public:cb_mirror:co_document_library_2024_resolution_testimony_pdf_files_28743
To view this on the COS website, click here co-document-library-2024-resolution-testimony
To download the pdf file from the COS website, click here 2024_Testimony_AAR%%__%%_Historical_Record_Report_(FINAL_June_17%%__%%2024).pdf
CO Document Library-2024 Resolution Testimony
2024 Testimony in Colorado House Committee
Attachment: 4662/2024_Testimony_AAR___Historical_Record_Report_(FINAL_June_17__2024).pdf
 1 2024 Testimony After Action Review (AAR) & Historical Record Report Date: June 17, 2024 Written By: Michael Forbis  2 Prologue In Romans 13:1-7, the Apostle Paul wrote a letter to the Church of Rome, and he explained the responsibility that Christians have to governing authorities. 1 These passages are perhaps the most comprehensive within the scriptures of the Holy Bible that explain the general responsibilities of citizens to their government. 1. Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4. for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. The context of Apostle Paul’s letter to the Church of Rome was during the reign of the Roman Emperor Nero (54-68 A.D .). The Church of Rome resided within the heart of the Roman Empire within the City of Rome, and there was no real escape from the darkness that existed under Nero’s rule. To clearly understand the harshness of Nero’s rule, the Roman Historian Cornelius Tacitus (lived 56-120 A.D. ) provided a very hostile account of the Roman view of Christians around the time of Emperor Nero in year 64 A.D. He wrote the following historical record. 2 • “But neither human resourcefulness nor the emperor’s largesse nor appeasement of the gods could stop belief in the nasty rumour that an order had been given for the fire. To dispel the gossip Nero therefore found culprits on whom he inflicted the most exotic punishments. These were people hated for their shameful offences whom the common people called Christians. The man who gave them their name, Christus, had been executed during the rule of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilatus . The pernicious superstition had been temporarily suppressed, but it was starting to break out again, not just in Judaea, the starting point of that curse, but in Rome, as well, where all that is abominable and shameful in the world flows together and gains popularity.” • “And so, at first, those who confessed were apprehended, and subsequently, on the disclosures they made, a huge number were found guilty – more because of their hatred of mankind than because they were arsonists. As they died they were further subjected to 1 New Testament, English Standard Version (ESV), Romans 13:1-7 2 Cornelius Tacitus The Annals: The Reigns of Tiberius, Claudius, and Nero . A new translation by J.C. Yardley, Oxford World’s Classics, Oxford University Press, 2008. Book 15, Chapter 44, year 64A.D., pages 359-360.  3 insults. Covered with hides of wild beasts, they perished by being torn in pieces by dogs; or they would be fastened to crosses and, when daylight had gone, burned to provide lighting at night. Nero had offered his gardens as a venue for the show, and he would also put on circus entertainments, mixing with the plebs in his charioteer’s outfit or standing up in his chariot. As a result, guilty though these people were and deserving exemplary punishment, pity for them began to well up because it was felt that they were being exterminated not for the public good, but to gratify one man’s cruelty .” It is abundantly clear that Nero was a very harsh ruler in a very dark time of the Roman Empire, and Christians had no sanctuary in Rome. So, why did the Apostle Paul write Romans 13:1-7 for Christians in Rome to be subject to Nero’s rule given his obvious cruelty? The most likely and simple answer is for God’s greater glory to be shown. The clear evidence of it is that the Roman Empire no longer exists, but Christianity continues to thrive to this very day almost 2,000 years after Nero’s rule. Within the U.S. Declaration of Independence (DoI), the Founding Fathers describe many “repeated injuries and usurpations” imposed by King George III, and he is depicted as an absolute tyrant. However, the DoI’s long list of “repeated injuries and usurpations” are no comparison to the harsh rule of Nero nearly 1,700 years earlier. In a way, it begs the following questions: Did the Founding Fathers have God’s permission to rebel from Great Britain? Were the Founding Fathers in violation of Romans 13:1-7? The best answer to these questions can be explained in the closing statement of the DoI. • “We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions , do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor .” In this closing statement, the Founding Fathers make an appeal to God for their declaration and recognize God for their protection. In other words, the closing statement is an acknowledgement of God’s control and divine role. The evidence of God’s permission to rebel is found in the victory of the Revolutionary War, and the Founding Fathers were not necessarily in violation of Romans 13:1-7. The purpose of this historical reflection is for the Colorado Convention of States Action (COSA) team and supporters to remember God’s divine control and presence. Any and all efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution through the Article V process is ultimately under God’s control and for His greater glory. God established the U.S. Constitution through the Founding Fathers, and He emplaced the Article V Amendment process involving a Convention of States. It will only be successful through God.  4 Table of Contents Section Description Pages Main Summary Report Overview. Provides an executive and overall summary with suggested actions and ideas in the future way-forward. Read as a minimum and refer to Annexes for more detail. 5-8 Annex A (COS Testimony Summary and Feedback) Overview. Annex A provides a summary of responses to three questions from those individuals who prepared and/or participated in the Convention of States (COS) testimony hearing that took place on Monday, 22 April 2024. The hearing was conducted within the Colorado House State, Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee. In addition, Annex A contains some important email notes of correspondence and guidance sent to Testimony Participants. A-1 to A-22 Annex B (Coordination Record with Representative Rose Pugliese) Overview. Annex B provides the historical coordination and correspondence with Representative Rose Pugliese from April 2023 to April 2024. She is the Representative for Colorado House District 14 (HD- 14), and Mr. Michael Forbis is the Convention of States Action (COSA) District Captain for HD-14. The following record originated from the periodic entries made by Michael Forbis in the COSA Citizen Builder Legislative Management System (LMS). B-1 to B-21 Annex C (Executive Letters from Colorado Veterans) Overview. Annex C contains the list of key Representatives and Senators who received an executive letter during Capitol Surge Day on January 10, 2024. There were some who received the letter at a later date. The purpose of the letter was to provide a broad introduction on the Convention of States (COS) Resolution in preparation of the anticipated hearing in the House State, Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee. Annex C also contains the standard template used for the executive letter. C-1 to C-6 Annex D (Convention of States (COS) Resolution Testimonies) Overview. Annex D describes the “General Testimony Story” used during the hearing for HJR24-1024 (Call for Article V Convention of States). The hearing took place on Monday, 22 April 2024 in the House State, Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee. Annex D contains the agenda and testimony sequence used during the hearing. Some of these testimonies were submitted as a “written” testimony before the hearing, and some were used as a handout for committee members to reference. D-1 to D-43 Annex E (Convention of States Action (COSA) Survey & Statistical Hypothesis Test) Overview. Annex E provides a statistical hypothesis test of the COSA survey conducted by the Trafalgar Group from 7-10 July 2022. This annex provides a technical description of the statistical hypothesis test, and it is meant to demonstrate the validity of the scientifically based survey conducted by the Trafalgar Group. It is likely that a person with a statistical and mathematics background will have an easier time understanding the explanation. E-1 to E-5 Annex F (Colorado Historical COS Summary) Overview. Annex F provides a general historical summary of Colorado COS Resolutions from years 2016-2024. Annex F contains the actual COS Resolutions found in the Colorado General Assembly historical record. F-1 to F-22  5 Main Summary Report From April 2023 to April 2024, a year long journey and experience took place for the Colorado Convention of States Action (COSA) team. There were many new members who joined the team, and they brought with them fresh ideas for moving the ball forward related to COS in the State of Colorado. Over the course of this year, there was success, valuable discoveries, and unique lessons learned. In June 2023, Representative Rose Pugliese of House District 14 (HD-14) indicated her support for COS, and she offered to sponsor the COS Resolution for the 2024 Regular Legislative Session. The Colorado COSA team corresponded, coordinated, planned, prepared, and executed a COS Testimony with Representative Rose Pugliese over the course of several months with the testimony hearing taking place on April 22, 2024. There were several challenges, concerns, and potential road-blocks along the way, but Representative Rose Pugliese remained a strong supporter. The COS Testimony was truly in God’s hands (see Annex B for more details of this story). From October 2023 to December 2023, the Veterans Coalition conducted a letter writing campaign, and it involved reaching out to veterans and interested citizens to write a personal letter to their State Representative and/or State Senator. Hundreds of letters were gathered. In addition, the Veterans Coalition developed an executive letter for specific members in the House and Senate who were in the State, Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee. They were specifically sought out because the COS Resolution was likely examined by these committee members in a hearing, and the executive letter provided baseline information and education for them. On January 10, 2024, the Colorado COSA team hand delivered all personal letters and executive letters to Representatives and Senators during the opening day of the 2024 Regular Legislative Session in the Denver Capitol (see p.A-4 in Annex A and Annex C for additional details). On Monday, April 8, 2024, HJR24-1024 (Call for Article V Convention of States) or COS Resolution was introduced and referred the House State, Civic, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee. A hearing date was set for Monday, April 22, 2024, and it gave the Colorado COSA team two weeks to finish remaining preparations for a collective group supporting testimony (see pages A-10 to A-22 in Annex A). The team had more time from the official notice to react than in years 2022-2023. The team came together in a very prepared and organized fashion, and it was the most successful testimony to date. There were 27 supporting testimonies, and the total timeframe was 2.5 hours for the hearing. The “General Testimony Story” approach (see Annex D) provided a solid structure and agenda for the committee to follow. The overall preparation, execution, and general testimony experience was generally very satisfying by participants, but there is room to grow (see pages A-1 to A-10 in Annex A). In the end, the COS Resolution did not pass the committee, and it was defeated by a vote of 8-3.  6 In general, Colorado has an unsuccessful track record involving a Convention of States for years 2016-2024, and the historical voting results tend to be along party lines between Democrats and Republicans. Also, COS does not seem to be a favorable topic within the Colorado State Legislature (see Annex F for general historical record). The historical record and the recent 2024 COS Testimony hearing results (see pages A-1 to A-10 in Annex A) strongly support the conclusion that significant “bias” exists towards COS between Colorado Democrats and Republicans. Finally, the statistical hypothesis test of 2022 Trafalgar National Survey provides an objective basis of the “bias” claim, but it also demonstrates the importance and value of non-party affiliated citizens (or “independents”) as being “unbias” towards COS (see Annex E for a detailed explanation). Despite the significant challenges in Colorado, there are potential actions and ideas to fulfill and research as a part of the future way-forward. Some of the actions and ideas are a modification of historical practice, and some of them involve completely divergent thinking. Regardless of the case, any of these actions and ideas involve hard work, dedication, and a tough road ahead. The following suggested actions and ideas are a result of discoveries and lessons learned. • Repeat 2024 COS Resolution Approach with Modifications o Develop a list of preparatory actions for engaging Democrats o Potentially seek a Democrat Sponsor first; examine freshman Democrats just elected after primaries. Send out COS survey to new Democrats after the primaries; examine their feedback on the survey. o Then, seek a Republican Co-sponsor (should be fairly easy after getting a Democrat Sponsor) o Research success of Hawaii and Massachusetts; how to apply to Colorado o Potentially, plan and prepare for a 10 x in-person testimony hearing (see Annex A for balanced approach). o Examine potential options for a larger number of supporting testimonies; list pros and cons. Identify any risks to the COS Resolution on a larger number. o Apply specific AAR feedback captured from 2024 (see Annex A & Annex B) • Research the potential approach of a state wide ballot initiative for a COS Resolution. o Leverage the existing state-wide petition as a supporting point o Examine state guidelines and rules for ballot initiative procedures • Research idea of COS Resolution being sent directly to Colorado House / Senate Floor o Bypass the committee process altogether; enables open discussion by all Representatives / Senators. Serves as an education opportunity to wider audience. o Within Annex F, the year 2017 historical record indicates there was no committee hearing held, and it went straight to main Senate Floor for consideration and voting. How was this possible? Can it happen again in the future?  7 • Conduct a Trafalgar Level Survey for Colorado o Survey has objective credibility through scientific process o See the landscape of Colorado population o Serves as potential place-holder as a state-wide petition; use with state legislators o Will likely need funding from COS National to resource it o Examine other potential data sources to leverage outside a formal survey; identify and research data available to the public that serves as a valid substitution • Research the idea of hosting a Colorado State Level Convention o Both the U.S. Constitution and Colorado State Constitution generally discuss the conduct of a State Level Convention related to U.S. Constitution and Colorado State Constitution Amendments o U.S. Constitution Article V. “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by Congress;” o Colorado State Constitution Article XIX (Amendments). Section 1. Constitution Convention – how called. The general assembly may at any time by a vote of two-thirds of the members elected to each house, recommend to the electors of the state, to vote at the next general election for or against a convention to revise, alter and amend this constitution ; …. The number of members of the convention shall be twice that of the senate and they shall be elected in the same manner, at the same places, and in the same districts . o Is it possible for Colorado to host a state level convention with the sole purpose of examining and voting on a COS Resolution? The U.S. Constitution Article V allows for a state level convention to ratify any proposed amendments and bypass the state legislature. Is there an implied power in the U.S. Constitution for a state level convention for passing a COS Resolution instead of the state legislature? If so, the state level convention may involve 70 total members (2 from each Colorado Senate District). o Research and examine the possibility of planning, preparing, hosting, and executing a Colorado state level convention simulation to ratify potential amendments to U.S. Constitution. Leverage the amendments from the 2016 and 2023 COS simulations as a starting point. o Note: this idea is completely new / original and requires some solid historical research and fact finding (involves divergent thinking).  8 Overall, the future of the COS Resolution in Colorado is unknown. Will Colorado be 1 of 34 states to pass the COS Resolution? If not, Colorado will still be able to send commissioners to the actual Convention of States. When the proposed amendments are sent to the states, it is possible for Colorado to have a state level convention to ratify any of the amendments. To ratify any amendments, the threshold is much higher because Article V of the U.S. Constitution requires three fourths (or 75%) of the states (or 38 of 50). Thus, it important for Colorado to be ready for the ratification process with a state level convention if there is significant doubt with the Colorado State Legislature agreeing to any of the proposed amendments. As indicated in the Prologue, the Lord is ultimately in control, and Colorado needs to appeal to Him as the Founding Fathers did in the Declaration of Independence. In service to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Michael Forbis  A-1 Annex A COS Testimony Summary & Feedback Overview. Annex A provides a summary of responses to three questions from those individuals who prepared and/or participated in the Convention of States (COS) testimony hearing that took place on Monday, 22 April 2024. The hearing was conducted within the Colorado House State, Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee. In addition, Annex A contains some important email notes of correspondence and guidance sent to Testimony Participants.  A-2 Introduction. Annex D (Convention of States (COS) Resolution Testimonies) describes the “General Testimony Story” used during the hearing for HJR24-1024 (Call for Article V Convention of States). It contains the agenda and testimony sequence used during the hearing. Some of these testimonies were submitted as a “written” testimony before the hearing, and some were used as a handout for committee members to reference. Within a few weeks after the testimony, the following questions were sent to the group of COS testimony participants to capture thoughts and feedback. This Annex A summarizes the responses under these questions. Specific names are not included within this annex, and it is not intended to capture every exact response. Rather, the summary under each question provides the critical and synthesized ideas from the group responses as a whole. A vast majority of comments and feedback fell under Question 3, and it served as an open-ended question. Question 1a. Can you describe one positive area to sustain as a result of the preparation leading up to the testimony hearing? Question 1b. Can you describe an area that needs improvement in the preparation leading up to the testimony hearing? Question 2a. Can you describe one positive area to sustain as a result of the execution of the testimony hearing? Question 2b. Can you describe one area that needs improvement as a result of the execution of the testimony hearing? Question 3. Describe anything else you want to share about the whole testimony experience. Background. On 8 April 2024, the Colorado House of Representatives referred the COS Resolution to the State, Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee. The committee hearing was scheduled for 22 April 2024. Thus, the group had two weeks to finalize and prepare for testimony. About half of all testimonies were written and rehearsed prior to 8 April 2024. Afterwards, the other half were developed and rehearsed. In the 2 weeks leading up to the official testimony, there were two formal rehearsals for the whole group in order to see how the entire General Testimony Story (see Annex D) came together.  