Senate Business, Labor, & Technology [Apr 28, 2026]

Mr. Chair.

We have a quorum. We will go ahead and get started with House Bill 1207, which is Senator Kipp and Senator Danielson. Senator Kipp, feel free to start us off.

Thank you, Senator DeAlso.

Committee members, questions for our sponsors. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and go into the witness testimony phase. I have on the first panel Alison Morgan Parker White Leslie Oliver and Erin Meschke And Ms Oliver and Ms Meschke are online We'll go ahead and start in person. And we'll go ahead and start with Allison Morgan.

My name is Caroline Woodhouse, and I am here on behalf of the Colorado Bankers Association and the businesses and customers we serve. We respectfully urge a no vote on House Bill 26-1207 unless it is amended to address significant concerns around confidentiality and the public exposure of sensitive workforce information. This bill requires employers with 100 or more workers to submit EEO-1 demographic data to the Secretary of State as part of their periodic filings. As written, the bill does not include any confidentiality protections, limitations on public access, or safeguards against misuse. That means demographic data categorized by race, ethnicity, gender, and job category could become publicly accessible simply because it is included in a routine corporate filing. Businesses are deeply concerned about this. EO1 data is sensitive. It is normally submitted only to the federal government under strict confidentiality rules. Public disclosure at the state level creates real risks. Data scraping, targeted phishing, and the potential for employees in small departments or specialized roles to be indirectly identified. It also opens the door to misinterpretation and misuse. EEO1 data does not reflect applicant pools, labor market constraints, or geographic realities, realities, yet once public, it can be used to shame companies, fuel misleading rankings, or support litigation based on incomplete information. For banks and financial institutions, the risks are even greater. Workforce composition can reveal strategic investments, new business lines, or shifts in technical staffing, information that competitors could exploit. And because many banks operate small Colorado offices within larger national structures, demographic data could inadvertently expose individual employees. Car out of businesses are not opposed to transparency, but transparency must be balanced with privacy, security, and fairness. Without amendments ensuring that E01 data is protected, aggregated appropriately, and shielded from public disclosure, House Bill 26-1207 will create unnecessary risks for employers and employees alike. For these reasons, we respectfully ask the committee to vote no on House Bill 26-1207 unless confidentiality protections are added. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am, in fact, myself today. Thank you all for the opportunity to testify. My name is Parker White. I serve as the director of the Colorado Competitive Council and C3 and Chambers of Commerce across Colorado. Our C3 represents businesses and chambers across Colorado that care deeply about maintaining a competitive and responsible business climate in the state. We are here in respectful opposition to outcome 26-1207, so long as there is not a confidentiality and similar to the Bankers Association. I'll just putting away the testimony piece on this because you heard a lot of the clear line. We are not opposed to the actual reporting of data We are highly concerned about the confidentiality So to be very clear the data that is reported to the federal government is exempt from FOIA unless that company is a federal contractor. The reason the federal government does that is because that is sensitive information that goes into the actual demographics and the people that work in these companies. There are several other states that have similar duplicate reporting requirements. All of them have anonymized, aggregated data. They don't have individual public dashboards. All of them are behind strict confidentiality pieces or walls. We have, and I won't name who for reasons that you'll hear in a second, but we have had companies within my organization that have said, hey, we are highly concerned about the potential immigration enforcement pieces of this, being able to target certain employers. There were other states where certain employers were aware of some of this data and have a whole multi-federal law enforcement that used to target certain employees or certain employers based on racial demographics that they had, putting in place a system, not with a duplicate reporting, we don't have a problem with that, but putting in place a system where any member of the public to include any member of federal law enforcement would be able to access a publicly available dashboard to the interim demographics of any given employee in Colorado without court filings, without that coming out through a certain warrant, without that coming up in the order of a judge is extremely dangerous. It just puts Colorado in a rough spot. We are asking for this bill to please be amended to remove the confidentiality requirement. In terms of the actual reporting, we have no concerns. The last piece I'll leave you guys with has to do with what is accountability. We either have state regulators and professionals, and state hires and trains and utilizes to regulate and oversee and enforce laws, or we don't. If that's not accountability, and accountability is only accountability, if the entire public has view in the court of public opinion and judgment, then why do we have these state regulators and these overseers in the first place? If we want the professionals to review this information to be able to make discrimination to two nations, we should report this information to those professionals, but the buck of information should stop there. Thank you.

Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Erin Meshke. I live in Boulder and represent myself. Demographic data is already collected and available in different ways. But when we present this data in a more openly available public form, it can become a way to discriminate against a business that does not meet an artificially expected or imposed percentage or quota that was confirmed and that sentiment was confirmed in House discussion. According to 2025 U.S. Census data, Colorado is 85 percent white. But the intent of this bill does not seem to be in favor of reflecting that representation in any Colorado company. In the opposite direction, if an Asian, Hispanic, or Black business chooses to have all of their employees from their neighborhood or their own race, this bill could actually discriminate against them. I absolutely support a diverse workforce, but think people are better supported when they know they got their job based on their aptitude and excellence instead of their sex, race, age, or other special status. No one should have to question why they are in their position and DEI practices like mandatory demographic reporting lead to that uncertainty because I do not believe HB 26 1207 will promote actual fairness or improve Colorado businesses and may also allow um expose businesses to the risk of um demographics I'm sorry, I just lost the word to demographic. Um, I'm sorry. No, I can't remember the word I was going to say here. I didn't write it down. Um, but because of this potential discrimination, I ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. White, so if I heard you correctly, your organization, C3, you have real qualms because this sensitive information would be, if I understood you right, would be available to anybody to come in to a company and say, hey, I want to see your demographic information. Could you elaborate on that a little bit?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So we have a problem. We have a problem with the board. Some companies are already also reporting. There is no concern there. The concern is in the discrepancy. ... ... The only way this is that company and that citizen or whatever is

Are you aware, do any other states allow this type of information that's proposed under this under this bill? Are you aware of any other states that do this?

or maybe at the end where time comes, it's . .

Thank you. What about, Chair?

I noticed in this bill that it's specifically to private companies. Does the state and the feds and all the other laundry list of people this is not going to affect, In fact, do they make these same reports? Mr. White.

Senator Catlin. Yes, through a different mechanism. So public companies have, or excuse me, public companies, public entities, such as the state or the federal government or agencies, they do track those demographics, and portions of those are online and available. Again, and that's, I think, what you would expect from a public entity. The difference between private companies, right, public entities are ultimately accountable through the legislature directly to the people, and they work for the people, and that's the intent of the executive branch of any federal or state government or local governments and how they operate. As we get into private companies and their ability to operate, they are subject to anti-discrimination laws. There are frameworks in place that protect workers from that anti-discrimination. this reporting to the federal government is a piece of that. That data is available to regulators, but it's not available to members of the public to make their own assumptions about what the data may mean. And secondarily, for other purposes, it relates to PII and law enforcement and a multitude of other issues, that data is protected behind a wall where only those eligible to see it and eligible to interpret it are able to see it in specific instances. When the data is made publicly available in other states, for example, again, it is always done so in an aggregated, anonymized format as it relates to those specific companies. And so that's, I think, the biggest difference there. But to answer your question in short, yes, public entities do have reporting. It's just it's obviously not done in the same mechanism.

One more quickly. Can a private citizen reach into the federal or the state government and tell you exactly how many of all different classes there are in the state government, for example?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Catlin, to some extent, yes, but in terms of the specifics, I wouldn't be able to tell you right now and exactly what that process looks like. What I do know is that the state does have reporting and disclosure requirements of its agencies. Again, to the extent of how specific that gets and what the process is for a private citizen to identify that, I don't know. Here representing, obviously, industry and private companies.

So my question is, a private citizen could look into a private company and find that under this kind of new regulation, correct?

But he could not do that to the state government, could not get that granular of a report.

