Colorado House 2026 Legislative Day 077

The House will come to order. The Pledge of Allegiance will be led by Representative Froelich. Please join me in the pledge.

Mr. Schiebel, please call the roll.

Representative Froelich, before you begin.

Representative Froelich, before you begin, I have a certificate for you for saying the Pledge of Allegiance. Yes, a round of applause, members.

Representative Froelich.

that the journal of March 30th be approved as corrected by the chief clerk. That is the cutest grandbaby ever. Members, you have heard the motion that the journal be approved as corrected by the chief clerk. All those in favor say aye.

All those opposed, no.

The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. Members, we are moving into business. Oh, announcements. Let's do announcements first, folks. Madam Majority Leader.

Representative Johnson.

Woo-hoo! Thank you. Representative Gilchrist.

Representative Mabry.

Representative Froelich.

Members, please keep your voices down. Representative Smith.

Oh, outstanding. Speaker Pro Tem Basinecker.

Did you know I was a member of ASCSU? Speaker, Pro Temp-based snicker. Yay. Yay us. All right, seeing no further announcements or introductions, we will move into business. Members, please take your seats. Thank you. Madam Majority Leader.

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

Seeing no objection, we will proceed immediately to House Resolution 1004. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Resolution 1004.

Madam Majority Leader.

Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Schiebel, please read the Be It Resolved Clause.

on both sides of the aisle, with Representative Garcia and with the survivors and community who pleaded with us to hear them. This is your day, your moment, your time. And when community calls on us to listen, real leaders do not walk away. We step forward. For me, this is more than words on paper. It is part of who I am, my roots, and my story. I came from hands cracked and bleeding beneath the hot sun, from a family who rose before the sun and worked until it disappeared behind the mountains, from people who carried more than crops. They carried dreams, dignity, and the weight of feeding a nation. That sacrifice is not history to me. It is living, it is present, and it is what brought me here today. The farm workers' movement has always been a chorus, not one voice, but many. Workers who marched, who organized, who demanded dignity when the world told them to stay quiet. And today, we honor that truth. Yesterday, we acted, not because it was easy, but because it was necessary. Because when survivors come forward, when community is asked to be heard, we are called to do more than listen. We are called to lead. Today, as this bill is signed, we are not just changing a name. We are choosing courage. We are choosing accountability. We are choosing to center voices that are too often unheard. I want to recognize also Dolores Fuerta, a woman whose courage helped shape the movement. My family marched alongside her. That legacy does not sit behind us. It lives within us. But this movement does not belong to history alone. It belongs to the farm workers of today, the men and women who wake before the sun rises, who work through heat, through exhaustion, through pain, who bend and lift and endure so the rest of us never have to wonder where our next meal is coming from. In Colorado, agriculture generates nearly $47 billion in economic activity. It employs between 20,000 to 40,000 workers, real people, real families, and real lives. and still too often they are invisible. Behind every number is a mother, a father, and a child waiting at home. A story we have not taken the time to hear, and today I want to lift up women. The mujeres in our fields and dairies, women who make up nearly a third of this workforce, women who face higher rates of violence, lower wages, fewer protections, and still they show up every day. They show up for their families, they show up for their communities, and they show up for us. As a daughter and granddaughter of farm workers and as a survivor, I see them. I see their strength and I see their sacrifice, and I carry their fight with me because this is what leadership looks like. It's not always easy and it's not always comfortable, but it is always rooted in doing what is right. They have carried us on their shoulders long enough, Now it is our turn to carry them. And members, I ask for a yes vote today. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It slays to serve with you. It slays to serve with you. Madam Speaker, members, it is a good day today. It is a good day because today we are finally honoring the entire reason why this day even exists. honoring farm workers. We are honoring the people whose hands turned black picking potatoes and strawberries. We are honoring the people who had to sleep with thorns in their hands. We are honoring the people who did back-breaking work and still do back-breaking work every day for us. We are honoring the campesinos and the campesinas We are honoring today the only reason any of us are alive today. Because each of us rely on the hard labor that farm workers do so that we can eat. Some of us three times a day, probably some of you more. I'm just kidding. And some less. and if any of you are not eating veggies, please start eating your vegetables. It is an honor to be here with all of you. It is an honor to be standing with all of you, standing with you in the well, having our guests here to celebrate and honor the first of many Farm Workers' Days to come. Thank you. Please vote yes.

Yes, ma'am.

Madam Speaker, I move that the following bills be made special orders on March 31, 2026 at 9.23 a.m. Senate Bill 9, Senate Bill 21, Senate Bill 54, Senate Bill 26, Senate Bill 126, Senate Bill 61, and House Bill 1123.

Senate Bill 9 by Senators Lindstedt and Snyder, also Representatives McCluskey and Stuart R., concerning the determination of whether an entity is a charitable organization for purposes of state sales and use tax.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It is an honor to serve with you. It's an absolute honor to serve with you. Thank you. Members, I move Senate Bill 9 and the Finance Committee report. To the Finance Committee report. Members, in the Finance Committee, we, in an act of good faith, changed our safety clause to a petition clause. I would ask for your support of that move. A wholehearted yay, hooray. And thank you. Ask for your support on the committee report. Is there any further discussion on the committee report?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Senate Bill 9 brings needed clarity to Colorado's tax code by creating the presumption that a nonprofit organization with current or prior federal 501c3 status qualifies for the exemption from state sales and use tax The federal government has threatened revoking non federal status for reasons totally unrelated to their compliance with federal tax law, reasons like their mission area and the population serve. Because the federal and state codes use shared language, changes in federal nonprofit status can automatically affect a nonprofit's exemption from state taxes.