A-3 Question 1a. Can you describe one positive area to sustain as a result of the preparation leading up to the testimony hearing? Continue the exact same preparation and guidance • Generating the overall plan for delivering testimony • Motivating an independent-thinking group of volunteers • Orchestrating details with the main sponsor for the COS Resolution • Organizing the categories The most important positive area is building the team to present a rational, unified, and empowered frontal assault on the enemy. The team accomplished it through faith and effort! These are the main areas to sustain for preparation. • Detailed emails with guidance and instruction • More than one zoom rehearsal to help accommodate varying schedules • Opportunity to practice in front of people • Hearing rundown that kept people informed • List of testimony order and constant feedback • Role play and pressure to stay within the time restraint of 2 minutes • Pictures of the building and room to visualize the actual physical environment The zoom calls for practice helped with verbalizing the entire testimony story. Also, it gave everyone the chance to see other faces to recognize prior to the hearing. Any preparation leads to a better understanding of the topic. Examples include: • Having budget figures memorized • Clear understanding of a Balanced Budget Amendment proposal • Ability to explain to others; specifically Representatives. Preparation time spent presenting. • Testimonies in the prepared order was invaluable • 2-minute preparation time worked great. This enabled the group to react more easily when the actual time allowed on the day of testimony was 3 minutes. In regards to positive preparation feedback: • The fact that the testimonies were pre-written and practiced via zoom was very beneficial to the testimony process. • Organizing them according to category made it very smooth  A-4 Question 1b. Can you describe an area that needs improvement in the preparation leading up to the testimony hearing? There were multiple responses from individuals that could not think of anything to improve because they felt well prepared. However, there were some areas for improvement. • Practice in smaller group sessions (3-4 people). People gain better feedback in a smaller group than in a larger group. Each person “feels” more freedom to stress great and weak points in a smaller group setting. • Schedule more regular rehearsal sessions in order for people to know when to prepare and practice. This can happen well in advance of knowing a hearing date (note: the Massachusetts team started regular sessions in September 2023 before their known hearing date in February 2024). • Encourage individuals to practice on their own before group zoom sessions; individuals need to ensure his or her own individual testimony meets the time limitation. • Need to better educate legislators before the testimony hearing. How effective was the letter writing campaign? Are there better ways to educate legislators? o Annex C is the executive letter template used for every member on the House State, Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee. There were approximately 15 executive letters delivered to both the House and Senate. o The letter writing campaign conducted by the Veterans Coalition gathered and delivered hundreds of personal letters to House and Senate members. o A vast majority of these executive and personal letters were delivered during the opening of the regular legislative session on January 10, 2024. However, the hearing was not until April 22, 2024. This may have been a wide gap of time between events, and state legislators may have forgotten about the letters. o Both the executive and personal letters served as a solid methodology to educate legislators because they provided critical information about the Convention of States. However, it is difficult to measure their effectiveness without some response from legislators. o So, there was no solid evidence on the effectiveness of the overall letter writing campaign. It may be that some legislators read the letters, and they learned some critical elements about the Convention of States. o A few participants believed the letters were not effective, and the legislators did not read them. o One participant emphasized the need for state leaders to improve the practice of written letters to legislators with a focus on education of specific topics. A specific topic includes the need to counter the growing national debt problem.  A-5 Question 2a. Can you describe one positive area to sustain as a result of the execution of the testimony hearing? In general, there were multiple comments that stated execution was flawless and very well organized through the proposed agenda (see Annex D). It was unclear if the committee chair would accept the proposed agenda, but the chair followed the proposed agenda almost exactly. The chair called together each panel by the categories listed on the agenda. Overall, the formal agenda approach should be used again in the future, but it is important to note the committee chair can go in a completely different direction. Below are some specific highlights and feedback. • As a relatively new volunteer with COS, I can tell you that I was extremely proud to be part of this team! I thought we represented ourselves and COS with class. • When our COS volunteers included educational information in their testimony, it helped answer questions the Representatives have. So, the execution of testimonies also served as an opportunity for educating legislators. This is the one clear opportunity to gain a response from legislators. • Testimonies naturally complemented each other, and questions were sometimes answered by someone else within the same designated panel. • The hearing clearly exposed the biased and irrational thinking of multiple committee members. Bias was obvious when all opposition questions were addressed multiple times and by multiple people. The same questions were asked over and over again. • The participation by a COS national leader like Mr. Michael Farris was a good way to begin the overall testimony. He was cable of answering any question from the committee, and the team should model his responses in the future.  A-6 Question 2b. Can you describe one area that needs improvement as a result of the execution of the testimony hearing? Based on some responses, it was difficult to identify areas to improve because this year’s testimony was a vast improvement from previous years. Representative Rose Pugliese was the primary sponsor for the COS Resolution. Her opening remarks were not as strong as they could have been. She was given a suggested testimony (see Annex D) as a starting point, and she used only a few items from it. For some participants, there was disappointment on her inability to respond to some of the committee questions, but she did refer to supporting testimony that followed hers to answer questions to the committee (note: the purpose of supporting testimony is to enable the sponsor). In opening remarks, the team needs to politely remind the committee members they work for the pleasure of the people of Colorado. The opening remarks need to clearly indicate what COS is trying to achieve through amending the U.S. Constitution, and there needs to be a concrete description of the Article V process (note: it is possible to provide committee members a hard copy handout with a simple flow diagram depicting the process). It is key to explain how the COS goal is inclusive of all Americans and not tied to a particular Political Party (note: a handout like the national Trafalgar survey could help illustrate this point; especially the independent population). There needs to be a zoom session to solely drill participants with random questions related to the COS Resolution. Some participants were not fully prepared to address questions from committee members. If possible, there needs to be a similar session for sponsoring legislators. It may be better to have a well-educated and strong COS supporter testify first to address any follow-on questions from the committee.  A-7 Question 3. Describe anything else you want to share about the whole testimony experience. Introduction. There were multiple comments provided that were outside questions 1a-2b, and there were many opinions voiced outside the entire scope of the testimony experience altogether. The following summary attempts to capture all remaining thoughts and opinions. In some cases, the opinions were very passionate in nature. Despite the overall vast improvement of the 2024 hearing testimony as compared to previous years, the overall voting result was strictly along party lines. The 8 Democrat Representatives voted against the COS Resolution, and the 3 Republican Representatives voted in favor of it. This was the same pattern from the 2022 and 2023 hearing testimonies. Many participants noticed how half of the committee members did not seem engaged or ask questions, and their body language reflected it. There was a collective sense of boredom and lack of genuine attention to the entire COS testimony, and they were the Democrat Representatives. Of the 8 Democrats on the committee, there were only 3 who made any real comments or asked questions even if they were bias or critical. So, it was fairly evident the 5 silent or disengaged Democrats already made up their minds. Multiple participants stated there should be fewer verbal testimonies (in-person or remote) in the future, and a few participants clearly indicated there should be more verbal testimonies. So, there is not a solid agreement on the number of supporting testimonies. There was a small sense of repetition between some of the individual verbal testimonies, and this is the primary basis for suggesting fewer verbal testimonies. The approach for fewer verbal testimonies should involve a strong champion for each specific area related to the COS Resolution, and the champion delivers both a solid verbal testimony and expert verbal responses to relevant questions. In addition, a smaller number of verbal testimonies reduces the potential risk of boredom and disinterest by committee members. Finally, Representative Rose Pugliese recommended before the hearing to have no more than 10 individual verbal testimonies (in-person or remote) because it was coming towards the end of the regular legislative session (see Annex D). In the minutes just before the COS Resolution discussion within the committee, she specifically spoke to Michael Forbis and John Grabowski outside the conference room how this committee would be highly disengaged with approximately 25 verbal testimonies. It was a pattern she noticed consistently with this committee over the course of the regular legislative session, and she still recommended no more than 10 verbal testimonies. At this point, it was too late to change direction on the number of verbal testimonies, and she proceeded to support the original agenda recommendation by handing it directly to the committee chair. Any Colorado citizen has a right to provide a verbal testimony and should not be denied the opportunity. Anyone can legally register for testimony without seeking permission from a larger group first, and it is the committee’s job to hear any supporting testimonies. There is strength in numbers because it demonstrates support and magnitude of importance, and a larger number of verbal testimonies clearly illustrates it.  A-8 So, there has to be an approach that can balance all these critical views. Below are some potential ways to provide a more balanced approach (not all inclusive). • The overall number of supporting verbal testimonies can be 10 people who champion a very specific area of the COS Resolution, and the ideal situation is for them to provide it in-person. Also, an in-person verbal testimony allows a hard copy handout for committee members, and it can depict a diagram or flow chart to help to explain the Article V process for example. A verbal remote testimony does not allow for such a thing. • To show the strength of large numbers, there are two things that can happen. o First, people can flood the committee with written testimonies well before the actual hearing, and this is accomplished through Colorado General Assembly registration link. If there are at least two weeks before the actual hearing, the flood of written testimonies does help send a message on the magnitude of its importance. o Second, COS supporters can physically fill the committee room that seats approximately 50 people, and the COS sponsor or opening supporting testimony can indicate the number of supporters in the room and their corresponding districts. In addition, a limitless number of people can register to hear the COS testimony by remote participation. Again, the COS sponsor or opening supporting testimony can state the number of listeners online. • Clear and careful coordination is required way in advance with everyone interested for this approach to happen and be successful. People have to clearly understand and agree because they might need to compromise their legal right to provide a verbal testimony (in-person or remote). So, there has to be absolutely no confusion from anyone in this potential balanced approach. There were several observations made about the few Democrat committee members that did ask questions and make comments. These observations can serve as reference points for future applications, and they can help to better understand some legislators better. • In closing comments at the hearing, Democrat Representative Jenny Willford (HD-34) expressed her personal disdain about the goals of Article V and lectured about losing the 2020 election and 'January 6th.' Many testimony participants were offended by these comments, and they viewed them as strictly political in nature. It provided evidence how bias and close-minded Democrats were in the House (and the Senate for that matter). • Even though he never asked a question or made any comments the entire 2.5 hours of testimony, Democrat Representative Manny Rutinel (HD-32) displayed a very inquisitive expression on his face while viewing the hard copy handout depicting a chart on the passage and ratification of the 13 th Amendment in 1865. It looked like he wanted to ask a question about it, but it was during the final closing testimony. So, he probably wanted to get it over with at this point and decided not to ask anything. It is critical to note that this was the only hard copy handout with a chart or diagram like a picture, and a picture can say “a thousand words.” For future in-person testimonies, the use of a hard copy handout with a chart or diagram may be a useful technique / tool, and it can be a talking point during the verbal testimony (within the time allocated). Also, it can serve to enable a natural transition point for follow-on questions.  A-9 • Democrat Representative Elizabeth Epps (HD-6) had the most observations by participants from the testimony hearing. It was difficult to ascertain her full opinion about Convention of States, but she stated some things to keep as a reference point for future purposes. o Representative Epps summed it up: “ We are the KILL Committee” to keep the full House from debating and thus protecting the super-majority members from possibly casting a public position that may not have been along party line voting. o In speaking to Epps after the hearing, she said committee members are “gatekeepers,” and they do not let items through committee that do not have a good chance of passing the House. o Regarding Ms. Epps’ comments about being “gatekeepers,” I don't believe that people elected to the Legislature and assigned to any state Committee are told to “pass along only those topics that stand a chance of passing in the House.” Unless a gifted mind-reader, how would they possibly know what others in the House would think about a topic? I don't buy it. I think her “gatekeeper” explanation was an easy-out. o The solution was given to us directly by Rep. Elisabeth Epps during the hearing. She said, (I paraphrase) tell me someone who thinks like me, who I know and respect, and who has my life experiences (i.e. - a Democrat) – who supports calling an Article V Convention. I think that tells us all we need to know. o Representative Epps did not really provide an acceptable explanation, but she at least gave an opinion. o Overall, Epps was disingenuous. However, her speech at the end needs to be used next year. Someone or a few testimonies need to start the hearing specifically refuting opposition using Epps' tactic. She laid into the opposing testimonies about fear mongering and repeating the same uninformed lines. o After the conclusion of the hearing, she did walk out into the atrium area to meet a few of the testimony participants. She accepted a hard copy handout of the 2022 National Trafalgar Survey and National Progress Map. Specifically, she examined the 65% of “independents” favoring the COS Resolution, and she stated how most people in her House District were “independents.” This brief conversation lasted for about one minute, and it demonstrated the utility that a chart / diagram on a hard copy handout can bring to a conversation (or verbal testimony) in a very short period of time. There were several other general opinions provided by participants and some non-participants. Some of these opinions were similar in nature, and they serve as potential challenges to overcome or factors to consider. Some of these opinions are based on perceptions or just general life experience. Below is very broad summary and paraphrase of these opinions • Colorado will never agree to a COS with its current political structure. It will only happen if Republicans gain the majority power in the state legislature. • Democrats will do anything to keep power. They are controlled by the FEDS, and they lack concern for the future American.  A-10 • Some individuals expressed the need to leave Colorado altogether; there is no real hope in Colorado. • There is no trust between Republicans and Democrats. One side will not listen to the other. Once Democrats discovered the group was predominantly Republican or favored Republican views, there was no way they would listen. So, they voted “no” strictly due to party affiliation or perceived affiliation. • There is a very large portion of the American population not affiliated with any political party; these are the so-called “independents.” The voice of concern from “independents” needs a stronger representation within the testimony. Thus, the COS Resolution will have a better opportunity of moving forward. • Need to research the success that Hawaii and Massachusetts had with passing the COS Resolution in predominantly Democratic committees. Colorado can learn a few things from these two states. • It may be best to focus on two primary areas related to the COS Resolution: Term Limits and Fiscal Restraints (or national debt problem). These two areas have the most promise for convincing the committee, and they may be the most agreeable. • Real significant change for the United States will come when all Americans start to really care for the future of their children and grandchildren. Otherwise, the nation is headed for destruction. • Focus more discussion and questions with the committee related to how a COS will work. Also, the team needs to be prepared to address the most common arguments against a COS. The first one is the “run-away” convention argument, and the second one is the lack of rules / specifications for how the COS will operate. Avoid discussion with the current problems of the nation because it can distract true attention to the COS Resolution. • Since Colorado is run by a vast majority of Democrats, it is prudent to appeal to their logic, emotion, and self-interests in some way as it benefits both them and the COS Resolution. • The overall supporting testimony needs to be a good mix of race, sex, and age; avoid having too many old white males providing testimony. As best as possible, this summary is intended to represent a complete and comprehensive collection of observations, feedback, comments, and opinions. If someone’s views were not specifically included or implied, it was not the intention. General Correspondence and Guidance Notes. During the course of 2-weeks from April 8-20, there were several emails and guidance notes passed along to Testimony Participants. There were many notes exchanged with the group as a whole and individuals. It is unnecessary to capture all correspondence that was conducted, but the following pages contain the most comprehensive notes sent to Testimony Participants. The accuracy of these notes is based on the knowledge at the time, and there are some details that may be incorrect after learning something else on a later date. The main point of these notes is to understand the learning and preparation conducted to prepare for the testimony hearing.  