Senator Kellen, to the accuracy of that statement, I cannot attest to. I do believe and it is my understanding that the state does have as a public employer of the state of Colorado that the agencies do have decently detailed publicly available workplace demographics However whether that matches what this bill is doing or how accessible that is by any given member of the public I can speak to What I can speak to is that businesses, this would set up businesses in Colorado to have an unprecedented level of exposure to both outside forces within law enforcement, but then also in an unsafe way to the public for those businesses, whereas we do have regulatory bodies at the federal level that collect this information. We are not opposed to having state bodies also collect that information. We have grave, grave concerns with any member of the public in a non-anonymized, anonymized, non-aggregated format, having access to the internal demographics of any given employer in the state. Thank you.

ready thank you mr chair thank you committee members my name is cory streetman i'm here today testifying on behalf of the Colorado Women's Chamber of Commerce, of which I serve on the Board of Directors as the Vice Chair, in support of HB 26-127. Colorado Women's Chamber represents a diverse network for small business owners and entrepreneurs to corporate executives and employers of all sides. Our perspective sits fairly at the end of the situation of human and business. We understand firsthand our workforce and advancing opportunities in Colorado's economic health. We support this bill because data transparency is the first step called change. Companies cannot address disparities. Public disclosure creates accountability that drives meaningful medical programs. According to the women's chambers, 2020 was described as the 2025 state and Colorado holds. Let's start that over. According to the 2025 state and Colorado holds, reduced by the Colorado women's chamber, women hold just 28% of the proper board citizens across Colorado, 70% of the trade-in-the-day place. That is actually down 29.1%. And at least in Colorado, though the national cost of the house's average is 99%. Colorado is not just feeling, we're actually doing that. And the boardroom decline doesn't happen in the sense of the world. Nationally, women who are just 29% of C-suite positions in the C-suite, I find to be quartered. When women, and especially women of color, are proclamating in the C-suite, leadership can never reach C-suite, or governance decisions are made. Broken wrong is not a metaphor, it is a problem for me to be along. Our 2025 report also documents that have stated 455 women Oh the workforce nationally between January and August of 2025 alone, driven by the rollback of flexible work policies, rising child care costs, and the collapse of pandemic-era child care funding. Colorado's women's labor force participation rate stands at just 62.3%, meaning more than one in three Colorado women is outside the workforce entirely. These are not incidental statistics. They are upstream forces producing downstream consequences. If Colorado companies, employees, and future employees don't have a clear line of sight into their own workforce composition, how can we build a thriving, sustainable economy? Women's full participation is not a diversity initiative. Women are not DEI. Women are GDP. HB 26-1207 doesn't mandate outcomes. It asks for visibility, and visibility is where accountability begins. Colorado has always led. We need to lead here, and we urge your support. Thank you.

so sorry committee members it's lovely to see you again my name is Ellen Buckley still, and I'm still the chair, the Women's Lobby of Colorado, which I'm representing today in support of 1207. The Women's Lobby is a coalition of individual and organizational members advocating for gender equity and policies that positively impact women and families. And before I get into why this is a great bill and you should vote yes, I want to correct a little misinformation from one of the prior witnesses on FOIA requests of EEO1s. They are discoverable through FOIA requests. Federal contractors, those FOIA requests are now discoverable. There was a court case last year. I can't remember the exact name, 2025, investigative reporters, and now those are discoverable. The private employer ones have always been discoverable through FOIA requests. If a Title VII complaint has already been filed, then you are allowed to get that FOIA, the AEO-1 on a particular company from the EEOC. So the policy of Colorado has long been to prohibit discrimination in employment, And this bill is a valuable tool in doing just that by promoting transparency in employment practices. Reporting on the aggregated gender, race, and ethnicity of employees by job category is also useful information for employers themselves to have in order to understand if they may have an issue with failing to promote or hire women based on gender or, say, race. Having this information publicly available to people thinking of applying to a job is also helpful. The whole point of this bill is transparency Now the EEO form if you haven seen it it an incredibly short two form Private employers of more than 100 employees have been required to complete it since 1966 So this bill is not imposing a new data gathering burden. Companies are already required to file periodic reports with the Secretary of State, so filing that at the same time is not a burden. concerns about misuse by the federal government. The federal government already has access to this data. They already do, and they certainly can get it. This gives the public in Colorado, who certainly cares about anti-discrimination, to have access to this data, too. It is not individual data. It is grouped by certain categories of workers and gender and race, and that's it. There's no way to identify specific employees. So we thank the sponsors for bringing this bill, and we urge a yes vote. Thank you.