is that if a Colorado nonprofit loses its federal status, it can automatically lose its exemption from state taxes. This is a wrong and dangerous practice. Nonprofits should earn their state-exempt status based on compliance and transparency, not whether or not their mission aligns with federal priorities. We need to ensure that Colorado can push back on this trend, and I'm really proud that Senate Bill 9 accomplishes this goal in a thoughtful and measured way, and I would urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I just want to say what an honor it is to be here with Representative Stewart, I want to thank our Senate co-primes, Senators Lindstedt and Snyder, and all of the non-profit organizations that have reached out to us to share their stories and appreciation for this important legislation. This legislation ensures that if a non-profit organization has received their letter from the IRS qualifying them as a 501c3, as a charitable organization, they can continue to claim that without any other implications should the federal government decide to take action based on their mission. For those organizations, our family resource centers, our environmental organizations, the advocacy groups that work for our immigrants or education, think of any nonprofit in your community. This bill ensures that they will continue to qualify for sales tax and use tax exemptions. We ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Chair. So I like the disconnect of the federal from the state on this, and the state does have its own process to make these determinations. Now, it uses the 501c3 status as a basis for that. So it uses the 501c3 status, and then it makes its own determination, and then it has a whole renewal process. The way I read the bill, the concern and the amendment that I have been discussing with the sponsors and then presented previously, is that the way the bill is worded is it makes the assumption that the revocation of the 501c3 status was political. And there's a number of reasons that the 501c3 status can be revoked. One of them would be political, and many others might have to do with an abuse of the 501c3 status. And so the amendment here which I going to move I move L005 to SB and ask that it be properly displayed

Thank you, Chair. So the, basically this just says, and it's the, you know, input in the legalese of the bill, is that the presumption in the state when there's a revocation of a 501c3 status that that, while it will change federally, the 501c3 status or the charitable organization status will continue until the renewal process, until it gets to the renewal process up to one year. So that means it gives the organization the presumption that it is legitimate and gives it an opportunity of defense. And I think both of those are important. Even if it, well, especially if it was political, but even if it was, even if the revocation was due to something like improper use of the 501c3 status or fraud or anything like that, you still have to have the day in court, right? And I think this keeps Colorado in that mindset that the accused should be, in this case, that would be the 501c3 that has been revoked, the 501c3 status rescinded. But in the determination at the Colorado level, we should operate with the presumption of innocence. And we should go from that presumption of innocence and then act on that until the renewal period up to one year, and that gives the charitable organization the ability to dispute, to challenge, and quite possibly remain. without just being something where the bill currently written, I think, would allow it to just continue into perpetuity without ever being actually challenged. So it should be challenged because the 501c3 status was the basis for the original charitable designation, but the organization should be a rebuttable defense that they have, and they should enter into this with the state of Colorado with a presumption of innocence and be able to retain that if determined to be so. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank my colleague. We have had some fairly robust conversations about this concern that an organization have to be reviewed within an annual period of time to ensure that its status is still accurate. Additionally, in this particular amendment, I think I understand that my colleague is asking that there be another path for a charitable organization to be considered a 501c3 and sales and use tax exempt. What I would offer is that I think this, you know, in a moment of time where we are focused on being more streamlined and efficient in our work, this creates some unnecessary administrative burden, certainly drives a fiscal note, and I'm not sure accomplishes or is necessary for any nonprofit organization. that may have committed any type of fraud or has disbanded. I would ask for a no vote on this amendment and certainly, again, appreciate my colleagues' concern. There are other requirements and measures in place, both through the Secretary of State's office and through DOR, to ensure that organizations are both filing in a fair timeline and that they are reviewed. I'd ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Chair. So there is a secondary path, and it is based on the 501c3 status currently. And so Colorado does make its own determination, and the entry for it, the entry level for it, is that it has a 501c3 status. Now, when I read the bill, my read of the bill is that the charitable organization would retain that status, that charitable organization status, and it doesn't really. But if you look at the regulation, there is already a process in place for the approval. So Colorado already does approve it. 501c3 is that. Colorado can already approve a 501c3 charity, a charitable organization, outside of the 501c3 status, but it is currently, but if you have a 501c3, if you have a charitable organization that is founded on a 501c3 status, it's really incumbent on the state to review that. There is an annual review process, so this just takes out the automatic renewal process. because, and I'll go back and reread it, but the way I read it in committee, unless it was changed, and I don't think it has, is that the exemption status would hold, and that would actually bypass the renewal status, because it's just saying if the 501c3 is rescinded, that that status will remain in place, and it will still be considered a Colorado charitable organization. That does not take into effect the annual review process. So by the writing, I think unintentionally, by the writing of the bill, because after the review process, it would be, well, the 501c3 was rescinded. They are a charitable organization, and this law would say, well, since it was rescinded, they will be considered a charitable organization. And the next year at the renewal process, you would just go back to this bill, this law, this entry into the CRS, and you would say, well, they were a 501c3. It was rescinded. Therefore, this bill, SB 26-009, requires that they maintain their charitable organization status. So without this amendment, what the bill does is bypasses the annual renewal process. Not intentionally, it just bypasses the annual renewal process. And instead of saying, hey, it's got to be renewed, you have the right to challenge it, you should have the right to challenge it. The renewal process is something that happens. I mean, if it's an annual renewal process, I'm assuming that happens every year. I'm pretty sure that's what annual means. So this just ensures that that annual renewal process is not bypassed. It still stays inside the Colorado authority of making those approvals because Colorado can approve already a charitable organization So in that sense, if we don't need that, then this bill is unnecessary because Colorado can already do that. But what this bill does in effect is it gives the long-term, just by the revocation of the 501c3 status, would actually, my reading, and we'll check with the lawyers, but would actually give the charitable organization status indefinitely. and I don't think that's the way the sponsors want to go because there are times where a 501c3 status is abused or a charitable organization status is abused. There could be fraud involved in it. I think we do need to have the presumption of innocence. We have a system that is already in place for creation and renewal, and so this just assures that we need it. It should not drive a fiscal note.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I do appreciate the protection the bill is trying to provide to our non-profits that operate properly and nobly in this state. But as mentioned, there are those that could potentially lose their status for very valid reasons from the federal government and recognizing the potential for fiscal notes as a concern. I move L007 to Senate Bill 9 and ask that it be properly displayed. So this is slightly different.