A-11 —————————– On Tuesday, April 9, 2024 – Sent the following email to Testimony Participants ACTION: COS Resolution Testimony Registration & Supplemental Information Dear All, I apologize upfront for this long note, but please read carefully. It is GOOD NEWS! It is my pleasure to announce Convention of States (COS) Resolution (HJR24-1024) is scheduled for hearing on Monday, April 22, 2024 at 1:30pm at the Denver State Capitol. It will be in the Legislative Services Building (LSB) Hearing Room A, which is located on the first floor of LSB at 200 East 14th Avenue (i.e., Old Museum, Southside of main Capitol building). The public can enter LSB from the basement level. It will be held by the Colorado House State, Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee. The Chair is Representative Steven Woodrow (HD-2). Since we have 13 days from now before the hearing, I think we have a good opportunity to prepare a deliberate testimony story as a team, and I ask for your support on this journey we have together. As your facilitator, I have a few actions to ask of you to make this a very successful event. FIRST ACTION The first action I ask is that you register for testimony by this Thursday, April 11, 2024. The reason for this request is that I have a meeting with Ms. Amanda King on Friday afternoon, and she is the Legislative Council Staff (LCS) member who supports this committee. She is the one who can tell me who registered for testimony and by what venue (in-person, virtual, written). I have permission from Representative Rose Pugliese (COS Resolution Sponsor) to recommend testimony sequence / categories. So, I need to work very closely with Amanda on this task. When I speak with her on Friday, I can talk more specifically about the testimony sequence, and she will have a good idea on the volume of testimonies if you register by Thursday. Also, I will pass along the recommended testimony sequence / categories to Rose's team on Friday, and I will talk with them on the overall testimony approach. For registration, please use the following link, and it is the same one that Karla Pendleton sent out previously. www2.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2024A/commsumm.nsf/signIn.xsp (can be found on the main Colorado Assembly website home page by clicking on “Committees” - see drop down menu and click on “Public Testimony Options”). When you get to the registration site, you will see instructions on what to do. Please read them carefully, and you will need to look for “hearing item - HJR24-1024” in the House State, Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee. You will also see another drop down menu with date “April 22, 2024 at 1:30pm.” I already registered for an in-person testimony, and I also submitted my written testimony. I had to register each one separately. However, I am only asking that you register for either the in- person or virtual testimony options by Thursday. A written submission is your choice. Also  A-12 when I registered, I stated I represented an “organization” and not myself. I put “Convention of States Action (COSA)” in the organization block. You are not required to select the “organization” option, but it may send a powerful message as a unified group. Ms. Amanda King explained to me that the written testimony becomes part of the official archive record of this hearing. Also, committee members may read them before the actual verbal hearing, but they are not required to do so. If you want to submit a written testimony, my advice is to upload a “pdf” document because this is the format the LCS uses to create files for committee members. You will save Amanda work, and she can more easily / quickly give it to committee members before the hearing. Thus, it increases the chances written testimony will be read before the verbal hearing. Again, a written testimony is your choice. SECOND ACTION Currently, I have compiled 18 individual testimonies that John Graboski forwarded to me, and I started to categorize them in the sequence you see below. So, please take a moment to review the sequence and categories. In addition, I attached a copy of the master file with each person's testimony that I have compiled thus far, and I attempted to capture each person's own written words whether in an “email” body or attached document. Please take a moment to find your testimony on this 27 page document, and please review it for accuracy. If you have something you want me to update, please let me know by Saturday, April 13, 2024. For those of you who are not on this list, it is not too late for you to join. If you would please, send me your written testimony by this Saturday, April 13, 2024. I will incorporate your words into this document and update the sequence. However, I ask that you think about tailoring your testimony along categories 1-5. I may need to remove category 6 at this point, and I will provide the final closing testimony statement per John Graboski's request. It is important to note that hearing testimonies are limited to 3 minutes, but they can be limited to 2 minutes depending on the committee's workload for the day and number of testimonies. My advice is to be prepared to be close to 2 minutes. I have rehearsed my own testimony several times at 2 minutes and 15 seconds, but I also have a faster version that will take me 2 minutes (if necessary). On Sunday, April 14th, my goal is to then send this consolidated document back out to everyone for your awareness and understanding. I ask for your support on this timeline for two reasons: 1) I need to converse again with Amanda King on Monday, April 15 to ensure completeness of testimonies 2) It will support the full dress rehearsals (see Third Action below). Category 1: Heritage of the American Nation · Bill Rutledge · Theresa Platt · Wayne Walvoord · Scott Carlisle · Note: these testimonies make multiple references to Founding Fathers, Declaration of Independence, purpose of the Constitution, what we are as a nation.  A-13 Category 2: Article V Process · Mark Farmer · Sheri Tuffield · Sharon Vincze · Note: these testimonies seem to place emphasis on the Article V process itself. Could probably use two more testimonies along these lines. Category 3: Limit the Power of the Federal Government · Guy Richter · Janene Winslow · Michael Raisch · Karla Pendleton · Note: these testimonies address the core idea of limiting the power of the federal government, and they generally describe the 3-part platform for COS. Category 4: Term Limits for Members of Congress · Norman Olsen · Dennis Powelson · Gregg Fanselau Category 5: Balanced Budget and Fiscal Restraints · Donelson Lawry · Tim Schneider · Derrick Latreille Category 6: Federal Jurisdiction Overreach (remove this category?) · Note: testimonies addressing federal jurisdiction, federal agencies, and federal bureaucracy Category 7: Closing Statement – Cure for the American Nation. Michael Forbis THIRD ACTION Recently, I read in a COS National message about the team in Massachusetts. In February, it became the first Blue State (or predominantly Democratic State) to pass the COS Resolution in a committee, and the message stated that the team conducted a weekly rehearsal of testimonies beginning last September. So, they rehearsed their sequence of testimonies as a team on a weekly basis for almost 6 months before the official committee hearing. From my understanding, it is still waiting for a main House floor vote in the Massachusetts State Assembly.  A-14 So, the success of Massachusetts made me think of what we could do in Colorado as another Blue State. For those who are willing and available, I would like to host two full dress rehearsals on the following days. - Wednesday, April 17, 2024 from 6:30pm-8:30pm by Zoom or Conference Call (details to follow). - Saturday, April 20, 2024 from 10:00am-12:00pm by Zoom or Conference Call (details to follow). The general approach is to go in sequence where each person will deliver his or her own testimony. I will be able to practice my overall role as the facilitator, and you get to practice your own testimony. As a group, we have the opportunity to see how the entire testimony story comes together, and we should all have a reasonable idea of what to expect at the real hearing on Monday, April 22, 2024. I am not sure if we will need the full 2 hours, but I want to allow time for complete feedback from the group. FINAL STATEMENT On a final note, I will be sure to keep everyone informed on any committee changes / updates related to the COS Resolution. From my understanding, we are in a much better state of affairs to prepare for this hearing than the previous two years. Since we have a little more time to prepare, I think we should take advantage of it. We have two critical events in the same week. The COS Resolution hearing and the Capitol Rally! What a great opportunity to really show our efforts to the state legislature. If I missed anything else that is critical or any questions, please let me know. With God's assistance, I hope we will find great success! Mike Forbis ————————- On Saturday, April 13, 2024 – Sent the following email to Testimony Participants 1 ST FOLLOW-UP ACTION: COS Resolution Testimony Registration & Supplemental Information Dear All, I had a very successful trip to the Capitol yesterday (Friday, April 12), and I have some very useful / good news to share with everyone. I am starting a new email string from my last note, and I need to state upfront that it is long. So, please read carefully, and I think you will find it very informative.  A-15 FEEDBACK NOTE #1 I do believe I have testimonies from everyone. Here is who I have: Bill Rutledge, Theresa Platt, Wayne Walvoord, Scott Carlisle, Mark Farmer, Sharon Vincze, Guy Richter, Janene Winslow, Michael Raisch, Karla Pendleton, John Graboski, Norman Olsen, Gregg Fanselau, Laird Thomas, Vivian Garcia, Donelson Lawry, Tim Schneider, Derrick Latreille, Laura Neimeister, Pati Thomas, Michael Forbis, Sheri Tuffield, and Dennis Powelson. 23 total testimonies. Now, my reason for collecting everyone's testimonies is for a matter of internal record, and it helps us better prepare for the actual hearing. I can reference the testimonies you gave me as I continue to facilitate our journey. If I missed anyone, this is not intentional. I may have just missed it in the long string of email responses, and I am adding some folks to this email group as I go along. If anyone else has one, please send it my way and I will add you to the list. If you know someone who wants to join, then please send this note to them and have them get in touch with me. It is not too late. Most importantly, anyone has the right and privilege to provide a testimony! I think some people may have misunderstood, and you cannot be rejected. Based on the following published rule: “Members of the public are asked to sign up prior to the start of the meeting, but can sign up during the meeting for an in-person testimony.” So, anyone can literally try to testify during the meeting in the committee room. However, this is not the preferred way to go. If there are any last minute requests to testify and I missed them, I have an “Other Supporting Testimonies” category (see attached document) that is like a “catch all”. FEEDBACK NOTE #2 In my conversation yesterday with Amanda King, I learned the Committee Chair Representative Steven Woodrow (Democrat) does not like / prefer testimonies to be given on someone else's behalf. It is not necessarily disallowed. However, I recommend we do not try to read someone's testimony on his or her behalf. Below are my reasons, and I hope they are understandable to everyone. • First Reason. There are three options for registering for testimony (remote, in-person, written) . The state has put in a “written” testimony option specifically for those who cannot make it “remote” or “in-person.” However, the members of the committee may not necessarily read a “written” testimony in advance of the actual hearing. To overcome this problem, the submission of a “written” testimony as early as possible increases the chances for it to be ready by the committee members before the hearing. For example, I submitted my “written” testimony on Tuesday, April 9th in a “pdf” document, and Amanda was able to send it to committee members right away because a “pdf” document is how the state systems needs to process it. So, they had 4 working days this past week to read it, and they have five more working days next week to read it. It is 1-page in length, and it should be a quick and easy read. She can process a “word” document or the “fill-in box” from the state system, but it is an extra step to convert it to a “pdf” document and may not be processed as quickly. By uploading a “pdf” document for a “written” testimony option, you save her some work  A-16 and she can process it more quickly. This little piece of information is something I learned from her during my multiple “in-person” visits. Just as I stated in my previous note, a “written” testimony can be submitted separately from either the “in-person” or “remote.” It is strictly your choice. I am registered for the “in-person” testimony, and it is exactly the same as my “written” testimony. I like this redundancy because I like to stack the odds in my favor that the committee members will see and listen to my words. Again, a “written” testimony is your choice. • Second Reason. I am concerned the Committee Chair will not be receptive to having another person read someone else's testimony, and there is the strong possibility he will just reject the notion altogether. So, this means another person's testimony could not be heard at all. Thus, this is why I encourage people to simply register for a “written” testimony if they cannot make it by the “remote” or “in-person” options. • Third Reason. There are four topics currently scheduled for the committee to hear on April 22nd, and it is a very full schedule. So, the committee will already be pushed for time, and they may only permit those who will present their own individual testimony by “remote” or “in-person.” FEEDBACK NOTE #3 Here are some other good notes from my meeting with Amanda, and I learned a few things that are very helpful for us to know. 1. It is fairly safe to say the COS Resolution scheduled for Monday, April 22nd will stay that way, and there is low risk it will change. I like knowing this because we can safely and adequately prepare for testimony with reasonable predictability. Though, I will continue to monitor for any potential schedule changes. 2. Currently, the COS Resolution is scheduled to go first in the list of four topics for the April 22nd committee. It is very likely it will remain the first topic because the order is mostly based on who sponsors the topic. Here is what I mean. Representative Rose Pugliese is the sponsor, and she is also the Minority Leader. Essentially, she is given the privilege of going first because her leadership position has a higher status than the other sponsors on the remaining three topics. So, we have a reasonable timeline expectation. The committee is scheduled to start at 1:30pm (Amanda opens the doors at 1:00pm), and I think we should be positioned in the room by 1:15pm. For those by “remote,” I think you can be ready by 1:30pm from your computer. Now, the main house floor has a morning session that normally starts at 10:00am, and they could run late into the early afternoon. When John Graboski and I observed the committee around 26 February, the main house floor session ran late, and the committee did not start until 2:15pm. So, this was about 45 minutes late. Since then, I think about two-thirds of the Monday committee hearings started on time at 1:30pm or within 30 minutes. This is my impression after speaking with Amanda. 3. Since the committee schedule is fairly busy with multiple topics and multiple testimonies, it is very likely that individual testimonies will have to observe two minutes. So, I am glad we are trying to observe this 2-minute rule already, and I asked Amanda more specifically how the committee monitors the 2-minutes. Please do not be afraid or nervous about it. I think it is interesting how it works, and let me share with you what I learned yesterday.  A-17 - In the committee room, there is a timer and you can see it from where you sit during an “in-person” testimony. It turns “yellow” when you have 30 seconds left, and then it turns “red” when the two minutes are complete. - The timer also has the option for an annoying “beep” to go off when you reach 2- minutes. However, Amanda told me that the Chair does not like the “beep” and normally has it turned off. - From what Amanda told me, the Chair will typically allow someone to complete his or her testimony if they are about 10-15 seconds over 2-minutes and he can tell you are about to wrap up anyway. If you start to drag on and it's obvious, the Chair will give you a courtesy warning to stop. - For those who are providing a “remote” testimony, I do not think you can see the timer. So, you just need to be aware of your time and you can rehearse it to see where you are through practice. - In our group rehearsals, I will cover this detail again for everyone. 4. For those individuals who are providing an “in-person” testimony, I learned something that is a very interesting option, and I think you may want to consider it. When a person is called to provide his or her individual testimony, you can actually provide hard copies of it to every member of the committee right before you testify. Amanda stated she would need 12 hard copies of the testimony (1 for her, 11 for each member on the committee). If you decide you want to do this for your individual testimony, you will need to bring 12 hard copies of it. Just to be clear, I cannot provide the hard copies of your individual testimony to the committee for you beforehand. The committee members must see the hard copies come from you while in the committee room because they need to know it comes from you. Now, I will be in the committee room as a supporting facilitator to Amanda and Rose. When you come up to the table to testify, Amanda has allowed me to take your hard copies from your hand, and I can walk the 10 feet to the committee podium and hand them to hear. She will then distribute them to the committee members. I am glad she will let me provide this small service for everyone because normally people are not allowed to cross the “carpet to hardwood” line in the committee room. I plan to provide 12 hard copies of my testimony (same as my registered “written” testimony) to the committee members, and you have the same option if you choose. 5. After you give your testimony, you may be asked questions by the committee members. If they do, the question and answer response period lasts no more than about 6-7 minutes in length. So, I am confident everyone knows their own personal topic and can answer any questions. Just be ready. 6. To give you an idea of the committee room, I have attached four pictures to see what it looks like. There are two full view pictures and two short view picture. In the full view, you can see that about 50 people can fit in the room. There are 12 chairs for the committee members and for Amanda to sit. She typically sits in the middle next to the Chair. There are four chairs at a smaller table for individuals to provide his or her “in-person” testimony, and you will see four microphones. There are two big screens in the room for “remote” testimonies to be seen by the committee members. I think the committee is very well laid out, and this can five you an idea of the physical environment for both “in-person” and “remote” testimonies.  A-18 FOLLOW-UP ACTION #1 When I asked Amanda who was registered, she was only allowed to verify my own. She is not allowed to share names of other people who registered for testimony (either “for” or “opposed” to the issue). She did say that a lot of people in fact registered, and I imagine it was a result of my request to everyone. With that said, I have a follow-up action for you, and I apologize for any previous misunderstanding on my part. Below is what I am currently tracking for testimony by either “in-person” or “remote” just based on email responses. - Remote Testimony: Michael Farris, Guy Richter, Karla Pendleton, Tim Schneider - In-Person Testimony: Wayne Walvoord, Sharon Vincze, Vivian Garcia, Michael Forbis - Unknown Testimony Type: Bill Rutledge, Therea Platt, Scott Carlisle, Mark Farmer, Janene Winslow, Michael Raisch, John Graboski, Norman Olsen, Gregg Fanselau, Laird Thomas, Donelson Lawry, Derrick Latreille, Laura Neimeister, Pati Thomas For those of you listed as “unknown,” can you simply reply to me to let me know if you are either “in-person” or “remote”? Please complete by Tuesday, April 16. I think I know if some of you are coming “in-person,” but I need to be absolutely sure because I will indicate it as such on the “General Testimony Story” document (see attachment). I think this small detail will allow a very good flow of testimony types within the room. The committee will know when to look at a “screen” or look in the room, and it will provide a very professional and organized awareness for the room. For those of you listed as “remote” or “in-person,” please let me know if I was incorrect. If so, please let me know the correct one. Otherwise, I will assume I got your testimony type correctly. FOLLOW-UP ACTION #2 Please read the attached 2-page document labeled “General Testimony Story” for your awareness and understanding. Based on my conversation with Amanda, Representative Rose Pugliese can hand this document to the Chair to use in the manner in which she wants follow-on testimonies to proceed after her opening remarks. Amanda told me the sequence of follow-on testimonies is up to the sponsor. When I asked Rose Pugliese about it several weeks ago, she was open-minded to any recommended sequence. Yesterday, I delivered her a letter with the general categories / sequence and told her how a National COS leader will testify as well. She responded to me with a “thank you” text a few hours later. So, we are very well on-track for this sequence to follow as I have laid out on this 2-page document. Also, you can look at this document as the overall agenda for the committee hearing. I plan to have about 30 hard copies of this document printed front and back. It will be easy to hand out to the 11 committee members, 1 for Amanda, and 1 for Rose Pugliese. I will have a few extra on-hand for others to reference. Also, I will send out the document on email for those who will participate “remotely.” This will serve as a basis to help organize the overall flow of the testimony story, and it will help for everyone to know his or her position. Here are a few other highlights.  