My name is Andrea Kuik. I'm the Director of Policy and Research at the Bell Policy Center. We're a policy advocacy research organization focused on economic mobility for every Coloradan. And we're here in strong support this afternoon of House Bill 1207. At the Bell, our work is grounded in robust research, which is dependent upon access to consistent, reliable, disaggregated state-specific data. Over the years, quality data has been essential in helping us craft, but also amend and refine, policies that work for people across our state. Importantly, the vast majority of data that we rely upon comes from public sources. particularly the federal, state, and local governments. By way of example, in the past several years alone, government data has played key roles in our effort to cap APRs on high-cost loans, create a state-facilitated retirement plan for those who don't have access to one through their employer, and develop targeted supports for care workers. None of these policies would have been possible without quality data. Concerningly, relatively recently, we've seen the federal government roll back its collection of data that has been able to be accessed by the public. For example, we've seen an end to public data collection and or reporting on food security, maternal and infant mortality, substance abuse, and regional CPI calculations. The loss of this and other types of data makes it demonstrably harder for us to understand what's happening in our state and subsequently ensure our policies meaningfully address our state's needs. If rolled back by the federal government, the inability to collect and access any type of EEO1 workforce data would be a loss for Colorado. It endangers our ability to meaningfully assess the degree to which we're making progress in creating fairer workforces for everyone. This includes efforts to address discrimination in the workforce, particularly for women of color. Fortunately, House Bill 1207 provides an easy remedy to any potential loss of federal EEO1 data and moreover expands data access. This bill simply makes existing federal reporting requirements and continues its collection at the state level. There are no new data requirements and no additional burdens for businesses. Good data is essential to ensuring strong public policy that meets the needs for every Coloradan, and Health Bill 1207 ensures important workforce data, which is already being collected, is accessible. Thank you again for your time and consideration, and we encourage your support for Health Bill 1207. Thank you.

Okay, hello, my name is Kiette Wright, and I'm here to speak in support of HB 261207, because transparency in demographic workforce data is essential if we want fair access to opportunity in Denver and across Colorado. When workforce data is hidden, inequities stay hidden too. Without clear information about who is being hired, promoted, retained, and paid fairly, it is much harder to identify patterns of discrimination or exclusion. That hurts everyone, but especially harms black women and other minorities who often face layered barriers in hiring, advancement, and workplace treatment. Transparency gives us the facts we need to address those barriers directly instead of ignoring them. For black women in particular, the lack of visibility can mean being overlooked for advancement, unrepresented in leadership, or left out in decision-making spaces where policy is shaped. The same is true for other minority groups that have historically had to fight for equal access to jobs, promotion, and fair treatment. If we truly believe in equal opportunity, then we should also believe in measuring whether that opportunity is actually reaching everyone. This bill matters because what gets measured gets addressed. Demographic workforce disclosure helps employers, policymakers, and communities understand where gaps exist and where progress is needed. This creates accountability, encourages better hiring and retention practices, and helps build workplaces that reflect the diversity of the communities we serve. I urge support for HB 261207 because transparency is not about blame. It's about fairness, accountability, and making sure every worker in Denver has a real chance to succeed. Thank you.

Can I read a statement also?

So, Ms. Alexander, if you would like to begin,

Hello, hello.

My colleague was texting me now. So I'll start with his first. Thank you, everyone.

If we could wrap up that testimony because we are over time. It's almost a couple more sentences.

We are over time. Thank you.