Rep. Richardson. Thank you. I apologize. I thought these had been shared. So briefly, what this amendment does, the previous one kind of assumed an instrument. This would presume that the federal government's ruling on status was appropriate, but allows the organization 90 days to come back and kind of demonstrate their work and that they should continue to have status. So I think it lessens what could be work on the department and the concern about a fiscal note, but still provides a reasonable kind of break on the process if somebody was appropriately stripped of their non-profit status. The other, well, I'll leave it at that, and I'd urge yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to my colleague for this amendment. My reading of this amendment is that this does actually create an additional process, which again would probably drive a fiscal note, which is obviously a huge concern of most bills here And I would say this also kind of undermines the intent of the bill which is the presumption that an organization still qualifies for sales and use tax And I just want to be very, very clear. We have been speaking about the Secretary of State's processes and the Department of Revenue's process. This bill is very narrowly tailored to just the sales and use tax exemption that exists within the Department of Revenue. So this bill does not touch the Secretary of State's charitable organization process by which one can solicit charitable donations. This particular piece of legislation is very narrow to the DOR process of I go into a store, I hand them my exemption, and I don't have to pay sales and use tax on that purchase if that purchase is for my organization. So I just want to be very clear about the narrowness of the legislation writ large, and then as it pertains to this particular amendment, this really is going to drive an additional process and really seems a bit outside of the scope of the particular piece of legislation. So we'd ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to move Amendment 0-9 to Senate Bill 09 and ask that it properly be displayed.

AML, Winter? Basically what we're asking for here is what this will do is this will prompt the Department of Revenue to consider whether the organization still exists in Colorado based on revocation or is still operating as a charitable organization. With that, I ask for a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our Assistant Minority Leader. You know, since a charitable organization is required to file their taxes, this revocation or suspension I think creates an added hurdle since it would require the Department of Revenue to have to go review and check this information. Again, an administrative burden would drive a fiscal note. I don't think it's necessary given the requirements around annual filings. Representative Brooks?

I would push back a little bit, a lot a bit perhaps, that that's the job of the DOR, that there needs to be perhaps an administrative burden in checking these things. I mean, I won't go completely off script and talk about how much we've put on to the DOR recently when it comes to their police force and everything else that we're doing with them. But asking the DOR to do their job to ensure that the policy that we're passing is adequate, I think is perfectly sensible, if not prudent. over worried about I mean look we about ready to start playing the the biggest shell shell game with money here next week that the state will see all year as we shuffle one thing around from one place to the next Finding money or telling the DOR that perhaps they need to be involved in this is something I'm pretty confident we can solve. I'm pretty confident that we can solve that in the name of good policy. So for that, I believe that this amendment is on point, and I would ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to talk why I believe that this is an important amendment, because of something personally that happened to me when I was 14 years old. when I was 14 years old a gentleman bought 50 acres next to my father's farm and he said he was a church and and so he had a couple of boys and because I was always out there changing water I got to become good friends with these boys and that was at 14 we spent a lot of time together well at 16 it was a front it really wasn't a church and that's why this this bill is good. So at 16, my dad wakes me up in the morning. He says, I got some bad news for you, son. He says, there was a drug deal gone bad. And that boy that is a good friend of yours was killed. There was four people actually killed that day because of a drug deal gone bad. So there was four people killed. And then if this would have been in place, they would have suspended that that fake church front, and my friend might still be alive today. Thank you.

I do believe this is a good amendment. We're simply asking the department to consider credible information. If the folks at the RRS have made a determination that seems counter to an authority that the state has granted to a business, it just makes common sense to me that you would consider that information. I would urge yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The DUR already does this. We'd ask for a no vote.

According to the language of the amendment here and according to the language of the bill, you cannot say the DOR is actually doing this. This is something that we're trying to put in because it's not given within the context. When the federal government steps in and tries to take my church's tax-exempt status away, there needs to be some kind of fallback that says this can be immediately taken care of because we are proven to be an ongoing nonprofit organization that has this C3 status to it. To say DOR is already doing this, that's not true. That is not even close to true. This is something that we have to add in so that there is the check and balance for this to happen. The DOR can do it, but they are not doing it. This is not a given. And I've seen in 35 years of being a pastor, specifically through the Obama administration, where the Obama administration was coming after churches, coming after 501c3s, uh, Lewis Lerner, all of that kind of stuff was really coming down heavy, and we have a proven record that the DOR was not stepping in when they should have stepped in. So it is irresponsible to say that the DOR is taking care of this. We have 30 years of track record to prove the DOR is not doing this. This is why we need this amendment. This will potentially attack, directly attack nonprofits that are in the ministry arena. specifically churches, and that's not okay. So let's stay with the facts. DR is not doing this.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My thanks to the sponsors when they brought this in committee. We had some really great, interesting discussions on it. And I appreciate their willingness to change it, got rid of the safety clause and put in the petition. And so I thought that was a very nice move. One of the things that I asked in committee is what is the adjudication process and is there something that hasn't been identified that we can't resolve? And after experts that were both for and against the bill, that answer is no. They can't find something that's doing it. So then my question was, is then why are we running legislation if we haven't identified something. So in that vein, I move L008 and request it to be properly displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So one of the things that's... So one of the points that we were having in this discussion is, if we want to make a separate determination between what the IRS does and what DOR does, then so be it. What this amendment states is if the IRS revokes a nonprofit status, then that company has to notify DOR within 30 days. then DUR has 180 days to go through its adjudication process and notify the business yay or nay. It's a simple procedural move that says if you have been revoked by the federal level, we the state have 180 days to review it ourselves. If they concur, then it's revoked at the state level. If the state doesn't concur, then the state certainly still has that priority to continue it on. It is simply putting a timeline on there for the adjudication process. Again, 30 days after the business has been notified, it must notify DOR, and then 180 days after DOR has been notified, it must make its adjudication decision and notify the business what its decision is. I urge an aye vote. Thank you. Representative Brooks.