A-19 - We need to allow “opposing” testimonies go right after Rose Pugliese's opening remarks. I will not know who they are until the day of the committee hearing, but I hope they are few. - Michael Farris from National will provide a remote testimony, and I think he can serve as the introduction. After his testimony, I asked the 3 Republicans who sit on the committee to each address a “plant” question to Michael Farris, and I let Rose Pugliese know the 3 questions. So far, I think Rose is on-board with it, and I delivered a letter to each Republican with each suggested question. On the morning of April 22, I will provide a written reminder to each of them asking if they will ask the “plant” question. Will see how this works out. - Category 7 (Other Supporting Testimonies) is to account for any other supporting testimonies that I missed. It is possible for someone to register that is not part of this deliberate testimony story who may register to support it. It may be someone that none us know, but this person does have a voice. So, this category is essentially a place holder for this possibility. - If it works out well, I hope to provide the closing statement to really drive home our story. Afterwards, Representative Rose Pugliese will provide final remarks. I plan to send this 2-page document to Amanda for her awareness, and she welcomed the idea of it because it will make her job easier and the Chair. Also, each committee member can see our overall story as a group. I think it will be a great facilitation tool to reference during the actual committee. FOLLOW-UP ACTION #3 As a reminder, I scheduled two full dress rehearsals. For those who are willing and available, I would like to host two full dress rehearsals on the following days. - Wednesday, April 17, 2024 from 6:30pm-8:30pm by Zoom or Conference Call (details to follow). - Saturday, April 20, 2024 from 10:00am-12:00pm by Zoom or Conference Call (details to follow). ———————————————- On Monday, April 15, 2024 – Sent the following email to Testimony Participants INFO: Potential Testimony Questions Dear Team, As we continue our journey towards the COS Resolution Testimony, I thought of potential questions the committee may ask of me from my own testimony. I quote a phase from President Abraham Lincoln where he stated the 13th Amendment was “the King's cure for all the evils.” He believed God used it to help heal the American Nation from the Civil War. I figured a committee member may ask “When did he say that?” or “Who did he say it to?” or “What speech does it come from?” or “Did he really say that?” or “How do you know he said it?”  A-20 In all of these potential small questions, I see a great opportunity because it opens a door to a greater discussion to better support my testimony. I would simply respond with something along these lines. “Representative Woodrow and committee members, President Abraham Lincoln made the statement about the 13th Amendment being “the King's cure for all the evils” during casual conversations he had with people (e.g., Missouri U.S. Representative James Rollins) after he signed the 13th Amendment on 1 February 1865, the day after Congress finally passed it in both chambers. Now, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required by the President, but he did it as a matter of historical principle. The supporting evidence of this quote was almost immediate, and I invite you to turn over to the 2nd page of my testimony handout I provided. As you can see on the chart, there were 18 states that ratified it within the first month, and four of them were slave states. In particular, the slave state of Virginia ratified it within 9 days (Feb 9th), and this was where a significant part of the Civil War still raged on until Lee surrendered to Grant on April 9, 1865. Of the 27 states needed to ratify it, 10 were slave states, and it is an indicator of the nation's strong desire to end the division and heal from the Civil War. I highly doubt the 13th Amendment would have passed as quickly or as easily if it were not for the huge emotional need for the nation's healing from the Civil War. The great division we face today as a nation can find healing in the same manner through the U.S. Constitution Article V amendment process involving a Convention of States.”  A-21 Well, this is not necessarily a script I plan to keep on-hand for potential questions from the committee, but it does have ideas I can communicate. If I happen to have a very engaging conversation with members of the committee, it is my goal to shape their thinking further than just my main testimony. I did not think about putting this chart on the back of my testimony handout until this morning, and it does tell a story on the passage of the 13th Amendment that most Americans do not know. Most importantly, it adds to the historical lesson we can learn from Lincoln about using the amendment process to help heal the nation like in today's age with the Convention of States. Another possible question from a committee member may be “What is the point of this chart you put on the back of your testimony handout?” Again, opens the door to the same possible discussion. If I do have such an engaging conversation, this will be the last significant thought the committee members have right before they decide to vote on the COS Resolution! Of course, Representative Rose Pugliese is technically last, and I think she will support it anyway. So, I hope this is helpful. You may want to start thinking how to respond to potential questions from your own testimony. Mike Forbis ———————————————- On Saturday, April 20, 2024 – sent the following email to Testimony Participants Final Note: COS Resolution Testimony Dear All, This is my final note to everyone before we meet for HJR 24-1024 (Call for Article V Convention of States) on Monday, April 22, 2024. As a reminder, the location for the hearing is in Denver, CO near the State Capitol. It will be in the Legislative Services Building (LSB) Hearing Room A, which is located on the first floor of LSB at 200 East 14th Avenue (i.e., Old Museum, Southside of main Capitol building). Please see the attached picture. The public can enter LSB from the basement level. It will be held by the Colorado House State, Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee. We should meet outside the entrance LSB Hearing Room A around 1:15pm, and the hearing is scheduled to begin at 1:30pm. However, it is possible for the hearing to start a little later depending on when the morning House session concludes. So, we may need to be a little patient. For remote users, you will just have to monitor your zoom connection. At this point, I have consolidated all the testimonies I have received. So, please see the attached word document. Pages 1-2 represent the detailed agenda and sequence I will give to Representative Rose Pugliese and then to committee members. If I missed anyone, there are generic place holders for anyone I may have missed or did not account for on the list. So, this is the best I can make it, and I need to pause for a little while before Monday and get some rest. I  A-22 can make any remaining updates or changes to testimonies after Monday to complete this record for historical purposes. I appreciate everyone's efforts and support on this journey. It truly is in God's hands! Grace and Peace to you from our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! See you Monday. Mike Forbis  B-1 Annex B Coordination Record with Representative Rose Pugliese Overview. Annex B provides the historical coordination and correspondence with Representative Rose Pugliese from April 2023 to April 2024. She is the Representative for Colorado House District 14 (HD-14), and Mr. Michael Forbis is the Convention of States Action (COSA) District Captain for HD-14. The following record originated from the periodic entries made by Michael Forbis in the COSA Citizen Builder Legislative Management System (LMS).  B-2 Purpose. To provide a detailed record of coordination and correspondence with Representative Rose Pugliese. To explain the actions taken with her to sponsor the COS Resolution for the Regular Legislative Session in 2024 for Colorado. Below is the chronological record beginning in April 2023 to April 2024 (1-year journey). —————— On Thursday, April 20, 2023, I met with Colorado State Senator Paul Lundeen (SD-9) and Representative Rose Pugliese (HD-14). This took place during the same day as the Convention of States Action (COSA) rally for Colorado at the capitol building in Denver. In the afternoon, I had a scheduled appointment to meet with Representative Rose Pugliese from 1:00-1:30pm. In the week prior, I also left a voicemail and sent an email to her officially listed contact information. I asked if I could meet with her briefly on April 20 when the rally was scheduled. Within 48 hours, Representative Pugliese’s staff assistant responded back in a personal email to me stating that I was on her calendar from 1:00-1:30pm for April 20. Well, I thought this was very interesting to get 30 minutes of her time knowing it was during the very busy legislative session timeframe. I knew she supported COSA based on her survey response, and the deliberate scheduled time on her calendar of 30 minutes also indicated this same interest. During the rally on the West side capital steps, Representative Rose Pugliese was one of the first House supporters to show up, and she spoke how she supported COSA. I yelled up to her to say I was on her calendar at 1:00pm, and she said “thank you.” When the time came to meet her at 1:00pm, I arrived a few minutes early to her office. I opened the office door slowly to find her having lunch with three other people, and she stated to me right away that she had a committee meeting suddenly change to an earlier timeframe of 1:00pm. So, my opportunity to speak with her was reduced. She stated we could discuss COSA in a walk from her office to the committee room, and she introduced me to some of the staff members there in the office having lunch with her. I was in her office for about 2 minutes, and I took the opportunity to thank her for her service. I proceeded to explain a little of my background as a public servant in the Army, and she thanked me for my service too. I opened the office door for her, and we walked towards the committee room. Our conversation in the hallway and elevator lasted for about 3-4 minutes total, and it was a very pleasant conversation. We discussed the COSA platform, and she stated if I read her COS survey responses. I said “yes,” and I also stated how her fellow Representative Mike Lynch also filled out the COS survey along the same lines as she did. My reason for bringing Mike Lynch name into the conversation was because he serves as the “Minority Leader” in the House where Representative Rose Pugliese serves as the “Assistant Minority Leader.” Her eyes lit up in a pleasant surprise as they are a key leadership team. She asked me what was the current national state of the COSA resolution, and I explained that there were 19 states that passed it in both chambers. There were 7 other states that passed it in 1 chamber, and I proceeded to explain that the details were on the “progress map” that I had put in the folder of information I had for her. At this point, I handed her the folder with some additional information with a personal letter from me with my contact information. Upon being near the entrance of her committee room, I suggested we get together for coffee or something after the long legislative session was complete. She loved the idea, and she agreed to this as a follow-up meeting for both  B-3 of us. In general, her response was very enthusiastic and supportive of COSA. Two days later, I also wrote her an email follow-up thanking her for her time and look forward to meeting her again one on one. ——- On 25-26 April 2023, John Graboski and I invited Representative Rose Pugliese to attend the Simulation Convention of States in Williamsburg, VA from 2-4 August 2023. I stated that I thought she would be a very capable participant at this event, and I urged her to attend as a citizen from her House District 14. Her aid responded that her schedule in August did not allow room for this event. So, John and I thanked her for the timely response. One thing we were successful in communicating is this COS Simulation will be the first one conducted in over six years with the last one in September 2016. It will be a better event because more states are now involved than at the time of the first one. Expect higher media coverage of the event. ——— On May 22, I sent an email note to Representative Rose Pugliese. This was a follow up to our in-person meeting that took place at the capital on April 20, and she stated she would be willing to meet in-person over coffee after the legislative session ended around May 9. I offered to provide more information on the Convention of States Action (COSA) and answer any specific questions she may have. I explained I was available in the coming weeks to meet in-person. I ended my note thanking her for her service in the Colorado House of Representatives. ——- Two days later on May 24, I received a reply from Representative Pugliese's assistant with a request to meeting on Tuesday, June 20th at 10:00am at my place of business. This response was very encouraging, and I replied back to her office. I stated that I work on Peterson SFB in a classified facility, and I think she will likely not have access to base. Thus, I explained I can meet with her on June 20th at 10:00am somewhere else in Colorado Springs such as Starbucks or a restaurant or any place else. I let her choose the location, and I will certainly meet up with her. So, the date and time are set. Just waiting on the location. —— On May 31, 2023, Representative Rose Pugliese's office assistant got back with me on a location in Colorado Springs for our meeting on June 20th. It will be at Starbucks. Everything looks in good order for this meeting engagement. I look forward to it. —— On Tuesday, 20 June 2023, I had an in-person meeting with Colorado HD-14 Representative Rose Pugliese. She and I met at a local Starbucks here in Colorado Springs, and it lasted between 30-40 minutes. Representative Rose Pugliese is a delightful woman, and I enjoyed talking with her. She gave me a very good listening ear, and I met my objective to further educate her on the COSA  B-4 platform. I even leveraged my knowledge of George Washington in his role as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces during the Revolutionary War. She is a very strong supporter of the COSA platform, and I provided her two key powerpoint charts and a case paper for Congressional Term Limits. Here are some highlights of our discussion. - The overall COSA platform is about limiting power. Discussed the 3-part platform: term limits for members of Congress, limit power of federal jurisdiction, and impose fiscal restraints on federal spending. - Explained how the 1787 Constitutional Convention was not a runaway convention; each state legislature sent delegates to convention with specific instructions and not allowed to go outside those bounds. Thus, the 3-part COSA platform should serve as each state's specific instructions. - Showed Rep. Pugliese the proposed Colorado State Senate COS Resolution from March 20, 2023 that did not pass the “State, Veterans, & Military Affairs” Committee. She was able to better comprehend the 3-part platform and the COS instructions that Colorado would potentially put forth for any delegates that would attend a Convention of States. It opened her eyes a little more on the scale and scope for a COS, and she stated how some “conservative Republicans” may not like the COS because it would give Democrats an open invitation to revamp the federal government. However, she now understands the COS is not an open invitation to revamp the federal government. The COS is limited to what each state legislature directs to their delegates, and this also applies to Colorado. So, she can take this education and clearly communicate it to her peers in the Colorado State House of Representatives. Also, I emphasized how each state gets one vote at the COS regardless of the number of delegates they send. - Another educational take-away for Rep. Pugliese is that she realizes how the COSA effort really does cross all political lines. For example, the national COS survey conducted 7-10 July 2022 by the Trafalgar Group indicated 50.2% of Democrats support the COS, and this fact really caught her eye on the 1-powerpoint chart I provided her. The super-majority (65.7%) of the American population supports a COS according to this survey. I emphasized to her how the idea of “limiting power” applies to everyone no matter their political affiliation. The results of the survey is a strong indication of this understanding. - I did mention how some groups like “Common Cause” oppose the COSA platform, and their arguments are incorrect. Some of the opposing arguments say a COS will be a runaway event and even threaten people's liberties. I emphasized to her again the limits delegates have at the COS based on their instructions, and the COSA platform does not involve discussing amendments to protect / violate liberties like the vote. It is about limiting power of the federal government only. - I also explained how I can be a resource of information for her about the COSA platform. She or her staff can reach out to me with any questions. - Furthermore, I proceeded to ask her 2 questions to gain her feedback. 1. What are your legislative priorities? She stated education (she is on the committee), property tax reform, and I could add her as a co-sponsor for the COSA resolution in the  B-5 House with Rep. Richard Holtorf and Rep. Ty Winter. Note: she saw their names when I showed her the proposed Senate COS resolution that failed to pass committee in March 2023. 2. What is the strategy of the Republican caucus? Her face just smiled because it was a broad question. She could only speak for herself, and it did not necessarily match the rest of the Republican caucus. In her opinion, there needs to be better unity in the state Republican party. She thinks current House seats should be maintained by the incumbents, and funding for re- election should focus more on defeating Democrats seats currently held in the House. Not focusing on defeating a Republican against another Republican in the primaries saves funds for the general election. Her goal would be to gain more Republican seats in the state House. - There were some other details to our meeting, but these are the most important points we discussed. - Finally, I sent a follow-up email to her. I gave her my full contact information. It was a successful in-person meeting engagement. ——— Sent on June 20, 2023 Note: below is my follow-up email to Representative Rose Pugliese after our in-person meeting. To Representative Rose Pugliese, As a follow up to our meeting today, I just want to pass along how grateful I am for our discussion, and you have my sincerest respect and support. I truly appreciate your service in the State House of Representatives. We are both public servants, and we both want the best for our great nation. I had the privilege of serving in the defense of our nation during my 20 years in the U.S. Army, and I continue to serve in the area of Homeland Defense as a civilian employee within NORAD and U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) on Peterson SFB, CO. I attached the digital versions of the hardcopy handouts I gave you today. You and your staff can reference these as you see fit. When you find the time, please read the case paper for Congressional Term Limits. I know this was one of your core reasons for seeking office and supporting the Convention of States Action (COSA). These documents will hopefully provide you with the aggregate / objective data that supports the COSA platform. As we discussed, this nation-wide movement has serious momentum, and it is about limiting power of the federal government. It has a 3-part platform: term limits for members of Congress, limit power of federal jurisdiction, and impose fiscal restraints (or balanced budget amendment). As I also stated, please feel free to use me as a resource for information. My primary goal is to help educate others on the COSA platform. If you or your staff have questions, please send them my way and I will be happy to find the answers for you. I am very pleased you gave me a listening ear this day, and I think I was able to help better educate you on the COSA platform. Also, I want to thank you for offering to become a House co-sponsor for the Convention of States Resolution along with Representatives Richard Holtorf and Ty Winter. I will pass this along to the COS Colorado leadership.  