for child care assistance.

It is such an honor to serve with you, too.

To the committee report.

Further discussion on the committee report? Seeing none, the question before you is the passage of the committee report for House Bill 1260. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. You have approved the committee report. To the bill.

Further discussion on the bill? Seeing none, the question before you is the passage of House Bill 1260. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. House Bill 1260 has passed.

Representative Titone. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1188 and the committee report.

Representative Camacho. Thank you, Madam Chair. In the committee report, we walked through the bill, and we also added a few amendments to clarify some of the concerns from stakeholders, and we asked for a yes vote.

Representative Titone. Thank you, Madam Chair. So this is the sunset of the Securities Act. This is a pretty straightforward bill, really not much changing in this policy. We're extending it out to 2037. This is a kind of a sunset and regulatory framework that really doesn't change very much. That's why we're extending it out for the 10 years. but there's a few things that this does it clarifies some things about deficiency letters not subject to quora requires an investment advisor or investment advisor representative doing business in colorado must be licensed by the securities commissioner or be exempt specifies the executive director of the department of regulation agencies must consult with the securities board while appointing the commissioner and update statutory language to be gender neutral We ask for a yes vote. Representative Camacho? Everything my co-prime says correct. In addition, I'd just like to add this is an important bill to make sure that people who are trading securities in the state of Colorado receive the protections they've been relying on for the last several years, and we ask for a yes vote.

Representative Brown? Gonzalez. Gonzalez? Thank you, Madam Chair. Sorry, you can take it up with my colleague from Fort Lofton. So I appreciate the sunset. I did share a potential change with the sponsors. So I move L002 to House Bill 1188 and ask that it be displayed.

Okay. amendment all zero zero two has been properly displayed to the amendment representative

Representative Tattah?

Representative Garcia-Sanders.

Seeing no further discussion, the question before you is Amendment L002 for House Bill 1188. All those in favor of Amendment L-002 say aye. Aye. All those opposed, nay. No. Amendment L-002 has failed. To the bill. Oh. No further discussion. The question before you is House Bill 1188. 1188. All those in favor of passing House Bill 1188 say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. House Bill 1188 has passed. Taking over? Okay. I'll get out of your way.

Representative Martinez.

I move House Bill 1006 and the Education Committee report.

Members, we made a few changes in the committee, but we actually have a few more that we're going to make. So I move Amendment L and I ask that it be properly displayed Thank you displayed

Representative Martinez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this is through stakeholding work that we wanted to be as inclusive as possible with the bill. So this just ensures that we are including a Native American serving, non-tribal institution designation in with the committee. So we ask for an aye vote.

Representative Velasco. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. In committee, we did add some amendments to make sure that we had more description of what we wanted the department to do. And this really was to make sure that voices of rural communities and Hispanic-serving institutions, first-generation serving institution, and campuses with higher numbers of Pell-eligible adult and transfer students were represented in this task force. So we are changes both.