So good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Bobby L. Alexander, and I am a Colorado native, and I am proud to support House Bill 26-1207. First, I want to thank Representative Jamie Jackson, who has led this bill, in addition to Representative Jen Bacon, Senators Kipp, and Danielson, for their support. At this time, when transparency and civil rights protections are being weakened at the federal level, Colorado has an opportunity and a responsibility to lead. Transparency is not punishment. Transparency is protection. Companies with more than 100 employees already collect and submit EEO1 workforce demographic data in the federal government. House Bill 261207 simply ensures that the same information is shared with the state of Colorado You cannot fix what you refuse to measure As a black woman who has worked in the federal state and local levels of government I have seen firsthand how data shapes opportunity I have seen how access to information allows policymakers to identify barriers, strengthen institutions, build trust with communities. I have seen the consequences when transparency is reduced and equities remain hidden, workers lose trust and accountability disappears. And the reality is those inequities are not abstract. They are measurable and they are happening right now. The unemployment rate for black women is 6.3%, nearly double that of white women of 3.4%. People over 40, people of color, people with disabilities continue to face discrimination in hiring and workplace opportunity. These gaps don't close on their own. They close when we are willing to see them and act. At a time when national leaders are moving to limit transparency and weaken civil rights enforcement, Colorado should move in the opposite direction. We should reaffirm that fairness, opportunity, and accountability are Colorado values. This bill does not create quotas. It does not require new data collection. It does not punish businesses. It simply aligns state reporting with what the companies are already doing. In Colorado, we would not be alone. States like California, Illinois, and Massachusetts already have similar requirements, and their economies continue to thrive. Transparency has not harmed businesses. It has strengthened their credibility. So the question is simple. If companies are already sharing this information with Washington, why not share it with people of Colorado? Honest businesses have nothing to fear from transparency. In fact, transparency builds trust with workers, with communities, and with investors. Transparency protects workers. Transparency protects honest businesses. Transparency protects democracy. And I want to leave you with this. This bill is about more than data. It is about dignity. It is about whether people in the state can trust the opportunity is real, not just promised. It is about whether we are willing to see clearly even when it is uncomfortable. Because we choose not to measure, we are choosing not to see. And we choose not to see, we are choosing to let inequity continue. Colorado can choose differently. Colorado can choose honesty. Colorado can choose courage. I respectfully urge you to support House Bill 26-1207, not just for transparency, but for the people whose lives and livelihoods depend on it. Thank you for your time.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Louise Meyerland, Vice President of Programs at the Women's Foundation of Colorado. Here, thank you for the opportunity to be here virtually to testify in support of HV 1207 regarding the disclosure of demographic workforce data to the Colorado Secretary of State. The Women's Foundation of Colorado is the only statewide community-funded foundation protecting progress and expanding economic opportunity for all Colorado women. Research informs our statewide grant making and systems change efforts to promote gender, racial, and economic equity. For research, we understand the many barriers to economic security facing women throughout the state. Women in Colorado are overrepresented in jobs that pay low wages and are more likely to experience poverty. HB 1207 ensures Colorado will have access to demographic workforce data. Access to reliable data disaggregated by gender and race but not individually identifiable is essential to identify barriers to opportunity and develop informed solutions to close opportunity gaps and to strengthen our state economy. States including California, Illinois, Washington, Maryland, and New Jersey have adopted similar reporting requirements while continuing to attract investment, grow major

Yes, we do have two amendments.

Geez Louise, not Myerland. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L002.

Yes. So this amendment was requested by the Independent Higher Education of Colorado in collaboration with the University of Denver, Regis, and Colorado College. So there is already something that is reported through the federal integrated post-secondary education data system called IPEDS. And basically, this data can already be gathered in total and more directly for higher education, for all Colorado institutions through the Department of Higher Education. So that is what this bill is addressing, making sure that we're not doing this duplicate effort for the higher education folks.

Senator Allison. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L004.

Thank you. What this amendment is doing is is it is intended to address a technical amendment or a technical note in the fiscal note, which basically said that unless we adjust the timelines, that although the bill will be effective on a certain date, that the reporting won't be ready. So this is going to say we're going to take effect sooner so that the reporting can be ready to go, I believe, on July 1st of next year. So that is why we are running this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. And I wanted to extend my gratitude to the witnesses who came today. They demonstrated the need to continue to pursue pathways towards transparency, the data that we need to demonstrate the state of our workforce, identify problems, and then begin to address them. And so, again, the work that this body did from 2019 until now, I see this as a continuation of that, that preserves this really useful, helpful data to ultimately get at the goal of pay equity and end pay discrimination in the workforce for women.

Thank you. And during the opposition testimony, I went ahead and printed out the form that we're asking. There is really, like, no personal employee information on this form. There is data, right? It's like the company information and a little bit about what categories people fall into. And that's it. It's not really that much information to ask for. And we want to make sure that we continue to have that information available here in Colorado. So I ask for an aye vote.

Senator Danielson. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1207 to the Committee on Appropriations.

No.

Aye.

No.