B-6 Here is my full contact information: Michael Forbis, (719) 332-4710 COSA District Captain for Colorado HD-14 Thank you very much, Mike Forbis ——— Sent on August 12, 2023 To Representative Rose Pugliese, Greetings! It has been several weeks since we touched basis with each other, and I want to say again how much I appreciate your time. Recently, the Convention of States (COS) Simulation took place in Williamsburg, VA from 2-4 August 2023, and it passed six proposed amendments consistent with limiting power of the federal government. This COS Simulation was a successful demonstration like the one from 2016. Thus, there are two historical demonstrations of a COS where amendments were proposed to limit the power of the federal government, and they proved such an event will not be a runaway convention. When we last spoke, you offered to sponsor a COS Resolution for introduction into the next year's state legislative session . I want to verify that you are still willing to do so, and I would like to offer assistance to get this action started. I would like to leverage the COS state team for assisting this action as well. Over the last two years, the COS Resolution has been introduced into the “State, Civic, Veterans, and Military Affairs” committee. However, it met with defeat (Senate in 2023, House in 2022), but I found a lot of the reason for the defeat was just the lack of understanding / education on the COS Resolution. We spoke about the COS Resolution, and I think you are very familiar with it. I offer the attached handbook for state legislatures to give you some more reference. Please read when you have the opportunity. I suggest at least the Executive Summary and Introduction. Right now, our state team thinks the COS Resolution will likely be discussed within the Colorado House “State, Civic, Veterans, and Military Affairs” as demonstrated in the last 2 years. This committee certainly catches my eye because I am a War Veteran and retired Army Officer. Part of this committee's function is to listen and support the interests of Veterans and Military members in the state of Colorado. In my oath of office, I pledged to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the COS Resolution is a great example of where I continue to preserve and seek to protect the Constitution. So, this is my core interest as a Veteran and former Military Officer. Colorado has a very strong Coalition of Veterans with the same interest, and it is gaining significant momentum with Colorado Veterans. I think the committee members need to listen to these Veterans. With that said, please let me know if you are still willing to sponsor this COS Resolution. Also, we are attempting to seek the opportunity to better educate the House members on this committee on the COS Resolution.  B-7 Thank you again for your service in the State House, and look forward to hearing from you. Mike Forbis ——- Email response received on August 12, 2023 Yes, Michael. I am definitely interested. I am working on legislative priorities soon so let’s touch base in early October. Thanks. Rose ——— Email sent on 1 October 2023 To Representative Rose Pugliese, Greetings! This is Mike Forbis from the Colorado Convention of States (COS) team, and I am ready to engage with you further about sponsoring the COS resolution. I have a smartbook I want to give you that contains some very useful and critical information to help with this effort. You said to touch basis with you in October, and these next few weeks look good for me. So, can I inquire what is a good timeframe for you to meet? I could make a trip to your office in Denver if that would help or just meet in Colorado Springs. I hope this note finds you well, and I want to thank you for your service in the State House of Representatives. May you have God's blessings, and I look forward to meeting with you. Mike Forbis ——- Received an email from Rose Pugliese staff assistant on 3 October 2023. We set a meeting for 30 October 2023. Good Morning Michael, As it turns out, Representative Pugliese is unable to meet with you Wednesday, October 11, 2023. She is available to meet on Monday, October 30, 2023 at 2:00pm, at Ziggy's Coffee, 460 Chapel Hills Drive, Suite 100. Please let me know if this date works. Thank you. Best. Juliann McPadden  B-8 ——- Email sent on 20 October 2023 To Representative Rose Pugliese, Greetings! I realize you and Michael Fields will debate the Governor on Monday about Proposition HH, and I pray it will be successful. I am not in favor of Proposition HH, and property taxes should remain a local issue. Just like the Convention of States Action, your effort against Proposition HH is to help decentralize government power at the state level. Thank you for your continued service in the House. I appreciate your efforts. Mike Forbis ——- On 30 October 2023, I was originally scheduled to meet Representative Rose Pugliese in-person, and I made a COS Smartbook for her reference. She was called to the Denver Capital at the last minute. So, we talked on the phone for about 5 minutes, and she called my personal phone from her personal phone. It was a productive conversation. She has agreed to sponsor the COS resolution in the next legislative session that begins in January 2024 . I explained to her how we are aiming for January to introduce the resolution, and we have a letter writing campaign. She is a wonderful supporter of this overall effort, and I sent her the link to my COS Landing page and invited her to watch the 5-minute video. After I explained the COS Smartbook to her, she rescheduled my in-person meeting with her on Thursday, 2 November 2023. At this point, we are texting back and forth with each other. Rose trusts me with her personal phone number, and I will use it for official correspondence at this point. Mike Forbis ——- On 2 November 2023, Rose Pugliese could not make our in-person meeting at Starbucks in Colorado Springs. She texted me that she was held up in Denver, and she stated she would get me the following week. I responded that I was on business travel the following week but I was open all day on Friday, 10 November 2023 and even offered to make a trip to the Denver Capital if necessary. ——- On 8 November 2023, I texted Rose to see if she was available on 10 November 2023. She replied with a no, and she said to catch her after the Thanksgiving break. So, I will try to touch basis with her at that time. The goal at this point is to further educate Rose on the COS Smartbook I prepared for her. It will better arm her with information she may need later. I characterize my professional relationship with her as one of trust because we are still in contact  B-9 with each other even with all the missed in-person opportunities. Will see what happens after Thanksgiving. —– On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 6:51am Rose Pugliese wrote: Michael, Sorry that we have not had a chance to get together. Please see below and let me know your thoughts. Thanks. Rose Begin forwarded message: From: Caroline Martin Date: November 16, 2023 at 3:26:37 PM MST To: “Rep. Pugliese” Subject: Resolution Request - Convention of States Hi Representative Pugliese, I'm a new drafter with the OLLS Government team and I've received your joint resolution request regarding a Convention of the States. I've reviewed SJM 23-004 that was introduced last year. Were you hoping to use the exact same language as SJM 23-004? Or to modify it at all? Please let me know whether there's anything else I should know about this request, and whether there's anyone else I'm authorized to work with on this. Thanks, 1C767568.png Caroline Martin Office: 303-866-5902 [email protected] Office of Legislative Legal Services ——- On 6 December 2023. To Rose Pugliese, Thank you for reaching out to me! The email below from the Office of Legislative Legal Affairs has the correct reference. My recommendation is to use the same language from SJM 23-  B-10 004, and I attached a copy of it for your reference. It is a very quick read of 2-pages, and it is part of the Smartbook I made for you. I will see Juliann McPadden on Thursday morning at 10:00am, and I will give her the Smartbook to then give to you. Here is why the language in SJM 23-004 is so important. The core language in “bold” is the same language as all other state resolutions who have passed the Convention of States (COS) resolution. There are 19 of 34 needed who have passed it with this same language, and it sets the parameters of what each state is allowed to discuss at COS. The same language ensures all states have the same commission of responsibilities, and they cannot go outside those parameters. It keeps COS from becoming a “runaway” convention to discuss anything it wants. So, my recommendation is to proceed with just a simple copy of SJM 23-004 for the next Colorado legislative session beginning in January 2024. I really appreciate your support on this effort, and the Smartbook will have other useful information for you. As always, please feel free to use me as a resource, and it is my pleasure to arm you with all the necessary information you may need for this critical effort. Thank you for your service in the State House. Mike Forbis ——- On Thursday, 7 December 2023, I had an in-person meeting with Legislative Aide Juliann McPadden. Here is the summary. Dear COS team members, Greetings! The past couple of days has been a positive direction in moving forward to prepare the COS Resolution for the next Colorado Legislative Session. I am passing along the email trail below I had with Representative Rose Pugliese. She asked for my advice on how to proceed with language on the resolution itself, and you can see my response back to her. She has taken the steps to move the resolution forward. Today, I met with one of Rose Pugliese's legislative aides Ms. Juliann McPadden. Juliann and I discussed and went through the contents of the Smartbook I made for Rose Pugliese. There was a lot we discussed in our 50 minutes together. Juliann will pass along the Smartbook. One critical idea I passed along to Juliann (note: idea is in the Smartbook cover letter) is that we urge the resolution be sent to the committee in January. It needs to be introduced early in the legislative session to get the right attention. Also, I showed Juliann a sample executive letter we will give to every member on the State, Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee. Finally, I stated we will surge the capital on January 10th. OK, these are some highlights, and I am pleased to explain more if anyone has questions over the phone, email, etc. Please pass this note along to others I may have missed. May you have God's blessings! Mike Forbis  B-11 ——— On 7 December 2023, I sent a short follow-up phone text to both Rep. Rose Pugliese and her Legislative Aide Juliann McPadden. Discussed the Smartbook. ——- On January 6, 2024, I sent the following email note. To Representative Rose Pugliese, Greetings! I hope the holiday season treated you well, and you were able to get a nice break. Next Wednesday, I will be in the Capital for the opening of the 2024 legislative session, and there will be a group of us delivering letters to committee members on the House State, Civic, Military and Veterans Affairs committee. We completed a letter writing campaign asking veterans from across the state to write to members of this committee to pass the COS Resolution. We have hundreds of letters we plan to deliver. In addition, we will deliver an executive level letter ( see Annex C ) to each member of the committee with critical factual information on the COS Resolution, and it serves as a quick reference for each committee member. It provides some education. In early December, I met with Juliann McPadden to discuss the COS Smartbook I made for you. I hope it is useful and please feel free to use me as a resource for anything else related to it. Recently, we have been in touch with Ms. Amanda King who is the Legislative Council Staff (LCS) for the House State, Civic, Military and Veterans Affairs committee. She is aware that you are sponsoring the COS Resolution, and we are informed of the legislative process for this COS Resolution. When the legislative session starts, I am sure you realize you will need to discuss it with House Speaker Ms. Julie McCluskie, and it should be referred to the House State, Civic, Military and Veterans Affairs committee. The goal is to conduct a hearing on the COS Resolution where you and supporting citizens of COS can provide testimony. I attached a copy of my 1-page testimony that takes 2-minutes to read, and I use the historical lesson of President Abraham Lincoln with the 13th Amendment during the Civil War. I offer my services to help write a draft testimony for you if you would like. Finally, I hope to pay you and / or your staff a brief visit and say hello next Wednesday, 10 January 2024. Thank you for your service in the State House of Representatives. May you have God's blessings. Michael Forbis  B-12 —— Below is email correspondence between Colorado Legislative Liaison John Grabowski and Rose Pugliese from January 8, 2024. It involved discussion on the Surge Day activities for January 10. Thank you. Richard, I will touch base with you on this tomorrow. Thanks! Rose On Jan 8, 2024, at 7:54pm, [email protected] wrote: Rose and Richard: Here are suggested comments in recognizing the COS Volunteers who will be in the House Gallery on Wednesday. We will be sitting all together wearing our white and red COS T Shirts. Can't miss us. Please welcome the Supporters of the Convention of States group, who are here for the third year in a row to advocate for an Article V Convention of States. This Convention would debate and propose Amendments concerning Term Limits for Congress and Federal Officials, Imposing Fiscal Restraints on Federal Spending, and Reducing the Size and Power of the Federal Government. These are all very good ideas that all Political Parties can support. There are a significant number of Veterans among this group. These people took an oath to defend the US Constitution when they joined the military. They are continuing to fulfill that oath with their COS Activities! Let's welcome them to our session today! Thank you. —– On January 10, 2024, I attended the opening day of Colorado's legislative session. It was very educational, and it was a great experience to see how the Colorado General Assembly organizes itself. I saw Representative Rose Pugliese partake in the opening votes on general rules of the legislative procedure for the 2024 legislative session. After the opening session, I assisted the team in delivering letters to various state legislators. I made a personal visit to Rose Pugliese's office and delivered some personal letters that people wrote her. I met another Rose's legislative aides, and I left my business card. Towards the end of my day, I sent a text to Rose Pugliese thanking her for serving in the State House of Representatives, and I mentioned how I enjoyed learning more about the legislative process. She texted me back the following: “Thank you, Mike. That means a lot to me.”  B-13 —— On Sun, Jan 14, 2024, 12:28 PM Michael Forbis wrote: To Representative Rose Pugliese, As a professional courtesy to you, I want to let you know the Colorado COS team is sending out two messages to COS supporters describing how the COS resolution will be sponsored by you during this 2024 legislative session. We are asking people to provide testimony when there will be a hearing on it, and our goal is to flood the committee with as many testimonies as possible. For example, there were 20 testimonies given during the Senate hearing in 2023, and it would be fantastic to have about 100 testimonies for this year. From my view, we are taking a more deliberate approach to the COS Resolution this year, and we sincerely appreciate your support. Please let me know if you have any questions, and I appreciate your service in the State House of Representatives. May you have God's blessings, Mike Forbis ——- On January 16, I had the follow-up email exchange with Rose Pugliese. Absolutely! Thank you! Rose —— On Jan 16, 2024, at 6:59am, Michael Forbis wrote: To Representative Rose Pugliese, Please accept my apologies upfront for not being clear enough. We have not sent any messages yet that include your name. So, I am asking permission if we can list your name as being the sponsor. Thank you Mike Forbis —– On Monday, 29 January 2024, sent the following email. To Representative Rose Pugliese, Greetings! I hope this note finds you well, and I imagine you are extremely busy with the current legislative session. I pray you are successful, and please know you have my support.  B-14 Also, I want to congratulate you again on becoming the House Minority Leader for the Republican Caucus. I have a few items I want to send your way. First, I attached a suggested Convention of States (COS) testimony for your consideration, and please feel free to use as you see fit. It has some potential ideas, and I took a guess at content and length that is appropriate. It is about 2-pages and takes 4 minutes to verbally deliver. I tried to put myself in your shoes, and I figured this draft document was better for you than starting with a blank sheet of paper. If you decide to do something completely different, you will not hurt my feelings at all. I am also available for any questions on this suggested testimony. Second, John Grabowski informed me you are interested in assistance offered by the COS national team to help prepare for the eventual COS committee hearing. This format would be by a zoom call or other virtual means. If possible, do you have a few times of availability on your schedule either this week or next you could pass along? I could relay this information to help set-up the meeting invite. How does this sound? Finally, I understand Representative Ty Winter agreed to be a co-sponsor the COS resolution, and I hope you had the opportunity to speak with him about it. Also, what is the stance on the remaining members of the House Republican Caucus? I think the COS resolution will have enormous strength with House Democrats if a full unity of support existed by all House Republicans. Just a thought. Well, I hope this is not too much information / too many questions. Once again, I appreciate your support for the COS resolution, and I look forward to helping anyway possible to push this forward to the committee hearing. Thank you and may you have God's blessings. Mike Forbis —— On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 11:45am Michael Forbis wrote: To Representative Rose Pugliese, I was able to make arrangements with the Convention of States National team to provide you additional information in how to successfully sponsor the resolution. Ms. Rita Peters will join you and me on the zoom link below on Monday, Feb 5th at 2:00pm MDT. So, please keep on your calendar. Also, I will follow-up with her bio for you to read and I will send her a short bio you have posted as well. I hope this will a productive session and look forward to it. Mike Forbis https://us06web.zoom.us/j/6053906965?pwd=M0g0VVFDNnVoUFp2ZlZyTzVZVGR4QT09 Meeting ID: 605 390 6965 Passcode: 498957  B-15 ——- On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 8:42pm Michael Forbis wrote: To Representative Rose Pugliese, Greetings! Here is some background information about Ms. Rita Peters who serves on the national staff with Convention of States Action. As you can probably see, Rita has a legal background as yourself. Hope this helps you in preparation for Monday's zoom meeting. Rita Peters is a constitutional attorney, the author of Restoring America’s Soul: Advancing Timeless Conservative Principles in a Wayward Culture, and co-host of the weekly radio program, “Crossroads: Where Faith and Culture Meet.” She serves as Senior Vice President for Legislative Affairs for the Convention of States Project. Prior to joining the Convention of States Project, Rita spent approximately 10 years as Staff Counsel for The Rutherford Institute, where she worked to protect the civil liberties of Americans across the nation. She has authored numerous briefs for the United States Supreme Court and the federal appellate courts. Rita is an allied attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom and a board member for Redeemer Classical School. As a Presidential Scholar at West Virginia University, Rita earned dual bachelor degrees in 1998, graduating summa cum laude from both the Journalism and Political Science departments. She then continued her education as a Benedum Scholar at Washington and Lee University School of Law, from which she graduated cum laude in 2001. Rita is a member of the Virginia State Bar and lives in the Shenandoah Valley with her husband, Tim, their six children, four dogs and two cats. Mike Forbis —– Following email string posted on 1 February 2024 Thank you Michael. Juliann On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 5:00pm Michael Forbis wrote: Hello Juliann, please see the zoom link at the end of this email chain from yesterday. This is for the meeting on Monday. Sorry for any confusion. Please let me know of any issues. Thank you. On Thu, Feb 1, 2024, 4:34 PM Juliann McPadden wrote: Thank you Michael.  