Representative Martinez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This work has been kind of really near and dear to my heart. I worked at a higher education institution for almost a decade before I came into the legislature. And really being able to highlight the good work that is done at these institutions is really paramount, and especially moving forward into this day and age, being able to really highlight, again, the good work that they do. I would say that one of the biggest cruxes is when I was in higher education was that you had Hispanic-serving institutions and the federal designation that really only highlights the enrollment capability for those particular institutions. And so working with my good co-prime here, we decided that, you know, being able to expand this, cast the net out as wide as possible, and being able to honor the good work that all of them are doing was really paramount. So, and this really, this bill really addresses the age-old problem that we've had is, are you a Hispanic-serving INSTITUTION OR HISPANIC ENROLLING INSTITUTION. AND SO WHEN WE CRAFTED THIS, THIS IS WHY THIS IS REALLY INCLUSIVE, AGAIN WITH ELIGIBILITY. WHAT SERVICES DO YOU PROVIDE? WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO HELP OUT THE STUDENTS AND ARE YOU HELPING THEM SUCCEED? AND WE WANTED TO HONOR THOSE THERE TOO AND NOT JUST THE ENROLLMENT NUMBERS. AND SO I FEEL LIKE THIS BILL IS A GOOD COLLABORATION BETWEEN ALL THOSE VARIOUS INSTITUTIONS BETWEEN DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION THAT REALLY ADDRESSES and highlights the good work that these institutions have done and continue to do. It allows room for expansion of this and, again, being able to be open with the different committees to being able to really evaluate the work that they're doing and making sure that it meets the standards. So we urge an aye vote.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. And really, the goal of this bill is to move away from enrollment numbers and towards student outcomes. We know that there persistence retention completion successful transfer and alignment with workforce needs And this aligns directly with the Commission on Higher Education Strategic Plan and Colorado Post Attainment and Workforce Plan Importantly, this proposal has been collaboratively developed and broadly vetted. It has been reviewed with institutions across the state and is sponsored by Colorado Mountain College. I graduated from this community college with a degree in culinary arts and has been developed with a respectful engagement and support of both the department and the governor's office. And this framework is also fully consistent with federal law and existing federal designations. It relies on performance outcomes and existing data, not demographic quotas, and it does not create any legal conflicts or compliance concerns. So we urge a yes-bar.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I heard this in committee, and I still am struggling with this for a couple of reasons. So I did what most of us do. We Google thriving institution criteria. And there's not really a federal definition, but what Google came up with was key criteria include cultivating a culture of care, providing comprehensive academic and mental health support, enabling transformational learning, and ensuring equitable access and belonging for diverse populations. And I thought to myself, shouldn't all of our higher education institutions be thriving? I'm not sure that a label is helping anything. And then I went to why. There is, so there's no federal definition, there's no federal grant program, and there's no federal requirement that designates institutions of higher education as thriving institutions, nor is there a federal need to create one. The term of thriving institutions came out of the Higher Education Act of 1965, And that was meant to designate institutions of higher learning to really highlight some of the institutions that were targeting and being beneficial to students who were primarily coming from low-income poverty backgrounds or traditionally minorities. But, again, there's no federal grant program or requirement for a thriving institution. There's a fiscal note. There was no fiscal note. There initially was a fiscal note, and then it was zeroed out. and what I see was trying to pull together between the changes in the fiscal note was that the advisory committee initially there were personal services and there was some FTE designated for overseeing the advisory committee and pulling that information together. And initially that was going to be almost $200,000 and 1.5 FTE, but it was zeroed out and it's still a 14 member advisory committee that most members will be participating in remotely and after one initial meeting there probably not going to be further meetings but there might And if there are the reimbursement expenses are going to be expected to be reimbursed by gifts grants and donations And I don't know if there's already a pot of money of gifts, grants, and donations that's set aside for this. but it also says that institutional revenue sources might be used for that. The departmental difference is what really caught my eye. The Department of Higher Education estimates that the bill requires $129,505 and 1.0 FTE in fiscal year 2026-27 and ongoing. This estimate includes an additional 0.4 FTE for a project planner to create guidance materials for institutions act as a liaison between CDHE and IHE's for thriving designations and write the required report. Additionally, the CDHE's estimate includes .6 FTE for a data management 5 position to define metrics, validate data sources, ensure statistical validity, ensure privacy protections, and publish data on the website. The fiscal note differs from this estimate, assuming that the additional workload required by the bill requires no more than 208 hours of work per year, less than the minimum threshold for additional FTE. And so that description seems like there should be a fiscal note attached. Just because it's being absorbed by a department doesn't mean that the money doesn't have to pay for it. So I guess this creates a new state-level bureaucracy. There's no corresponding federal hook or mandate for it. There's an advisory committee that's going to be set aside to create some outcome standards that either may or may not be already kind of developed. And then what comes out of it is a designation, a blue ribbon slap on your university or college, a website listing, and a report that becomes a mandatory report to the state every year. And I'm thinking with skyrocketing tuition rates, with administrative bloat at our universities, there's a lot of graduations that can't find jobs within their fields when they graduate. I'm really curious how this benefits Coloradans as a whole, and I just am really struggling to understand how the fiscal note went from almost $200,000 a year to zero, and any possible financial requirement to enact this bill is being absorbed when it's almost a couple hundred thousand dollars a year and one FTE, and a lot of other bills that we've said no to are a lot less because of the fiscal note that seems to supposed to be absorbed, but it's not. So I'm just struggling, and right now I'm at a no for this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I have some of the same questions. The bill went from a fiscal note to a zero fiscal note, so there's work involved. There's a national kind of obscure definition of thriving institution. There's a mandatory report. So there's work that's being, there's essentially work that's being required of these institutions in order to get a designation of thriving institution of designation for higher institutions. for higher education. And my understanding is that the institutions themselves do not want this, that they don't see any value in it. They don't see anything that comes back to them. They see mandatory reporting. They see mandatory work. The state has miraculously exempted itself down into another $0 fiscal note. But the workload on these institutions where they feel like, well, this doesn't do us any good, but we have to go along with this designation. Otherwise, we're not a thriving. I mean, what does that mean to be not a thriving institution? So now you're forcing them into this, and it's my understanding the institutions of higher education don't, that they are not asking for it. And my understanding is that from talking to some that they're asking not to have these types of things. because they just create more workload and there's for zero value. So somebody feels value in this because they brought it to the state. There's a program out there someplace because there's definitions and there's some of these vague things that are out there, and then they get codified into a bill. It sounds really good, but the institutions themselves are not seeing any value.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Amendment L-007 and ask that it properly be displayed.

And so I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And it's actually Burgundy. Thank you for noticing. Carlos Burgundy. Carlos Burgundy. To the bill. To the amendment, actually. Oh, to the amendment. I rise in support of this amendment. I think it's getting a little... There might be an auto correct for the safety clause on all these bills, but I think that we should, this really doesn't need to have a safety clause. So I would recommend an eye vote on a petition clause.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to my good colleagues for bringing this up. Normally, we would definitely be open to exploring a petition clause and allowing the citizens to be able to really look into this. However, the academic system that is currently based on in higher education world, this already starts, this would go beyond their start date for this next academic year by the time the petition process would conclude. AND SO WE REALLY WANT TO BE ABLE TO ENACT THIS FOR NEXT YEAR, NEXT ACADEMIC YEAR. SO UNFORTUNATELY WE BE REQUESTING A NO VOTE REPRESENTATIVE PHILANEL I URGE A YES VOTE I think the fact that institutions have to take time to prepare for this shows that there is a lot of burden that takes place in order for them to implement this law, and so I urge an aye vote. Thank you.