Yes.

and Madam Chair

Thank you Mr Chair Thank you members of the committee I going to make this very quick As you know, older Coloradans are an important part of the workforce. They are often left out of conversations when it comes to improving the workforce and the services that we need. So this is a measure to try and integrate older Coloradans into some of the systems that we have. And so it would be integrating them as part of the Workforce Development Council, requiring the Department of Labor to report the status of older Coloradans, requiring some stakeholder work with the Commission on Aging, on which I used to serve. And we've edited it down a bit from the original introduced version, so please, when you're taking note, look at the re-engrossed version. And I'm going to edit it down further today to remove the piece about the position on the State Apprenticeship Council. but this is still an effort to address the needs of older Coloradans who are moving through and working within the statewide workforce, and I urge an aye vote.

Oh, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Jay Reinigan. I'm a volunteer for AARP Colorado. And our organization has 670,000 members in the state. We are here today in support of HB 1010 because facts are our friends. A growing number of baby boomers have remained in the workforce even after reaching the retirement traditional stage. In fact, the BLS projects that those age 65 and older will be the fastest growing age group in the labor force in the next decade. In particular, the worker age group with the fastest growth will be those age 65 and older, especially women. Some older workers delay retirement because they enjoy their jobs and want to keep working. Others keep working because they can't afford to retire. I have two very close friends, one age 65, another age 74, who is seriously getting back into the workforce because they have to because of the rising food and energy costs these days. They're trying to figure out their game plans because they retired over five years ago and employer needs have changed in the last five years. Older workers need access to high-quality job training, targeted educational pathways, as significant barriers to hiring and retaining older workers exist, including age discrimination. To remain competitive, workers must update and refresh their skills often throughout their working lives. That need is particularly relevant for older workers. Lifelong training and retraining opportunities can help to ensure that they remain competitive in a rapidly changing competitive environment. The challenges facing workforce development for this demographic needs the intentional data collection and analysis and innovative collaboration that found in House Bill 1010 Through this legislation Colorado will be able to better understand and address workforce development needs and obstacles for older workers Colorado workers, our business and our economy, all benefit from targeting workforce development strategies for our aging population. Therefore, after all, the Colorado State Plan on Aging notes that Colorado is unbelievably the third largest, fastest aging state in the entire nation. We've got an issue. House Bill 1010 will ensure representation for older workers and that these workers can develop new and updated skills. Finally, I've reviewed my testimony with Ms. Colleen Costigan, who was just assigned 2026 Ms. Colorado Senior America this weekend, and she endorses AARP's position. I quote from Colleen, Our senior women's population is a central resource for all of Colorado. This bill ensures that we save the data upon which you, our legislators, will make wise and appropriate decisions about allocating resources and funds to support the valuable treasure our senior women of population represents. In closing, HB 1010 will ensure that we have proper economic and labor market change information, all of which is benefit the economic success of the state, my two friends, and the women of the state of Colorado. Once again, I ask the committee to remember, facts are our friends and approve this bill. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Shah Robert, and I'm here representing Skills to Compete Colorado, a cross-sector, cross-level policy coalition. We were established in 2012 to advocate for access to skills training for adult students, workers, and job seekers. We are the state affiliate of the National Skills Coalition. When reviewing policy proposals, our coalition always considers how people can access workforce development opportunities. We are particularly concerned about those with challenges to employment, including older workers. Today I want to highlight a new challenge for those between 55 and 65 years old. New work requirements of 80 hours per month in order to retain their SNAP or Medicaid under the federal bill HR1 or Medicaid. For SNAP, the age for exemption from work requirements has moved from 52 in 2023 to 65 now. Medicaid is adding work or community engagement requirements for those under 65 effective next January. HUD is also currently proposing a rule change which would allow public housing authorities and multifamily subsidized housing owners to add work requirements of up to 40 hours per week for those under 62. An estimated 38,000 Colorado adults are at risk of losing food assistance, and 138,000 are at risk of losing Medicaid. Most of them are already working or might qualify for an exemption due to disabilities or caregiving responsibilities but thousands of older Coloradans could lose SNAP or Medicaid if they cannot find work or educational opportunities These 55 to 64-year-olds, or 55, about 12% of Colorado's population is between 55 and 64. HR1 did not include funding to help individuals connect with and exceed at work or education. HICPF, Healthcare Policy and Finance, does not have an employment or volunteer opportunities for those at risk. Department of Human Services has the Employment First program, which just started to work with SNAP recipients in the 55 to 65-year-old age group, but that program is only offered in 27 of Colorado's counties. HP 1010 offers an opportunity to examine how our workforce system can meet the needs of older workers. It is our hope that what is learned can inform us all about what is needed for older Coloradans to get and maintain needed skills and employment, and hence to retain food and medical assistance. Thank you.