B-16 Is the Zoom link for Monday available yet? Best, Juliann McPadden Legislative Aide to Representative Rose Pugliese 361-816-0635 ——- On 4 February 2024, I left a verbal reminder on Juliann McPadden’s voicemail about the meeting for the next day. —— On Monday, February 5, 2024, we conducted a zoom meeting with Representative Rose Pugliese. The meeting was set for Rita Peters to attend, but she was not able to at the last minute. The meeting involved Deanna Becket, Laura Neimeister, and myself. Rose started out by saying that she felt very informed and prepared to sponsor the Convention of States (COS) Resolution within the House. The information she received from multiple members of the Colorado COS team was very helpful, and there has been positive attention about it in the House thus far. Rose indicated that House Speaker Julie McCluskie wanted to see a copy of it to read. In addition, a lot of Republican House Caucus members have signed on to support the resolution. Rose stated the Minority Caucus was only allowed 4 resolutions during this legislative session when there was an unlimited amount in the past. So, the Republican Caucus has to take a vote on the 4 they wanted to include the COS Resolution. Rose indicated she was confident it would get supported; especially since she was the House Minority Leader now. Rose asked a question of how to potentially frame the COS Resolution to the committee, and I reminded her of the draft testimony I sent her for her consideration, and I offered assistance to help revise it as needed. When the actual testimony takes place, it is more convincing if more Coloradans testify than out of state personnel. Overall, the meeting lasted 20 minutes, and Rose felt confident moving forward. A potential future meeting can still be scheduled with Rita Peters for follow-on support and advice. —— On Wednesday, February 7, 2024, reached out to Rose Pugliese by text. Confirmed with her the COS Resolution was voted on by Republican Caucus as 1 of 4 allowed resolutions for the 2024 legislative session. —— On Monday, February 12, 2024, reached out to Rose Pugliese by text to see when the COS Resolution moved forward to the House Speaker Julie McCluskie. Rose responded that the COS Resolution was sent to the Speaker, and the Speaker schedules it for House discussion. Rose indicated she would let me know. The next step is to wait for the House Speaker Julie McCluskie to schedule it for the House Floor discussion, and it is likely to be referred to the Colorado House State, Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs committee. Standing by.  B-17 —– On Tuesday, February 27, 2024 - sent the following email To Representative Rose Pugliese, I am glad the red rose and small note of appreciation brightened your day! I truly appreciate your support for the Convention of States (COS) Resolution. When I was at the Capitol, John Graboski and I learned new things about the committee and legislative process. We spoke to Ms. Amanda King about the State, Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs committee, and she is the Legislative Council Staff (LCS) that supports this committee. This was my second time talking with her in-person, and I even sat in on this committee's hearing during a bill introduction in LSB Room A. So, John and I gathered a better idea of the process and physical environment of the committee room itself. Wonderful education! As the Colorado COS team continues to prepare for the COS Resolution, we stand ready and willing to proceed. When you have a moment, we could use your feedback and thoughts on a few questions. 1. Since the COS Resolution is 1 of 4 total resolutions allowed by the Republican Caucus, is it safe to say the COS Resolution will very likely be introduced by the House Speaker Julie McCluskie and referred to committee? I know you said you would let me know when the Speaker will schedule it, but I just wanted to get your sense on the likelihood of it actually happening. 2. When referred, the COS Resolution is likely examined by the State, Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee. At the hearing, I know you would provide the main opening testimony for it, and Ty Winter may potentially provide a co-sponsor testimony after you. The committee members could ask you questions about it, and then supporting testimony could follow. Based on our conversation with Amanda King, you can determine the sequence of supporting testimonies as the sponsor. Currently, the Colorado COS team is gathering and practicing testimony readings with about 25-30 individuals, and we are creating a complete story-line with all the testimonies to provide a full picture of the COS Resolution. With that said, are you open minded to a recommendation for the sequence of supporting testimonies? We think we have about 5 categories for the supporting testimonies, and we are ensuring there is not repetition or redundancy. 3. Finally, do you need any other assistance for the COS Resolution? Thank you once again, and I look forward to working with you on this very important resolution. Mike Forbis  B-18 —– On Monday, March 4, 2024 - sent the following text message by phone Hello Rose, this is Mike Forbis from Convention of States. I am checking in with you to see if there are any new development with the COS Resolution? Rose responded: “Nothing yet but will check in.” —– On Wednesday, March 6, 2024, I sent the following text message. “Hello Rose, this is Mike Forbis from Convention of States again. The Colorado COS team is gathering supporting testimony for the eventual hearing. Would you be open minded to a recommended sequence of supporting testimony? Say 5 or 6 categories? I can send you the recommended sequence of categories. What do you think? She responded: “Sounds great! Thank you!” —– On Tuesday, March 19, 2024, I sent the following test message to Rep. Rose Pugliese: “Hello Rose, this is your friendly neighbor Mike Forbis from Convention of States. Just to let you know, we are about complete with a solid testimony story line and anticipate having recommended categories for you soon. Otherwise, is there any update on the COS Resolution moving forward?” Rose replied: “No date for committee yet.” —– On Monday, April 1st, 2024, I sent the following text message to Rose Pugliese: “Hello Rose, this is Mike Forbis from Convention of States. Hope you had a nice Easter. Just wanted to ask if there is any news on the COS Resolution. Thank you for your support.” Her text response: “No news yet. Will let you know as soon as I know. Thanks for your support.” —– On Tuesday, April 2nd, 2024, I sent the following text message to Rose Pugliese: “Hello Rose, this is Mike Forbis from Convention of States again. I verified with the LCS team that Monday, April 8th is the deadline for introducing resolutions. So, I guess this is the decision point if the COS Resolution moves forward or not to a committee. I am not sure if you were aware of the deadline or not. If it does move forward, we are ready to support with multiple testimonies. Just thought I would pass this information along. Thank you for your support on the COS Resolution regardless how it turns out.” Five minutes later, Rose responded: “We are waiting to hear on intro date.” My comment: It appears to me that the COS Resolution introduction is only a matter of ”when“ (not if).  B-19 —– On Monday, April 8th, I texted the following note to Representative Rose Pugliese: “Hello Rose, this is Mike Forbis from Convention of States. Hope you are well. Today is supposed to be the deadline for introducing resolutions. So, I was curious if there is any new update for the COS Resolution?” She stated “I don't think it will be introduced, unfortunately.” I replied with the following: “Well, it is unfortunate. I guess this is the final decision on the matter. Thank you.” About 25 minutes later she stated the following: “The Majority has been really hard on us this year. They only brought 1 of our caucus's 4 resolutions.” So, I gave her a word of encouragement with the following: “Hello Rose, I thought that was the case. It seems there has been a deep unfairness to the Minority team you are leading. From my view, I think you are carrying a very heavy burden as the Minority Leader. If it helps, you have my sincere support and admiration for the work you are doing.” She texted back: “Loved the note….Thank you! That means so much to me!” I replied: “You are very welcome.” As my own observation, it is one thing to limit the Republican Caucus to 4 resolutions for the Regular Legislative Session when it was unlimited in previous years. Then, the Republican Caucus was then only able to have 1 resolution move forward two months later altogether. Yes, the Minority team is taking some very heavy hits! About 15 minutes later on April 8th, I received the following text from Rep. Rose Pugliese: “ Well..miracles happen every day! Just introduced! Standby…“ Note: This response may be evidence of God’s Divine Intervention. After receiving this text, I checked the Colorado General Assembly website and discovered HJR24-1014 (Call for Article V Convention of States) was referred to committee with a hearing date set for April 22, 2024. —– From April 9-12, I texted Representative Rose Pugliese a couple of times to tell her I was paying an in-person visit to the Denver Capitol to provide a letter to her / staff about the upcoming COS hearing and the supporting testimony we were ready to provide as a team. I told her I was also going to speak with the Legislative Council Staff (LCS) member that supports the Colorado House State, Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee.  B-20 —– On Friday, April 12, I paid an “in-person” visit to the Denver Capitol. First, I stopped by Representative Rose Pugliese office and dropped off a letter for her and a suggested testimony for her to use during the Committee hearing. I spoke with her Chief of Staff Mr. Nathan Fisher, and I gave him a folder with the letter and suggested testimony. I explained to him the testimony story the Colorado COS team was putting together, and I provided him an overview of the three “plant” questions I intend to ask some fellow Republicans to consider when the committee meets on April 22. The three ”plant” questions are for the Republicans to ask Mr. Michael Farris who will provide some opening remarks for the committee. I then delivered an individual letter with a suggested “plant” question to Representatives Brandi Bradley, Scott Bottoms, and Ken DeGraaf. All three are supporters of the COS Resolution under the Minority Leader Representative Rose Pugliese. Later in the day, I texted Rose and told her what I accomplished that day. She wrote back and thanked me for the support. So, there was more in-depth coordination and preparation with multiple state legislators for the upcoming hearing. —– On Wednesday, 17 April 2024, I texted Rep. Rose Pugliese: “Good morning Rose, this is Mike Forbis from Convention of States. Just to let you know, the team is ready to provide supporting testimonies on Monday and we look forward to it. I am also checking to see if you have any questions so far. Thank you for your support.” She wrote back: “Thank you. How many witnesses to you have?” I responded: “Hello Rose, we have approximately 25 testimonies. Combination of remote and in-person. I will bring you a suggested detailed agenda on Monday morning before you start session. I have coordinated the agenda with Amanda King of LCS. She said it will work. Hope this answers your question. Mike Forbis She responded: “I suggest no more than 10 witnesses at this point in the session. Remote is fine.” I told Rose thank for the feedback. Note: I called my State Director Laura Neimeister about the suggested limit of 10 total witnesses that Rep. Rose Pugliese mentioned. We decided to proceed as planned with approximately 25 testimonies.  B-21 —– On Monday, 22 April 2024, I texted Rep. Rose Pugliese that I would stop by her office in-person before she started the main House Floor session, and I told her I had a detailed agenda and testimony sequence for her consideration. She responded: “Thanks. We will be on the floor all morning. Stop by room 200 and meet with Athena. That might work best.” In reality, I was able to catch Rose in-person right before she entered the House Chamber, and I gave her a cover letter with the attached detailed agenda (see Annex D ). In the afternoon, the actual HJR24-1024 (Call for Article V Convention of States) hearing took place. I have additional detail of this day and my interaction with Rose in Annex A.  C-1 Annex C Executive Letters from Colorado Veterans Overview. Annex C contains the list of key Representatives and Senators who received an executive letter during Capitol Surge Day on January 10, 2024. There were some who received the letter at a later date. The purpose of the letter was to provide a broad introduction on the Convention of States (COS) Resolution in preparation of the anticipated hearing in the House State, Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee. Annex C also contains the standard template used for the executive letter.  C-2 Personal Notes: Execution Level Letters Members: House State, Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee Democratic Representatives 1. Steven Woodrow House Committee Chair HD-2: To Representative Steven Woodrow, the Convention of States Action is an opportunity to leave the federal government “better than we found it.” Thank you for your support on the very critical issue. 2. Andrew Boesenecker House Committee Vice Chair HD-53: To Representative Andrew Boesenecker, the COS effort ensures “ our best days here in Colorado are still ahead of us.” Thank you for your support. 3. Kyle Brown House Member HD-12: To Representative Kyle Brown, thank you for your consideration on this nationwide effort. 4. Elisabeth Epps House Member HD-6: To Representative Elisabeth Epps, thank you for your consideration on this nationwide effort. 5. Naquetta Ricks House Member HD-40: To Representative Naquetta Ricks, the COS effort will help to provide better accountability in legislation and politics that are “critical to restoring faith in our government.” Thank you for your support. 6. Jenny Willford House Member HD-34: To Representative Jenny Willford, thank you for your consideration on this nationwide effort. 7. Jenny Lea Parenti House Member HD-19: To Representative Jenny Lea Parenti, thank you for your consideration on this nationwide effort! 8. Manny Rutinel House Member HD-32: To Representative Manny Runtinel, appreciate your support on this critical effort on the U.S. Constitution! Thank you. Republican Representatives 1. Scott Bottoms House Member HD-15: To Representative Scott Bottoms, thank you for protecting the U.S. Constitution and its “individual rights granted by God.” 2. Ken DeGraaf House Member HD-22: To Representative Ken DeGraaf, thank you for your service to our country in the U.S Air Force! 3. Brandi Bradley House Member HD-39: To Representative Brandi Bradley, thank you for your consideration on this nationwide effort! State Senator James Coleman Committee Chair SD-13: To Senator James Coleman, thank you for your consideration on this nationwide effort. Democrat. • State Senator Tom Sullivan, Committee Vice Chair, SD-27, Democrat • State Senator Chris Hansen, SD-31, Democrat • State Senator Larry Liston, SD-10, Republican • State Senator Mark Baisley, SD-4, Republican  C-3 January 10, 2024 To Representative Name, Greetings from the Colorado Convention of States (COS) Veterans Coalition Team! I am writing on behalf of 6,200+ Colorado Veterans who signed the petition for Colorado to support an Article V Convention of States to propose amendments to the United States Constitution with the sole purpose of limiting power of the federal government. As a member of the State, Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee, you are in a very influential position to ensure the interests of Colorado Veterans. During our military service, Colorado Veterans took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we now have a passionate interest to improve this sacred document through the Article V amendment process. To help you understand, I want to highlight some critical facts depicted on the charts on pages 3-4. First, a vast a majority of the American population supports an Article V Convention of States, and the majority is consistent regardless of political affiliation. Second, there are already 19 of 34 states needed who passed the Article V COS resolution, and it places the national effort beyond the half-way point. Colorado Veterans wish for the “Centennial State” to become one of the 34 states! The COS resolution is very straight forward, and it must be consistent across all states. The resolution reads as follows: “Concerning an application for the United States Congress for an Article V Convention of the States for proposing amendments to the United States Constitution that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and  C-4 jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for Members of Congress.” When the COS convenes, any proposed amendment has to remain within the bounds of this resolution, and there can be no other proposals outside this mandate. For example, there can be no proposed amendment that can alter an American’s right to free speech under the current 1 st Amendment. Thus, the COS will not become a “runaway” convention to do whatever it pleases. When the Colorado state legislature meets in January 2024, the Colorado COS Veterans Coalition Team urges the resolution to become an immediate consideration and passed. Currently, the team has a potential sponsor for the resolution, and it should be referred to the State, Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee as in previous years after its introduction into the State House. If you need additional information, we can provide it. For Colorado Veterans, it is very important to protect and improve the U.S. Constitution, and we are in a critical time in the nation’s history where federal power has grown too large. The Article V amendment process is the most effective way to limit the power of the federal government and to preserve the U.S. Constitution as the “supreme Law of the Land.” Sincerely, Michael Forbis Colorado COS Veterans Team [email protected] \\ (719) 332-4710  C-5 Survey Question: Would you support a Convention of States (COS) to meet and propose Constitutional Amendments focusing on term limits for Congress and federal officials, federal spending restraints, and limiting the federal government to its constitutionally mandated authority? (Support, Oppose, Not Sure) % of Response 100% 39.3% 25.1% 35.6% # of Responses 1078 424 271 383 65.7% 16.6% 17.7% 50.2% 63.3% 81.3% 25.6% 24.2% 18.8% 17.9% 6.7% 12.0% Convention of States Action (COSA) National Survey Results: July 7-10, 2022 Conducted by Trafalgar Group  C-6 Georgia: March 6, 2014 Alaska: April 19, 2014 Florida: April 21, 2014 Alabama: May 22, 2015 Tennessee: February 4, 2016 Indiana: February 29, 2016 Oklahoma: April 25, 2016 Louisiana: May 25, 2016 Arizona: March 13, 2017 North Dakota: March 24, 2017 Texas: May 4, 2017 Missouri: May 12, 2017 Arkansas: February 14, 2019 Utah: March 5, 2019 Mississippi: March 27, 2019 Wisconsin: January 25, 2022 Nebraska: January 28, 2022 West Virginia: March 4, 2022 South Carolina: March 29, 2022 Updated: May 2023 (30) (19) (1) Note: Article V explains that two-thirds of state legislatures must pass a Convention of States (COS) Resolution. This is 34 of 50 states. 