I would like to rise in support of this very sensible amendment from a colleague from Douglas County. Being able to have that review period, I think, is we're trying to get this policy into a place where we can be in support of it, trying to get it to a place to where we can look at the mechanisms of how this is going to be pursued and say this makes sense This is a good amendment The review periods in this amendment make sense. I would ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, members, for your patience. I really want to emphasize that in earnest we are trying to address the concerns that have been raised, and I hope this will be helpful. I want to be really clear that the amendments that we have been discussing have been brought, I believe, because there are concerns there are non-profits who may be acting fraudulently, and I want to emphasize that there are already existing processes and guidance in place to ensure that any non that is acting fraudulently or that has violated the law is caught And some of these things include that the Department of Revenue can flag review deny any questionable organizations that charitable status. They can cross-check with the IRS. They can review filings or complaints. They can pause or deny their status if there are any of these red flags. And if there is any indication of fraud or misrepresentation, the Department has the authority to open an investigation, deny or revoke charitable status, or coordinate with the IRS. I just want to emphasize that while I appreciate these last few amendments have come forward with an intent to address that, it is duplicative of the authorities that the Department of Revenue already has. I urge a no vote on Amendment L8.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I think what we're saying on our site is that it's not duplicative. And just reading this, and I do understand that this is current DOR policy, that this is just basically what they outline on their website, and it sounds like they just want to codify this into law, which is interesting to me why they're already doing this, why they then want to codify it into law. But if we look at what's added here, what is added is, as amended, okay, in determining whether, caps, I'm reading all caps, in determining whether an organization qualifies as a charitable organization, the Department of Revenue shall presume that an organization that presents the department with a 501c3 determination letter from the Internal Revenue Service qualifies as a charitable organization. So if they get that first one, the department shall not presume that an organization does not qualify. So if they get a letter of determination that they've lost their 501c3 status, then from the Internal Revenue Service, then the presumption is that they qualify as a charitable organization and the department shall not presume that an organization does not qualify. Now, this is a little bit odd thing to say, because if the Colorado charitable status was premised on a 501c3 and that 501c3 is revoked, then what we have is the DOR can cross-check, may, can review, versus shall presume. Okay. Can and shall. Can and shall. They have the ability to. Can. They are able to review. It's not even so much the permissive. But shall is they must assume that they qualify as a charitable organization. So we have a contradiction in our language. So what this does is SB009 makes it possible for an organization to continue to be treated as a charitable organization, even after misconduct, including fraud, unless the state affirmatively proves otherwise. So now, if you want to talk about driving a fiscal note, the fiscal note is going to have to come because the state has to currently prove that they're not. You could go with a 501c3 status, is revoked, and you could rely on the 501c3 status, give them a... to a year or the annual renewal process. And the annual renewal process, as we know, is not really an annual process. It's more like an annual perfunctory pass across the desk with a blessing, maybe throw some water on it or something like that. I don't know. But it's not an actual annual view. It's not an actual determination of whether they qualify. It's a presumption that they do, and this bill says they shall presume that an organization qualifies as a charitable organization. So they have to start with the premise. They have to start by this law, by this bill. They start with the presumption that they are a charitable organization. So now what are you going to do with that? Now you have to make the act of proof. I'm not allowed to do that. Now you have to make the act of proof that it is not, because the bill says they shall presume that it is a charitable organization. So now where do you go from there? Because no matter what happens, they shall presume that it is a charitable organization. The department shall not presume that an organization does not qualify as a charitable organization because of a change in the organization's 501c3 status. So now you take this and you step back and you go, okay, what is the organization going to do? Can they even? I'm curious as to whether they can even make a determination because they have to presume at a federal level. Now, Colorado does not have to reward a charitable organization status based on a 501c3, but this bill says definitively that they shall be considered qualified as an organization. So now I'm curious from the sponsors, how are you going to handle that? How is the department going to handle that when they are required by law to consider them a charitable organization? So the law here says you must consider them a charitable organization by the fact that they had their 501c3 status revoked. Therefore, you must consider them a charitable organization. Now, what is the basis going to be for considering them not to be a charitable organization? so the law actually I think makes it pretty much impossible to remove a fraudulent 501c3 based on based on this based on this there's the presumption of qualification once an organization has had a 501c3 recognition the department of revenue must start the assumption that it qualifies under state law. Once it has that, it must presume that. It shall. No negative inference from revocation. Even if the IRS revokes a status for fraud or abuse, the department cannot treat that revocation as evidence of disqualification. So how are you going to, you must presume that they're qualified. You can't look at whether they are not qualified. No mandatory re-review trigger. The bill does not require a reassessment when the federal status changes or misconduct is identified burden to the shifts to the state. So if you're talking about a fiscal note process, the first process the amendment that I gave gave the I guess the defendant the positive defense that they had that presumption, they just would have to go until their annual, no longer than a year, up to when they should normally be reviewed at whatever rubber stamp process that is anyways, but then make that active determination and therefore prove that they are a charitable organization. This bill actually bypasses all that. The burden shifts to the state. The state must independently investigate and prove the organization no longer meets Colorado's definition rather than the organization having to reprove eligibility. The bottom line is that an organization that engaged in fraud could continue receiving charitable status by default. Not only by default, but the words shall. The word shall makes it, it's beyond default, unless and until Colorado undertakes a separate investigation and affirmatively revokes it. And then I think that would be an uphill battle because this law says shall. It doesn't say may, it doesn't say may presume, it says shall presume. That's a core vulnerability. The status persists passively even after a disqualifying conduct. Active proactive state action. I think maybe what we just need to do is change that shall to a presume, the Department of Revenue may presume, that an organization that presents the Department of Determination letter from the Internal Revenue Service qualifies as a charitable organization. The department may presume that an organization qualifies. But that's what we tried to do in the first place. So I'd be happy to discuss a theoretical amendment. I tried to do that for the last few weeks. But right now, the bill as written enables a formerly charitable organization, a formerly 5013C3, to continue under a fraudulent status. so unfortunately I was hoping that the amendment would get me there because this is a problem I think if if something is done like that politically it doesn't matter what side it's on but this allows this makes the assumption that it's political allows the process to be politicized and actually puts the state in a position where it defaults a fraudulent 501c3 into a continual notice of charitable organization, and that comes directly out of our tax dollars. A fraudulent, non-charitable organization is impacting the taxes of Colorado by what it buys, by all kinds of things that it does. And this bill ultimately encourages fraud.