Is this on? How about now?

Mr. Chair, committee members, thank you for this opportunity to be able to testify in front of you. I'm a member of the Colorado Older Worker Policy Collaborative, which is a group of tough-minded, really smart people that want to work and change the policies as it relates to older workers. I'm testifying in support of the bill. This bill provides a voice for older workers on appropriate and relevant commissions and boards. Now let me talk a little bit about my experience. A couple years back, I graduated from a program at the University of Colorado, Onshoot Medical Campus. It's called the Older Worker Research Specialist Program, ORS Program. Dr. Nearing developed the program because she found out that older workers, people of color, people in rural areas, people with disabilities and veterans, were grossly underrepresented in medical field trials. Her mission was to get older workers to recruit patients to get into medical field trials. For the last two years, I've worked at the VA. I work in the emergency room in one of the medical field trials where we provide veterans with hearing amplifiers so they can better hear their doctors and nurses during their medical services. And with that hearing amplifier, then what do we learn? Is their experience better or not? There's a control and experimental group. The other medical field trial I work with is veterans with hip and knee arthritis. and we provide telehealth physical therapy for those veterans. They don't have to get out of their house. They can be at home. If they have Wi-Fi, they can receive these services. Does it improve their care? We believe it does. But what we do is we have given veterans a voice in their medical field trials. And this is the same situation. This is providing older workers a voice on relevant boards and commissions. And I'm not talking about professional advocacy groups or proxies or that. I'm talking about the neighbors that you see mowing their lives lawn, at the grocery store, the hundreds of workers who have applied for jobs, hundreds of jobs, and have not heard back from the employer. They're simply ghosted. Those are the people that you want on these boards. The other part of this bill, it's an old managerial adage. What gets measured gets done. It provides the opportunity for better use of data. And with better use of data, I believe it leads to better decision-making. So thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee, for listening to me.

Hello again, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Again, my name is Andrea Kewick. I'm the Director of Policy and Research at the Bell Policy Center, a policy advocacy research organization focused on economic mobility for every Coloradan. And once again, we're here in strong support of Health Bill 1010. Mirroring the broader aging of our state, older workers are one of the fastest growing components of our workforce. Between 2025 and 2050, Colorado is expected to see over a 40% increase in the number of those 55 and older in our state's workforce. While some older Coloradans remain employed because they find value and meaning in our work, many do so out of economic necessity. According to AARP, approximately 20% of adults 50 and older have no retirement savings. And problematically, Social Security is only designed to replace 40% of one's income, causing real problems for folks without retirement savings. These factors are contributing to survey results from changing the narrative, which found that over three-quarters of older Coloradans who are working or who are looking for work are doing so to make ends meet. Despite the changing makeup of our workforce, we also know that many of the services, supports, and underlying data that we collect are not reflective of the needs of older workers. Notably, Colorado surveys, as well as national work from the Government Accountability Office, finds that there are gaps in the training and education services offered to older adults, and that few are tailored to older workers' unique needs. Instead, the overwhelming majority of workforce programming and reporting is focused on workers who are considered to be in their prime working years, which is 25 to 54, or those who are younger and about to enter the labor force. Importantly, by not adjusting our economic systems to meet the evolving needs of our workforce, we undermine Coloradans' economic security. For example, we know that older workers often experience longer periods of long-term unemployment and have difficulty finding jobs that match their skills and experiences. We believe that addressing the above-mentioned gaps in data collection and workplace services for older adults requires better reporting, representation, and collaboration, all of which are essential to House Bill 1010. Good work is already happening across the state, and we don't necessarily need brand new systems or services. Instead, we may only need simple tweaks to ensure state services are relevant and are effectively meeting the needs of the fastest growing segment of our state's labor force. By advancing House Bill 1010, our state will be taking important steps to ensure the economic well-being of workers across Colorado. Thank you again for the opportunity to be here and we strongly encourage your support of House Bill 1010.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L005.