19 states have passed COS Resolution. Passed Two Chambers Passed One Chamber Passed Zero Chambers Timeframe of 19 States Passing COS Resolution Missing Connecticut  D-1 Annex D Convention of States (COS) Resolution Testimonies Overview. Annex D describes the “General Testimony Story” used during the hearing for HJR24-1024 (Call for Article V Convention of States). The hearing took place on Monday, 22 April 2024 in the House State, Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee. Annex D contains the agenda and testimony sequence used during the hearing. Some of these testimonies were submitted as a “written” testimony before the hearing, and some were used as a handout for committee members to reference.  D-2 To Representative Steven Woodrow, Chair State, Civic, Military, & Veterans Affairs Committee From Representative Rose Pugliese, House Minority Leader and HJR24-1024 Sponsor Purpose. To provide a suggested order of testimony for HJR24-1024 (Call for Article V Convention of States (COS)) for Monday, April 22, 2024. General. The order of the suggested testimonies tells a story on the meaning of COS and importance to the citizens of Colorado. There are 2 pages (front and back) Opening Remarks from Representative Rose Pugliese and any other co-sponsors. Non-Supporting Testimony (“against” or “neutral” or “amend” or “questions only” positions). Please allow for all non-supporting testimonies either registered or present today to provide their remarks. Upon completion of all non-supporting testimonies, then please follow the Supporting Testimony sequence. Supporting Testimony (“for” position). Please allow for the following sequence of testimonies by category to provide their remarks. Each testimony is designated by “in-person” or “remote” connection. It is understandable if the “panels” called forward do not exactly align by category. Introduction. Dr. Michael Farris (Remote) Category 1: Heritage of the American Nation (who we are as a nation) • Bill Rutledge (In-Person) • Theresa Platt (In-Person) • Wayne Walvoord (In-Person) • Scott Carlisle (In-Person) Category 2: Article V Process (Amendment process to U.S. Constitution) • Mark Farmer (In-Person) • Sharon Vincze (In-Person) Category 3: Limit the Power of the Federal Government (overall purpose of COS) • Guy Richter (Remote) • Janene Winslow (In-Person) • Michael Raisch (In-Person) • Karla Pendleton (Remote) • John Graboski (In-Person) Category 4: Term Limits for Members of Congress (type of potential amendment) • Norman Olsen (In-Person) • Laird Thomas (In-Person) • Vivian Garcia (In-Person)  D-3 Category 5: Balanced Budget and Fiscal Restraints (type of potential amendments) • Tim Schneider (Remote) • Derrick Latreille (In-Person) • Laura Neimeister (Remote) Category 6: Federal Jurisdiction Overreach (type of potential amendments to limit federal agencies) • Pati Thomas (In-Person) • James Oates (In-Person) Category 7: General and Other Supporting Testimonies. • Daryl Rice (In-Person) • Frank Vaughn (In-Person) • Please allow for any remaining supporting testimonies not listed. • Allows for any supporting testimonies that were missed within this document. • Kevin Lundberg (In-Person), not originally programmed • Lynn Ray (In-Person), not originally programmed Category 8: Closing Statement – Cure for the American Nation (healing the nation’s division). • Michael Forbis (In-Person) Final Remarks from Representative Rose Pugliese.  D-4 Purpose: To provide a suggested Convention of States (COS) testimony for Representative Rose Pugliese. Serves as a start point and can be changed as desired (as of April 12, 2024). Note: Portions of this testimony was referenced and used by Rep. Rose Pugliese To members of the Colorado House State, Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee, I bring you greetings and thank you for this opportunity to speak with you about the Convention of States resolution. The Convention of States resolution represents 1 of 2 ways under Article V of the U.S. Constitution to propose amendments. The other way is for both chambers of Congress to propose amendments by two-thirds super-majority before sending to the states for ratification. A Convention of States has never occurred in U.S. History, but there are currently 19 states that already passed the Convention of States resolution and 34 are required. Colorado must be one of them! The sole purpose of the Convention of States resolution is to limit the power of the federal government. Over the course of 75+ years, there has been an exponential increase of centralized power within the federal government and it continues. The Convention of States resolution aims to reduce centralized power of the federal government, and the result will bring power back to the states such as Colorado. Fortunately, the benefit to all Coloradans is an increased opportunity to have more control over their own governing affairs. When the Convention of States convenes, there are amendments it can propose to limit the power of the federal government. For instance, it can propose term limits for members of Congress. The less time a member of Congress can serve means less power, and any Colorado state legislator can relate to term limits as well as 15 other states. Since term limits are common and growing at the state level, it is very applicable at the federal level as well. It is highly  D-5 unlikely members of Congress will propose an amendment to set term limits on themselves, yet a Convention of States will accomplish it. In addition, the Convention of States can propose amendments to set limits on federal spending and hold Congress accountable to its own Constitutional fiscal responsibilities. When the proposed amendments are complete, they still require ratification by three-fourths of the states (38 of 50) to become final, and this super- majority requirement helps to prevent the Convention of States from becoming a “runaway” convention to do whatever it pleases. This committee also has the privilege and honor to hear the voice of Veterans in the state of Colorado. Veterans account for 11.2% of all Convention of States petition signers in Colorado, and it is the same proportion of Veterans at the national level. It represents the largest demographic of petition signers for the Convention of States resolution. However, there are less than 2% of all Americans who have served in the armed forces who took an oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution. So, it makes sense for this committee to hear from those Veterans who have a passionate desire to improve and preserve this sacred American document. Finally and most importantly, the Convention of States will leave an enduring impact for the next 50-100 years to benefit multiple and future generations of American citizens. It is more enduring than any other legislation or law passed in Colorado. The Convention of States resolution is an opportunity of a lifetime to leave behind a positive legacy to benefit all Coloradans. So, I ask for your vote of support on this historic opportunity. Thank you.  D-6 Category 1 Heritage of the American Nation (who we are as a nation)  D-7 Bill Rutledge HELLO & GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS BILL RUTLEDGE. I AM 71 AND LIVE OUTSIDE OF EATON IN WELD COUNTY HOUSE DISTRICT 63. I HAVE LIVED IN COLORADO OFF AND ON SINCE THE 50’S. AS A RETIRED AIR FORCE OFFICER AND MIDDLE SCHOOL TEACHER: I STAND HERE TODAY TO TESTIFY TO MY SUPPORT OF THIS RESOLUTION BECAUSE: OUR NATIONALLY ELECTED OFFICIALS HAVE FAILED AND WILL NOT ACT ON ISSUES THAT RESTRICT AND TIE THEIR HANDS. THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU TODAY IS: WHERE DO YOU PERSONALLY STAND IN YOUR BELIEFS ABOUT BALANCED BUDGETS, FEDERAL OVERREACH IN STATE MATTERS, AND CAREER POLITICIANS? OUR FOREFATHERS BELIEVED IN A LIMITED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THE PRESENT DAY SYSTEM IS ANYTHING BUT LIMITED OR SIMPLE! THEY FORE SAW A TIME, WHEN AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY A CONVENTION OF STATES, WOULD BE THE ONLY WAY FOR THE SOVEREIGN STATES TO ADDRESS THE HUMAN BEHAVIORS INFLUENCED BY POWER, CONTROL, AND GREED. WE HAVE TODAY SIGNS OF A DISFUNCTIONAL AND CORRUPT INFESTATION OF IDEOLOGIES AND ACTIONS IN CONGRESS THAT RIP AT THE MORAL FABRIC OF OUR SOCIETY AND INSTIGATE FEAR THOUGH FALSE NARRATIVES IN SUPPORT OF ENDLESS WARS. JAMES A. GRARFIELD THE 20TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES STATED 1881 “ NOW MORE THAN EVER THE PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHARACTER OF THEIR CONGRESS. IF THAT BODY BE IGNORANT, RECKLESS, AND CORRUPT, IT IS BECAUSE THE PEOPLE TOLERATE IGNORANCE, RECKLESSNESS, AND CORRUPTION. IF IT BE INTELLIGENT, BRAVE, AND PURE, IT IS BECAUSE THE PEOPLE DEMAND THESE HIGH QUALITIES TO REPRESENT THEM IN THE NATAIONAL LEGISATURE…. IF THE NEXT CENTENNIAL DOES NOT FIND US A GREAT NATION….. IT WILL BE CAUSE THOSE WHO REPRESENT THE ENTERPRISE, THE CULTURE, AND THE MORALITY OF THE NATION NO NOT AID IN CONTROLLING THE POLITICAL FORCES.”  D-8 I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT EACH OF YOU SUPPORT THE SPIRIT OF THIS RESOLUTION ON BEHALF OF: OUR FOUNDERS AND YOUR CONSTITUENTS “WE THE PEOPLE” OF COLORADO IT IS YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT & YOUR DUTY TO EXPLORE EVERY OPTION TO REIGN-IN AND REDIRECT THE BEHAVIOURS OF OUR FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES LET YOUR ACTIONS REFLECT THE STRENGTH OF CHARACTER: TO HAVE AN OPEN, HONEST, AND EXPANDED DISCUSSION ON THE FLOOR OF COLORADO’S HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. DO NOT CARRY THE BURDEN OF YOUR DECISION ALONE! “WE THE PEOPLE” BEFORE YOU TODAY HUMBLY REQUEST YOUR VOTE OF SUPPORT THANK YOU FOR LISTENING & MAY GOD’S HAND GUIDE YOUR DECISION.  D-9 Theresa Platt Thank you Committee Chairman for having this hearing. I’ve been in Colorado Springs for 25 years and am currently in House District 15 with Representative Scott Bottoms. My family has fought for this country in the Revolutionary War, the war of 1812, the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam. Two men gave their all in the Civil War and WWII. They did not put their lives on the line only to watch the power of the federal government take from the people the freedoms they fought and died for. The Founding fathers of this nation understood the corruption a Federal Government can acquire so had limited the power of each branch. Over time each branch has stepped out of their boundaries and responsibilities. The Convention of States Resolution will bring back the limited power that was given in the Constitution by limiting their overall power, including fiscal restraints, and giving term limits so they can focus on what they were elected for. Our Declaration of Independence states: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness —-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,. . .” Compromising our unalienable rights, thinking that it makes things easier or better for us and our children, can backfire in a big way. Parents who make compromises can end up alienating themselves from their own children and in some cases be hated by them. Is that what you want? It was my grandfather that died fighting for me and for you in WWII. Help us continue to leave a legacy for our children and grandchildren that is worth fighting and dying for. Please vote to move The Convention of States Resolution HJR24-1024 out of the Committee and to the House for full debate and vote. Thank you, House State, Civic, Military, and Veterans Affair Committee for allowing me to speak here today.  D-10 Honorable Chairman … Members of the Committee: My name is Wayne Walvoord, I live in Brighton. Gabe Evans is my House District 48 Representative. With tools learned in my formative years as a Banker, Certified Management Consultant, Computer Programmer … and now 80 years YOUNG… I will close with a call to action. But first a Quote from Georg Mason, … the Architect of Article V: “All power is lodged in, and consequently derived from, the people. We should wear it as a breastplate and buckle it on as our armour.” My work today is to “pay it forward” and share the Wisdom gained by joining the American Peace Corps in 1964 returning to America in 1968 after three years living abroad, leaving from Kabul Afghanistan, and traveling in over 35 Countries. I have enjoyed Life’s many gifts: A Good Family Upbringing in Denver 1 Sister-Two Brothers; 4 children; AND 14 GrandChildren. I have been a ConventionOfState Colorado Volunteer for almost six years in many Leadership roles. Today. Responsible for Six House Districts as Regional Captain: House Districts 48-56-31-32-33-34 COS represents over 55 thousand COS Colorado Supporters & 5 and a half million National Grassroots Supporters. Today - We seek to implement our Constitutional RIGHTS under Article V This REQUIRES that you, our Colorado House Representatives, to demand that Congress CALL an Article V Convention MY POINT: America is the greatest, freedom loving, religiously tolerant Nation to ever exist. >Allow the full House of Representatives the opportunity to debate this Resolution calling for an Article V Convention to decide what ? We the People of Colorado ask you: PLEASE PASS THIS RESOLUTION. Thank you. I would be honored to answer any questions.  D-11 Good Morning, To the members of the Colorado legislature, my name is Scott Carlisle , I live in Ouray County. We are all Americans here, it does not matter which side of the aisle you stand. Each one of us here today is living proof of the dedication of the previous generations that put us in front of themselves. Today I am asking you to remember the gift of FREEDOM you are now enjoying. Today with all the debit, Power grabbing by the Federal Government and Career politicians. WE THE PEOPLE must change the course of our federal government. Today I humbly request that you pass the Convention of the State Resolution that is in front of you so ALL children and grandchildren of ALL of ours can live as free as we have! The most obvious NEED at this point in time is the return of STATES RIGHTS to defend and protect their citizens. This will only happen if the Federal government is required to honor the 10 th amendment. The insane printing of money, the complete lack of fiscal responsibility demonstrated by the federal government, the lack of budgets being passed, only 4 have been passed in the last 40 years. It is crystal clear WE THE PEOPLE NEED THIS Convention of the States to help us clean up the national mess created by the federal government. When you vote to pass the resolution for convention of the state’s articles, you as an American, as a state leader, as neighbor, a father or mother or grandparent will be demonstrating your love of Country and the Respect for all that has been given you by birth as an American. I pray that you will stand on your sacred honor to uphold the oath you took when you swore to protect and defend the constitution with your vote to convene the convention of the states to debate and resolve the issues we have before us as a nation. You sit here before God and Country, with a Great opportunity to now protect and defend this greatest nation on earth by voting yes to the convene Convention of the States. May God Bless each of you and May God continue to Bless the United States of America. Thank you for your time to listen to me. I am a proud God Fearing American… Who honors the Gift of being an American. It has been an honor to speak to all of you.  D-12 Category 2 Article V Process (Amendment process to U.S. Constitution)  D-13 My name is Mark Farmer , and I am a concerned citizen of Colorado. I come before you today to urge you to pass the resolution currently under consideration out of this committee. It is important that all Colorado representatives have the opportunity to thoroughly debate and discuss not only the resolution under consideration but also the mechanics and the procedures of an Article V Convention of States. After the threshold of 34 states is reached, the Convention of States will be called and Colorado will be invited to participate. It is crucial for the representatives of the state of Colorado to be prepared for the convention regardless of your stance on the resolution at hand. I don’t believe I am overstating my case when I say it is your duty to best represent the people of Colorado by thoroughly understanding not only this resolution but also the workings of an Article V Convention of States  D-14 Sharon Vincze - District 8 - Testimony for Convention of States Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee members for your time and service. My name is Sharon Vincze . I live in Commerce City, District 8. I was blessed to grow up in this country with parents honed by the depression and determined their children would have it better than they did. The first of my family to attend college, I advanced in a business career that allowed me to raise two children as a single mother. As a grandmother now, I’m angry about the country we’re handing over to the next generation. They deserve better, like my grandson who alongside others, deploys to the Middle East next month with the Colorado Army National Guard. For far too long, we’ve witnessed the damage that an unchecked federal bureaucracy can do. And although people are outraged about our national debt, the southern border, or other crises, they feel powerless to do much about it. But the fact is, there’s something we can all do about it! We can use the ‘life raft’ that our Founding Fathers gave us in Article V of the Constitution. That Article was explicitly written for times like today, when the Federal government is no longer the solution, but the problem. It’s likely the last peaceful tool the states will have to reclaim their sovereignty and restore a balance of power between them and the federal government. Article V requires that thirty-four state legislatures pass a resolution in each chamber of their legislatures, after which a delegate from all 50 states will meet to discuss and pass amendments that address term limits, fiscal responsibility, and federal restraint. Today, over half of the required number of states have passed the resolution. We pray Colorado will join them! Let’s do this for our children and grandchildren! Please vote to move the Resolution out of Committee and to the House for a full debate and vote. Thank you for your time  D-15 Category 3 Limit the Power of the Federal Government (overall purpose of COS)  D-16 Guy Richter Thank you Mr. Chairman for allowing me to testify. My name is Guy Richter. Ladies & Gentlemen of the Committee! Please lend me your ears! I’ve lived in State House District 60 for 31 years, and I insist that my voice be heard. Our country is in crisis due to a government that has become bloated, corrupt, reckless, and invasive. We must reverse our path of destruction NOW! I ask that you carefully consider Article V of the Constitution as a solution to our problems. This important Article was written to ensure the sovereignty and self- governance of we the people. It is a valuable tool for maintaining the balance of power between States and the federal government. Article V provides each State the authority to call a Convention of States for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution. These amendments would focus on three areas of government that are deeply corrupt and terribly inept: 1. MONEY: Impose fiscal restraints on the government. It’s unethical and irresponsible to burden our children with massive debt. The reckless spending of our tax money has to stop! 2. POWER: Limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. We have slowly lost our freedom in many ways. It’s not government who controls the people, it’s we the people who control the government. 3. TIME: Set term limits on congress, federal officials, and especially appointed bureaucrats. Term limits will allow future generations to govern themselves instead of being governed by ghosts of politicians long gone. In conclusion, I only ask that the Convention Of States Resolution be passed out of committee onto the floor for discussion; where all CO residents will have a voice. This is the democratic process that we value so much. Listen carefully to the compelling testimony of those in support of this process. Then make your decision based on the people’s voice, as it should be. Not party lines. Thank you for your time, and thank you for your service to Colorado. Respectfully Submitted, Guy Richter Thank you Mr. Chairman for allowing me to speak.  