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Amendment L010 and ask that it be displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think this conversation has been trying to thread a needle, and I'm hopeful that this might do it. Basically, I think the concern is that there is language in here related to a presumption that the department needs to presume some things in the event that a 501c3 status is changed for an organization. Now, this is a curious build to begin with because a 501c3 status is not required in Colorado to actually have this exemption right You can have a charitable organization that only is recognized as tax within the state of Colorado not at the federal level And so it curious to me that we're even tying these things together because the definition as it currently exists does not contemplate really the 501c3 status. And so in some ways, I'm still trying to understand why there is a fear or concern that this needs to be added. But putting that aside for a moment, the question is, for me, what does it mean that the department shall not presume something? And does that translate to the guy in the department a suggestion that he shouldn't look any further into an organization when he finds out that their 501c3 status has been revoked. And I don't think that that is what is desired, as the bill sponsor has noted on the record. The desire is not to change any of those investigatory processes or procedures that ensure a closer look. The desire is just simply to say, hey, if they lose their status here, it shouldn't affect automatically their status in Colorado. And so if that is indeed the case, then hopefully this particular amendment satisfies that, because it says nothing in this subsection 2.5 prevents the Department of Revenue from reviewing whether an organization qualifies as a charitable organization for purposes of this subsection 2.5. In other words, Department, please do not read the language related to what you should or should not presume as limiting your ability to look into the charitable organization in the other ways that you are required and expected to do, that there is no hindrance there of seeking to look closer. In other words, the presumption is not that you have to just receive that revocation and put it in a file and look no further, the presumption is simply that it doesn't automatically result in your loss of charitable organization status at the state level and that there still may be an opportunity to look further into the status in light of all of the other requirements. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We deeply appreciate our colleagues and the attempt to resolve some of the concerns that have been brought up during this particular debate. Again, to be very clear speaking to the amendment, this piece of legislation really does target a very specific exemption that nonprofits have. There are several benefits of being a nonprofit organization. One can be accepting charitable donations that have some sort of benefit for donors. and another is being able to be exempt from sales and use tax. For example, if you are purchasing items online, or in a store here in Colorado, being able to present that proof of sales and use tax exemption is a benefit that saves some organizations thousands, if not potentially tens of thousands of dollars every single year, which allows them to put those dollars back into their mission. The intent of this bill is to ensure that there is not a presumption of fraud or wrongdoing if a federal status is revoked due to potentially mission-oriented or political reasons, and that here in Colorado we retain the authority through the Department of Revenue and other processes to ensure that we are supporting our nonprofits should they be the target of something that is political or nefarious. And so really, really appreciative of the discussion today, particularly on this amendment, and we are actually going to be asking for an aye vote on this particular amendment. Thank you.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 2621. Senate Bill 21 by Senators Mullica and Simpson, also Representatives Barone and Pascal. Concerning authorizing the clean fleet enterprise to encourage the replacement of high-emitting trucks with low-emitting trucks in motor vehicle fleets.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move SB 26021. So moved. Representative Barone. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, this bill here that we're bringing, what this bill actually does is it's, this is an option. It's not a mandate. For my Republican colleagues, it's not a mandate. It's an option for trucking companies or truck drivers, independent truck drivers, to turn in their 2009 and older semi-truck vehicles to get decommissioned and get some financial help for a newer, cleaner, more efficient diesel or electric vehicle. Now, this program was started a couple years ago specifically just for electric vehicles, but the program was not working because the demand wasn't there and the product wasn't there. There wasn't very many electric semi-truck vehicles available for purchase or for use. So we expanded this program to include clean diesel vehicles, cleaner emissions, cleaner diesel vehicles, and it also includes natural gas vehicles. Now this is like I said is an option. We can turn those in to get decommissioned and get some financial help for newer vehicles The intent of this bill is to get those older vehicles off the road and get cleaner vehicles on the road This authorizes a current enterprise. It's an enterprise that already exists. It's not creating a new enterprise. It creates grants, rebates, or loans, or other financial tools to acquire cleaner vehicles. Now, this bill also entails that 2006 and older vehicle are prioritized, but it includes also 2009 and older vehicles. So I believe this is a good option bill for independent truck drivers or trucking companies to be able to use newer vehicles and get those older ones off the road. And I urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So why would we do this? As Reparone mentioned, the clean fleet enterprise for vehicles over 26,000 pounds has been pretty underutilized. And the main reason is because the tech is still in the early adapter phase. so for electric it's about three percent and for compressed natural gas and hydrogen they're both less than one percent so we are wanting to continue the mission of this enterprise to get emissions out of the air to get cleaner air so for the next five years so this is only for five years it's capped at 20% of the fund, can be used for swapping out an older diesel vehicle with the emphasis on 2006 and older, and replace it with 2019 and over? Yep. Okay. 2019. 2019. Okay. So I request an aye vote because I think this is good progress, continuing the mission of getting emissions out of the air here in Colorado. Do you want to move that? No, you go. Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So what this amendment does, it reiterates the goal that the mission of the Clean Fleet Enterprise is to achieve measurable results and outcomes in terms of getting emissions out of the air. And it also has a section in it that requires this new program, statistics from this new program to be presented in the report that happens at the end of the year and is presented at the SMART Act hearings. And we urge an aye vote.