We urge a no vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I want to go over a couple points that were brought up in this. So one, that we heard that this is going to be an undue burden on the institutions. What I want to say is that all of these reporting that is being required in this bill is already required, are already required within Department of Higher Education into federal programs. This just changes who that program goes to. In regards to the Thriving Institutions designation, to my good colleague from Weld County, she is correct that there is no Thriving Institutions designation. This relies mostly on higher Hispanic serving institution designations. And again, we wanted to be more expansive in really highlighting the work outside of just enrollment and the resources that we have available for our institutions. We think that this is a good bill and we urge an aye vote.

Mr. Shewell, please read the title of House Bill 1197. House Bill 1197 by Representative Morrow, also Senator Kipp, concerning the continuation of the vessel registration program.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

To the committee report. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Is there any further discussion on the committee report? Seeing none, the question before us is its passage. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. The committee report passes. To the bill.

Is there any further discussion on the bill? AML Winter.

Is there any further discussion on the bill? Seeing none, the question before us is its passage. All those in favor say aye All those opposed say no All right House Bill 1197 is passed Mr Schiebel please read the title of House Bill 1269

Representative Joseph.

To the committee report, Representative Joseph.

We removed the partner pass in the income assistance program out of the bill because it had a $4.5 million fiscal note. And we made a couple of other amendments to the reporting section. and we also removed the small transit agencies out of the bill and we asked for a yes vote on the committee report.

Thank you, Mrs. Chair. Thank you. So, you know, I'm proud to bring this bill, House Bill 1269. It's a transit access bill. And basically, I'm proud to be here along my prime sponsor, Rebs Joseph. Our current transportation system often prioritizes a park and ride model, which does not meet the needs of all Coloradans. Many people rely on transit for daily mobility, yet they still face real barriers for accessing dependable systems that get them where they need to go. The cost, the lack of clear information, and limited amenities continue to make transit less accessible, especially for marginalized and low-income individuals, people with disabilities, and those experiencing homelessness, and also language access issues. House Bill 1269, it takes a thoughtful approach to targeted ways of improving transit access by focusing on practical, achievable solutions for the agency's best positions to implement them. And what this legislation is going to do is going to ask for better reporting from RTD and the transit authorities. It's also going to improve mapping and information that's available to transit riders. It's also going to ask for language access, which is for the people who are predominant within the county area that they serve. And we think that this bill will provide a lot more reporting and accountability and accessibility for people who are using transit. What it won't do, the bill applies to large transit agencies with at least 1 million annual trips where appropriate. It excludes entities that only fund transit but do not operate services. And it also streamlines reporting requirements focusing on meaningful data without requiring new data collection. and this bill matters because it's going to improve the lives of people it's going to help us as a legislature when it comes time to doing better policies understanding where the high ridership in your area you know why should we fund transit here or maybe people aren riding there You want to take it and put it where it being used But this bill is going to help Coloradans and we ask for your yes vote Representative Joseph. Thank you, Madam Chair. At its core, House Bill 26-1269 is about fairness. It's about making sure our transit system works for everyone, regardless of income, language, or circumstances. When transit works, people can go to work, they can go to school, they can access the health care that they need, and our entire state is stronger for that. I respectfully ask for a yes vote on 1269, and I just want to thank Representative Ricks for taking on this policy issue. So thank you, everyone. Thank you very much.

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

Mr. Schiebel, please read the report of the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Speaker Pro Tem, your Committee of the Whole begs the report as under consideration. The following attached bills being the second reading they're off and making the following recommendations are on. House Bills 1006 is amended, 1188 is amended, 1197 is amended, 1214 is amended, 1242 is amended, 1260 is amended, 1269 is amended, 1339 is amended. Passed on second reading. Order engrossed in place on the calendar for third reading and final passage. There are amendments at the desk. Mr. Schiebel.

Representative Johnson moved to amend the part of the Committee of the Whole to verse the action taken by the Committee and not adopting the following Richardson Amendment, L2 to House Bill 1214.

Representative Johnson.

Members, take your seats, please. Representative Johnson, the amendment is before us. Please proceed.

amendment, Representative Jackson. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. And this bill is specific to

Seeing no further discussion, the question before us is the House is the adoption of the Johnson Amendment to the report of the Committee of the Whole.

members, please proceed to vote.

Please close the machine. With 20 aye, 37 no, and 8 excused, the amendment is lost. Members, the question before us is the adoption of the report of the Committee of the Whole.

Members, please proceed to vote.

With 37, I, 20, no, and 8 excused, the report of the Committee of the Whole is adopted. Majority Leader Duran.

Seeing no objection, the balance of the calendar will be laid over until tomorrow. Madam Majority Leader.

Seeing no objection, the House will stand in recess until later today. Thank you.