L005 is fairly straightforward. we need to strike the language around the state apprenticeship council and that's what it does so it just strikes those that those lines on page five great

No, thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't have much to add to the expert testimony from our panel of proponents. I want to thank them for their time. Some of them I have been working with for a very long time on issues facing older Coloradans. And increasingly, older Coloradans are required to remain in the workforce. So it is incumbent upon us in the state legislature to do what we can to provide the support that they need to continue to move within and around the workforce across the state. They are a vital part of it, and I think we can do better to serve them. So I thank the folks who came today to testify in support, and I urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, sponsor. You know, as an older American myself, and I appreciate the testimony of the witnesses and so forth, You know, I'm a little chagrined today, not just because of this, far from it, but, you know, for the last, I'll say at least 30 years, probably longer than that, but at least the last 30 years, you know, it's been out there for all Americans to actively plan for their retirement and to put money away, save, invest, and I'm all for older people working and all that, but I find it just, like I say, here after the last 30-plus years, when there's been news story after news story and articles and testimony, you know, that people need to plan for their retirements, And here we are 30 plus years later after all of the information that's out there that unless people are just living under a rock, which I guess some people are, that they find when they're now that they're 65 years and older that they come up short. And I know there's a lot of factors out there, but I just find it befuddling that people today are saying, gosh, here I am now, 65, 70, 75 years old, and I don't have enough for retirement. Well, where have you been the last 30 and 40 years? What have you been doing And you know we had the advent of 401K plans that have been around for the better part now of 40 years We've had innumerable retirement plans that most businesses offer. We have Social Security, which has never been meant for, as your sole means of support, in retirement. Anybody that's thought about that, that, geez, I worked 40 years or 50 years and I've got Social Security, I don't know what they're thinking. So, you know, I'm just a little chagrined that we hear that people are in their older working years and they're saying that they don't have enough or so forth. So, you know, I just, I'll say to a certain degree, venting, because I'm just amazed that people today, with all the information and the encouragement of, at the local level, newspaper articles, the state level, the federal level, there's legislation out there that encourages young people today in their 20s and 30s, when they were in their 30s 40 years ago or 30 years ago, and now they're 70, and they go, gosh, I don't have enough for retirement. So, you know, I'm just venting a little bit. So thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I mean, I'm glad that we could bring this to your attention, Senator Liston, that there are people who struggle to make a living wage through their years and into their retirement years. It is a reality that faces millions upon millions of Americans. And I just want to say on the record that I don't share those sentiments, that I don't place the blame on people working into their later years when they should be able to retire on their lack of attention to available programs. I have been aware of these issues facing older Coloradans my entire life. in my community across the state. It is part of why I wanted to serve in the legislature to address the issues facing older people, to bring some support to them so that they can age with dignity wherever they like as long as they wish. Part of that is financial security. So I want to say that maybe if it was this bill that helped bring to your attention that older Coloradans are facing poverty, then I'm really glad that we did that today. I think we have been aware of that for a long time, and the folks in the room are here advocating on behalf of the welfare of older Coloradans who have to continue to be in the workforce. The realities facing Coloradans of all ages is that it's difficult to sock away enough money to retire. We are in tough times, and I am keenly aware of those issues and those troubles facing my constituents of all ages, In particular, older Coloradans who, yes, would very much like to be able to retire at age 65 and need to continue to work into their later years. That's the reality for a lot of people. And so what we're doing here today is addressing some of the issues that come up around that and involving older Coloradans in the workforce services to integrate them into the decision-making when it comes to conversations and policies that are made on their behalf. So I think that it's a really good step forward here. Maybe it help others become aware of the issues facing Coloradans and financial insecurity of many older people in the state And I think it a good step forward And I just want to thank again the folks who have spent their careers if not post-careers, in this room as volunteers to come and advocate on behalf of these folks who do need to be in the workforce. And they are valuable members of the workforce that we need to respect and provide them the services they deserve. So, Mr. Chair, thank you again for your time, and I urge and I vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Madam Chair, for bringing the bill.

Thank you. Madam Chair, would you like to move? House Bill 1010. To the committee. To the cows. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members.

That is a proper motion. Ms. Chapman, will you please poll the committee? Senator Catlin.

We know for today. Judah.

Houston. We know for today.

Mr. Chair. Yes. That passes on a vote of 3-2. And with that, the Senate Business, Labor, and Technology Committee is adjourned. Thank you all so much. Thank you.