Representative Barone. Thank you, Madam Chair. I urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, these bills always... I'm just... Well, this is a second reading. This is a time for debating policy and making sure we do it in the public eye for the people that are in the gallery and the people that are figuratively in the gallery online. And a couple things about these programs when we talk about climate and what this is supposed to achieve. The state is in a $750 million deficit, at least. We have all kinds of shortfalls. We're $1.5 billion behind. We have $3 billion worth of, or $4 billion worth of certificates of deposit or certificates of participation, participation trophies as I refer to them, and we just don't have the money. So I don't know why this money in particular is not rolled into something productive. Now, most of these vehicles are not out of sync because of early adopter. They're out of sync because they've been rejected by the market. The battery, for instance, if you follow the battery buses, I mean, besides the likelihood or the possibility that they become completely engulfed in flame in a matter of seconds, and that puts a damping effect on battery buses,

L11 has been properly displayed. Representative DeGraf.

Good.

Representative Brown.

i do appreciate the clarification and the clarif and and going back to that vehicle issue, I am assuming that those pre-2006 vehicles are decommissioned. So let's say you take a diesel truck off the road that's pre-2006 and you replace it with a 2025 model. Whatever the difference in emissions between those two vehicles are, the one has been decommissioned and the other starts up, and let say you have a difference in miles per gallon of 10 miles per gallon Let just give it something really crazy like a difference of 10 miles per gallon You going to have to drive a whole lot of miles before you offset the emissions that were created in the new vehicle Now, I'm personally not opposed to the new emissions because carbon dioxide, again, just makes the grass grow and it makes plants more drought resilient. So that's not a problem. The problem here I have is the money because we are going to look at all kinds of stuff and we're going to take that money and we're going to re-roll that money into other programs. And I'm just saying, if we're going to accomplish nothing with this program, and we are literally accomplishing nothing with this program, I would like to see that money rolled into something that, you know, some other fraud, waste, and abuse program that we're going to fund. So I'm opposed to that. Now, I do appreciate that you're saying that these metrics, baseline assumption and methodology, are supposedly covered in the smart hearing, but I guarantee you they're not. They don't have metrics, they don't have baseline assumptions, and they don't have methodology. 100% guarantee that they don't. And that will come out at the smart hearing. But since you're saying that they do, then all we're asking here is that they take their IT department that they already have, because some of this stuff is already posted on there, and they post the methodology, baseline assumptions, and metrics on the website. Now, those are not going to change. metrics, baselines, and methodology, and they're going to update and measure the progress. And they already do this in a sense. So all we're really adding is adding the metrics, baselines, assumptions, and methodology and saying that as you have the data, that it's updated. Most of that is done automatically. So this is just saying really this bottom line comes down to adding the metrics, baseline, assumption, and methodology so that we can track the actual progress. Because if it's important, you measure it. and that's what a metric is for. So again, I thank you for the clarification on that, but I think it is important because if we're going to spend money on it, we need to know where we're going. Right now, when we don't have metrics, baseline assumptions, and methodology, all we know is that we're making good time, but we don't know where we're going or we're getting nowhere fast. So I ask for an aye vote. For science. And for the children.

Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it's important to provide the chamber with some background and history and some current information about the program that we're talking about. In my first year in office towards the end of the year, this building passed Senate Bill 21-260. It was an interesting bill because it created a variety of different enterprises to address some transportation issues, but because of Proposition 117, it had to create multiple enterprises instead of just one. If it created just one enterprise, it would have to go to the voters for approval because it was looking to bring in to the state more than $100 million over five years. So the bill created these multiple enterprises and within that particular bill the Clean Fleet Enterprise was born Now, Senate Bill 21-260 is one of the more expensive pieces of legislation in Colorado history. In fact, it forces taxpayers to hand over $5.4 billion to fund these enterprises. The Clean Fleet Enterprise has allocated millions of dollars to purchase clean vehicles by cities, municipalities, and public companies. To give you a taste of what's been happening, the Bristlecone Group, which is an Aurora-based specialized delivery company, has received $636,000 in taxpayer funds to purchase four new trucks. UPS got $1.5 million to purchase 10 trucks. No, 10 electric delivery vans. Excuse me. Xcel Energy received $2.775 million to buy 15 bucket trucks. Cisco, the global leader in selling, marketing, and distributing food products to restaurants, hotels, and others, is earmarked to receive over $5 million for regional delivery trucks. But these aren't just any trucks. They are electric-powered trucks, which, as we've heard, this doesn't just allow for those. But what's interesting is the price of these trucks costs about $160,000 each. The price of ones using combustion engines, about $94,000. My question is, why are we subsidizing private entities with taxpayer dollars? When people are struggling to put food on the table, Why are we demanding they pay more to government so that we can help UPS buy more vehicles? Did you know that in the final quarter of last year alone, UPS reported a profit of $2.6 billion? They brought in $7.9 billion for the whole year. Why should our people be subsidizing them? In fact, UPS's profits, just by way of grasping this, would be enough to fund our state's entire portion of both Medicaid and higher education. And yet, we're giving or have given them almost $1.6 million to purchase 10 vans. Is this really where we are going to prioritize? We are going to expand a program and enable even more public, private companies to engage in this. All of this information is on CDPHE's dashboard. Is this really how we are going to prioritize? Nothing says we have to maintain these enterprises, much less expand them. Perhaps we can give this money back to the people and stop subsidizing companies that are well able to afford their own vehicles. I ask for a no vote.

Okay, just for math. I know everybody loves math. Just looked up. Pre-2006 UPS delivery vehicle, primarily conventional diesel, packaged cars, step vans, used for urban frequent stops typically achieve a real-world fuel economy in the range of 6 to 10 miles per gallon. With many reports, the driver accounts averaging around 7 to 8. Comparable conventional diesel vans from the late 2000s, and then for 2026, hybrid diesel, 8 to 12 miles per gallon. So the miles per gallon has effectively not changed. Let's just give it one mile per gallon. If we take $94,000, because that represents material and manpower, divided by $4 per gallon and multiply it by one mile per gallon difference, we get 2,350,000 miles. So at that point, at passing 235,2 million, 350,000 miles, then the new 2026 diesel van will start reducing emissions. Until then, it will not. Now, the circumference of the earth is roughly 25,000 miles, so we're talking about 100 trips. I'm not going to do that math in public. All right. So what we're doing, unfortunately, we should be rolling this money into something that actually accomplishes something, not a subsidy for organizations that don't need it. So I move L010 to SB021 and ask that to be displayed. Now just some further background. A lot of this stuff is around environmental justice. Reptigraph is... Wait for it to be properly displayed. I'm just talking in general. All right. L10 is properly displayed. Reptograph. Okay. So L10, the purpose of L10 stays within the bill title because it governs how the enterprise fee money is used for truck replacement program and it forces the bill itself to show that the unused fee revenue should be returned through lower charges rather than stockpiled to subsidize private fleet purchases. So amend the re-engrossed bill if at the end of any fiscal state year the The enterprise has not obligated at least 80% of the money budgeted for purposes of this subsection. The board shall reduce any fee or surcharge imposed pursuant to the subsection 7 and 8 of this section for the following fiscal year and the amount sufficient to offset any unobligated balance attributable to this section. If the board cannot reasonably implement this rate of reduction before the next fiscal year, the board shall suspend collection of the portion of the fee until the surcharge attributable to this subsection until the unobligated balance has been fully offset. Now, I do recognize that this is contrary to the nature of the Colorado General Assembly that it would reduce a fee but we can in fact reduce a fee and we can do so structurally We saying that we have too much money in this fund The purpose of this bill is to spend it and the other option would be to not collect it It is okay for the General Assembly to leave money in the pockets of citizens. I recognize that that concept is anathema, but it's probably something that we should learn to embrace. So, again, because the enterprise is overfunded, because it is just looking for some place to spend money, my suggestion is that we take that money, put it back into the pockets of citizens of Colorado, let them offset their wages, let them offset the high cost of living that we're creating in here, and actually just leave some money in their pockets instead of always lamenting about the high cost of living and the fact that in order to offset the high cost of living, the General Assembly needs to raise their taxes, raise debt, and raise fees on them to somehow make their lives better, which strangely the citizens of Colorado reject wholeheartedly. I ask for an aye vote on this. We don't need to be subsidizing. We don't need to be subsidizing these large organizations. We need to be leaving money in the pockets of the citizens of Colorado.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I come up here to say the money's already there. Money's already been allocated for this program. I urge a no vote.

L10.

L10, if anyone wanted to say it that way. Yes, the money is already there. We have the money. What we should be doing is rolling this into some sort of priority, and we should be prioritizing where we're spending this money instead of just saying we have the money, let's spend it. That is not fiscally responsible. What this amendment is saying is that going forward, if we have this case where this allocation, because the market is clearly saying that, yeah, we don't want your help on electric vehicles, now we're expanding it into diesel, and we're giving diesel vehicles to organizations, to companies that clearly don't need it. And we're doing so out of the pockets of the citizens of Colorado. So if this bill is not accomplishing what it was intended to, and of course industry is rejecting the battery-operated vehicles because they do not deliver, they literally do not deliver on their promises, then we cut the fee back and we leave the fee and we deplete the fee. and we don't just spend it because we have it. We spend it on something that we need. We actually spend it, and we choose a priority. Right now, our priority is, right now, we have, in the deficit spending that we're in, we have prioritized that we are going to give more money to large corporate entities that make $8 billion per year, and we are going to subsidize companies that make $8 billion per year. So I'm going to guess that the citizens of Colorado might object to subsidizing a company that makes $8 billion per year. I mean, the amount that they're, the one point, whatever they're getting, it's 1.5 million. It's barely in the decimal of what they're doing, yet they're taking that money, and it comes out of the pockets of the citizens of Colorado. This just says when we have more money than we need we don divert it into another program We say hey that program we are going to let it just naturally deplete and let spend that money on a priority not just spend it to spend it.

Paschal. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would submit that this is not what this bill is about, and for anyone in this room that has legislative ability to run bills, they could run that bill. But this is not this bill. I urge a no vote.

Okay. I move L009 to SB21 and ask that it be displayed. L-009 has been displayed to the amendment of the graph. Okay. Try this again. Over a million dollars given to a nearly $8 billion company. Over a million dollars coming from the pockets of the citizens of Colorado to an $8 billion company. for some undefined purpose of environmental justice, which is never defined but often used for its emotive value because that's how you get the lemmings to jump over the cliff. This bill, this amendment, the purpose of this amendment, the current enterprise financing keep the enterprise financing structure while showing that the fee-backed public money should not be given away to large fleets that can finance their own purchases so we just want this let's rein it back if we're going to help anybody let's help the small business community let's help the companies that actually need the breathing room that this would provide, I ask for an Ivo.

Is there any further discussion to L009? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of L-009 to Senate Bill 21. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed no The amendment is adopted to the bill Is there any further discussion to House Senate Bill 21 It's a little loud in here, please. Seeing none, the question is the adoption of Senate Bill 21 as amended. All those in favor, please say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 21 as amended is passed. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 54.

To the bill, Representative Ricks.

There's no committee report, so you are to the bill.

Okay. All right. Senate Bill 54 has been moved. Representative Ricks to the bill.

Representative Richardson.

Thank you, Representative Richardson and Ricks. Is there any further discussion on Senate Bill 54? Seeing none. The question before us is the passage of Senate Bill 54. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. House Senate Bill 54 passes. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 26.

Representative Leader.

26.

To the Senate Bill 026.

AML Winter.

passage of Senate Bill 26. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no? The ayes have it. Senate Bill 26 passes. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 126.

Representative Lukens.

To the Education Committee report.

Is there any further discussion to the committee report? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of the Education Committee report. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? No. The education committee report is adopted. Representative Johnson to Senate Bill 126.

Representative Lukens.

126. Is there any further discussion to Senate Bill 126? Representative Garcia Sander.

Is there any further discussion on Senate Bill 126 Seeing none the question is the adoption of Senate Bill 126 as amended All those in favor please say aye Aye All those opposed no The ayes have it. Senate Bill 126 as amended is passed. Mr. Shebo, please read the title to Senate Bill 26061.

Representative Lukens.

To the bill. Representative Richardson.

Representative Lukens.

Is there any further discussion on Senate Bill 61? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage. of Senate Bill 61. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 61 passes. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title

Representative Mabry.

Judiciary and Appropriations Committee report. To the committee reports. I move the committee reports. Awesome. Rep Mabry, to the Appropriations Committee report.

Is there any further discussion on the Appropriations Committee report? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of the Appropriations Committee report. All those in favor, please say aye. All those in opposition no The Appropriations Committee report is adopted to the Judiciary Committee report Representative Mabry.

L11 has been displayed. Representative Mabry?

Is there any further discussion to L11?

Is there any further discussion to L11? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of L11. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. L11 is adopted to the Judiciary Committee report. Representative Mabry, is there another amendment?

Oh, it's to the bell. Oh, it's L12 to the bell. So L14. Oh, okay. No, an L14 is to L12. Oh, okay.

I withdraw L12. L12 has been withdrawn. To the Judiciary Committee report. Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of the Judiciary Committee report. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The Judiciary Committee report is adopted. to the bill.

Representative Mabry.

L-12 has been moved and displayed. It is a multi-page amendment. It was received on March 26,

Thank you, Rep. Mabry. L14 has been moved to L12, to the amendment, L14. L14 just is a technical amendment on what we are talking about when we're talking about an overhead camera.

Is there any further discussion to amendment L14? Is there any further discussion to amendment L14? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of amendment L14 to L12. All those in favor, please say aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The L14 to L12 is adopted. To L12, is there any further discussion on L12, the amendment? Seeing none the question before us is the adoption of L12 to House Bill 1123 All those in favor please say aye All those opposed No the amendment is adopted to the bill House bill 1123 Is there any further discussion Representative for now

Is there any further discussion?

Rev the graph? Will you please move your amendment?

Thank you, Rep. DeGraf. L17 has been moved and properly displayed. Please do the amendment.

Is there any further discussion? Representative Mabry.

Is there any further discussion to L17 Seeing none the question before us is the adoption of L17 All those in favor please say aye Those opposed no No The amendment is lost To the bill, Representative Soper.

Is there any further discussion on House Bill 1123? Seeing none, the question is the adoption of House Bill 1123 as amended. All those in favor, please say aye.

Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. House Bill 1123 as amended is passed. Madam Majority Leader.

You've heard the motion. Seeing none, the objection, seeing no objection, the committee will rise and report. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The House will come back to order. Mr. Schiebel, please read the report of the Committee of the Whole.

Representative Joseph. Members, you have heard the motion that we adopt the report of the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote.

With 37 I, 21 no, and 7 excused, the report of the Committee of the Whole is adopted. Any additional announcements or introductions? Seeing none, Madam Majority Leader.

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

The House will stand in recess until later today. Thank you. Thank you.