D-17 Janene Winslow Hello committee members and thank you for your service. My name is Janene Winslow and I live in Littleton. We are all first and foremost Americans. But America is in trouble. Weface serious threats abroad, and at home our borders have been overrun. In 2023 alone, 2.5 million immigrants entered our country illegally. What is that costing the American taxpayer? Add to that inflation. And where are our leaders in all of this? Some Congress members have been serving for over 30 years and yet, they can’t agree on anything and are certainly not addressing these problems. Americans are tapped out! For far too long, Congress has been in charge of overseeing Congress. That’s like the fox guarding the henhouse. In 1951 Congress established term limits for the President, but they will never reign themselves in. Another example of our unmanaged federal government is our national debt. Both parties, Democrats and Republicans, have and continue to overspend the federal budget. We are headed for a debt crisis- and soon. Our severely dysfunctional Congress requires a severe intervention. Our founding fathers saw this day coming which is why they included Article V in the U.S. Constitution. Article V gives states the power to call a convention to propose amendments. I support the Conventions of State Action. This particular convention would stipulate that the states discuss amendments that “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, impose fiscal restraints, and place term limits on federal officials.” These are basic, but essential restraints critical for the future well-being of our country and its citizens. I will end with this quote by Neil A. Maxwell: “Do not let the future be held hostage by the past.” I urge you to vote to move the Resolution out of Committee and to the House for a full debate and vote. Thank you for your time and for your service.  D-18 My name is Michael Raisch . I am a Colorado native who lives in Arvada (House District 24). I attended the University of Colorado, had a long career as a CPA, and now am semi-retired. I am here today representing myself, my children, and my grandchildren. I am speaking in support of the Convention of States resolution as provided for in Article V of the United States Constitution because of the power that it vests in the people of our country. Our Founders were wise to allow such a provision. They knew, as everyone in this hearing room knows, that too much power can cause well-meaning civil servants into believing that they could fix every problem if they just had more money, more time, and especially more power. Unfortunately, it is just that type of thinking that has brought us to where we are today - with an out-of-control Federal debt and a government run by career politicians in Washington D.C. who spend too much time raising funds for re-election and not enough time solving the problems they campaigned on. The Convention of States resolution before you is a non-partisan effort that seeks to impose fiscal restraints on needless federal spending and to propose term limits at the federal level. These are the same concepts that you, as our legislature, have been wise enough to create here in Colorado. I urge you to support the Convention of States resolution and allow for fiscal responsibility, common sense, and liberty to improve our country for the benefit of all people. Allow Colorado to participate, with the rest of the county, to prove to our Founders that we are worthy of the trust that they placed in us through Article V. Please pass this resolution from this committee onto the house floor so that the democratic process can live on as provided for by our Founders. Mr. Chairman and Member of this Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very important subject. All we are asking is to allow the democratic process of debate to continue to the next level and not die in this hearing room.  D-19 Karla Pendleton I'm Karla Pendleton, HD 59. A catastrophe befell my tiny home town of Silverton in San Juan County. Millions of gallons of stinking, toxic waste water were released by a federal agency, overiding local authority, and drilling into a closed mine bulkhead. Thank God no lives were lost, but damage to our beautiful county was sustained and remains. In 1984, the US Supreme Court granted unprecedented and unconstitutional power to the administrative state, allowing UNELECTED bureaucrats to wield LEGISLATIVE authority. This decision has eroded the vital checks and balances of our constitutional republic for over four decades. The Constitution vests ALL legislative authority in an ELECTED Congress, not the courts, not the executive, and certainly NOT an unconstitutional fourth branch. Under this ruling, federal agencies were empowered to create laws, using the misguided notion that they possess superior expertise. The catastrophe in San Juan County serves as a stark reminder of the dangers posed by unchecked federal agencies and their impact on We the people of Colorado. The administrative state now operates as an unchecked tyranny. The consequences of this tyranny are felt daily in San Juan county, where over 90% of the land is controlled by unelected and unaccountable federal agencies. Article V of the US Constitution places the final check upon federal tyranny with you, state legislators. I urge you to support HR-, moving it to the house floor for debate by those ELECTED to make law in Colorado. Here's my question…Will the Colorado general assembly continue to tolerate the tyranny of the federal administrative state, or will Colorado state legislators provide a check on tyranny? Thank you for your thoughtfully considered answer.  D-20 Testimony for Resolution HJR24-1024 in Colorado State Legislature, State, Civic, Military, & Veterans Affairs Committee, Submitted by John G Graboski, April 22, 2024 Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am John Graboski, from Larkspur, CO, in House District 39, and Senate District 4. In 1651, famous Philospher Thomas Hobbes, wrote Leviathan. Leviathan refers to a mythological Sea Creature, one of which, the whale, reportedly swallowed Jonah, as described in the Old Testament of the Bible. Hobbes firmly believed that the most necessary and effective civil government was one ruled by an absolute Sovereign, what today we might refer to as a monarchy. Here is how both Leviathan and Sovereign are described by a scholar at the time: “…a unity compacted out of separate individuals; they are omnipotent; they cannot be destroyed or divided; they inspire fear in men; they do not make pacts with men; theirs is the dominion of power on pain of death.” I posit to you that this is an apt description of the current Federal government. It has grown in size, scope and function well beyond what was intended in our US Constitution. Our first President George Washington had four Cabinet Level Departments. Today we have 15, plus 15 Independent Federal Agencies. It has become all-encompassing in our lives, with unelected bureaucrats regulating every aspect of our existence, from how our toilets flush to what we are allowed to think and say. The current regime in Washington has become tyrannical, totalitarian, and treasonous in its violation of citizens’ basic Constitutional rights. It is time to pull it back to its original enumerated powers, especially for Congress. See Article I, Section 8! I implore the members to vote this Resolution out of Committee and send it to the full Houses for debate and vote. I don’t know about you, but I have no intention of being swallowed by the whale, like Jonah! Thank you.  D-21 Category 4 Term Limits for Members of Congress (type of potential amendment)  D-22 Good afternoon! My name is Norman Olsen . I’ve been citizen in Colorado for 52 years. I currently reside in Centennial, Colorado. Colorado voters have approved term limit measures four times in statewide votes: Statewide offices were term limited in 1995, Congressional Representatives in 94, Colorado legislators in 96, and the term limit pledge was approved in 98 . Clearly, the citizens of Colorado are firm believers that term limits are helpful in maintaining responsible government. It was in 1995 that the Supreme Court of the United Sates ruled that states cannot modify the qualifications of members of Congress. That decision voided congressional term limit measures in 23 states. Of course, Colorado was one of those 23 states. Since that time, not less than 33 term limit measures have been introduced into Congress, all without success. It’s very clear, the career politicians in Washington DC are not going to vote for limits on their careers. This, despite the fact that dysfunction in Washington DC has now reached epic proportions. That is why the citizens of Colorado want the inevitable Convention of the States to occur soon. Please vote to advance this proposal to the House floor and encourage your colleagues to approve this measure and send it on to the Senate for final approval. Thank you for your attention. I’d happy to answer any questions you may have. Information in case of questions: • 1990 Amendment 5, Term Limits for four state wide officers, passed 71% to 29% • 1994 Amendment 17, Term limits for Congress and Board of Education, passed 51%/49% • 1995 U. S. Term Limits vs Thornton et al, US Supreme Court, 5-4 decision. Thornton was an official in Arkansas • 1996 Amendment 12, term limits for legislature, passed 54% to 46% • 1998 Amendment 18, add term limit pledge to the ballot, passed 50.3%/49.6% • 2006 Amendment 40, term limits for judges, wisely failed 43%/57%, left retention system in place • Last congressional term limit action: US H.J.Res.11 – Introduced January 9, 2023; 105 co-sponsors; died in Committee 17-19.  D-23 My name is Laird Thomas . I am a 4th generation native living in District 52 in Fort Collins, Colorado. My thanks to the chair and representatives for hearing my testimony for passing the resolution out of committee and into the House for vote. A majority of voters in the state and nationally agree term limits are good for the nation. Ben Franklin said about term limits; “When politicians know they will return to society and live under laws passed when in Congress they will think carefully about long-term effects of programs they supported.” Term limits are necessary to prevent power from becoming centralized in the hands of a few for decades on end. It is recognized that 93% of all House incumbents and 82% of all Senate incumbents have been reelected since 1964. Without term limits our local, state, and national governing bodies become hunting grounds for lobbyists ripe for corruption and fraud, betraying the voters’ confidence. So, what can term limits do to prevent this? Term limits would give voters more influence with their vote, bringing in new people with new ideas and new perspectives. Newly elected officials could have the courage to focus on doing the job voters hired them to do rather than planning for the next election cycle. In conclusion, term limits would encourage the people to take back their power and have confidence in their votes for greater participation for the wellbeing of our nation! Thank you for your time and interest!  D-24 Thank you Colorado Representatives. I am grateful to testify before the House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee today. My name is Vivian Garcia . I am 48 years old, I was born in Pueblo, I’m a mom and grandma and I have resided in Colorado my entire life. It’s my privilege to volunteer for Convention of States Action since August of 2022. I’m taking the time to be here because the federal government has abused authority, pursuing the People’s money without accountability or evidence of lasting and stable results for the American Citizens that government was created to serve. U.S. Congressional terms of service should not be decided by the incumbent and their own interests and abilities. Congressional terms should be decided by United States citizens through a Constitutional amendment. U.S. Senators and Representative’s unlimited incumbency defends the incumbent, not democracy. Incumbency builds power and influence and their status secures exposure, which in turn creates name and face recognization. Senior positions in U.S. Congress make more money. The people who take on these roles do not want to let go of these roles, well past the normal retirement age. Decades spent in Congress means more separation from free market citizens whom they represent. They learn the game and whatever bond they originally had relating to their constituents, that bond fades and they become institutionalized salesmen who know how to win and know how to sell. I support a constitutional amendment to term limit U.S. Congress through an Article V Convention of States within this Resolution HJR24-1024. I believe with debate, the States can come to a winning compromise that could get ratified by 38 states. As State Legislators, you have been given the power and authority under Article V to participate in this process. To shut down the matter for another body of state legislators in another year only removes yourselves from the authority to be a part of appointing the Article V Convention of States commissioners that would represent Colorado. Please vote yes today to send House Resolution HJR24-1024 to the floor for a vote. Thank you.  D-25 Category 5 Balanced Budget and Fiscal Restraints (type of potential amendments)  D-26 Tim Schneider: April 22, 2024: Testimony for COS Resolution in Colorado. Thank you Mr. Chair and honorable committee. Good afternoon, my name is Tim Schneider, I am a Regional captain for COS Action and I’m a long time resident of CO currently living in Larkspur where representative Brandi Bradley serves as House District 39’s representative. I’m a retired engineer and grandfather who has seen our Federal governments lack of implementing any fiscal constraints, raise our national debt to over $34 Trillion and rising! This national debt has increased on average $1 Trillion/year for the past 30 years! Our public debt as a percent of Gross GDP has been over 100% for the past 10 years! We have lost our separation of powers between state and federal government. The reason I support resolution HR-24- XXX is I strongly believe it is time to put some fiscal restraints on our federal government; specifically a balanced budget mandate. We know, or at least we should know that our elected officials in Washington DC will not impose fiscal restraints upon themselves. History has proven this time and time again. I must ask you, if term limits and a balanced budget are required for CO, why shouldn’t we support similar requirements upon our federal government? Article V was given to us by our founders because our founders knew and said aloud at the Philadelphia convention in 1787 that the US congress would never propose amendments curtailing federal powers. Only the American people; represented by their state representatives, could be trusted to impose restrictions on our national representatives. For this reason, our state representatives were given exactly the same powers given our national representatives to propose specific amendments to the constitution. I believe that the CO state legislators have the moral responsibility to use the powers given them by Article V to control abuses against the constitution and that is what this resolution proposes. A Big Thank you to the house representatives who have sponsored/cosponsored this resolution. Please vote to move Resolution HR-24-XXX out of committee and to the House floor for a full debate and vote. Thank you for your time  D-27 Derrick Latreille Thank you, Chairman & Honorable members of the Colorado Congress, I’m a 51 year old father of 3. I came to address you on their behalf. I came to Colorado for college, got 3 degrees here, moved away, built a career and moved back to raise my kids, who range from ages 13 to 22. You know our national debt rose from <1 trillion in 1980, to $34 trillion today. According to the Peterson Foundation, 80% of citizens view the deficit and debt as a top priority. But, the harsh reality is - a majority of federal lawmakers will never take necessary action, fearing political fallout from - reduced benefits to veterans, retirees, the indigent, or reduced military spending, or increased taxes. That’s why we need a Convention of States. This constitutional mechanism is our hope for imposing fiscal discipline on Washington. It’s not about slashing essential services - it's about reviving prudence. Who knows how far we can get just forcing Washington to roll up their sleeves and root out wasteful spending. Now, if I may address you, not as legislators, but as fellow parents. If we fail to act, there is a slim chance WE could escape the consequences of our out-of-control spending. But our children won’t escape it. We MAY hand them an unprecedented American economic crisis OR a USD collapse. But we WILL certainly hand them the social and political turmoil that history has shown comes for any country that has indulged in this level of fiscal recklessness. A Convention of States is not partisan. It is not a political maneuver. It is a moral imperative. When you vote the Convention of States out of committee, YOU will have been the leader who made the most difficult and most important of decisions for our children and our United States of America. from Devin, Kendrick and Ellie - Thank You.  D-28 Thank You Honorable Chair, and distinguished members of the committee. My name is Laura Neimeister. I’m the State Director for Colorado Convention of States Action. Today I represent myself and over 54 thousand constituents in Colorado who have signed our petition and who are extremely concerned about the rationality of the federal government. One of our greatest concerns is our national debt. In 1929 our national debt was 17 billion dollars, a 16% debt-to-GDP ratio. America was producing more than it owed. Today, our national debt is over 34 trillion dollars, over a 125% debt-to-GDP ratio. We can see through history that the federal government will not choose to be fiscally responsible, which is why Colorado must be one of the 34 states to call for an Article V Convention. It does not matter who is in control of the White House. Both parties are irresponsible with our money. Yes, our money, yours and mine. The federal government does not create wealth. Hard working people are the ones who create the wealth in America. Our Founding Fathers gave “we the people”, working through you, our state legislatures the power to hold the federal government fiscally accountable. Your constituents want this, our nation needs this. We cannot continue to spend more than we create and expect this nation to survive. This subject needs more than a 2 minute testimony which is why I am asking you to VOTE YES on HJR24-1024 so we can have a full debate in the House. I ask you to be open minded enough to see the fiscal dangers you and I are facing and be willing to discuss it further. Please for your 54,000 constituents VOTE YES on HJR24-1024. Thank you for allowing me to speak  D-29 Category 6 Federal Jurisdiction Overreach (type of potential amendments to limit federal agencies)  D-30 Committee members, thank you for your time. My name is Pati Thomas . I am a Clinical Nutritionist in private practice for 30 years, most of those in Fort Collins. I am also a Mom of 2, a Grandmother of 4, and a wife. I became very ill with chronic fatigue syndrome in the 80’s. I couldn’t think, had headaches 24 hours daily, couldn’t sleep… Perhaps some of you have had similar illness, or have a loved one who has. [pause and look at each legislator] It can be devastating to families and society. My first successful step toward recovery was through diet change…. A diet that would never be sanctioned by today’s federal government ‘agencies.’ At the time I could tolerate only meat and vegetables. Supplements, many with glandulars from animals, were also key. The current proposed direction from federal agencies is that we should all eat less, maybe even NO meat, and more plant protein, often high in inflammatory oxalates. Our federal government tries to fit every American into a niche – they would like to tell us all what to eat, where to live, what we can access. What about ‘My Body, My Choice?’ Each of my clients is unique. For some NO chicken, others NO wheat or dairy or soy and beans. Almost ANY food can make us sick. Red meat is required daily by many for their recovery and to maintain restored health. There has never been ONE WAY for anything nor one diet for all. We MUST maintain personal control over our bodies and our health, and local control over our industries and economies. QUESTION: have any of you heard of Dr. Eric Nepute? In June of 2020 the DOJ informed him that he was being fined 2 billion dollars ++ for recommending Zinc and Vitamins D and C to help against COVID illness. The DOJ spent untold millions of our tax dollars over 3 years!! trying to take down Dr. Nepute. When the court told them they would lose, the DOJ told Dr. Nepute they would just file an appeal and keep him in legal fees until he was broken. I am outraged by this overreach by the DOJ and it is only one of far too many. Please look up this case. Dr. Eric Nepute Spelled N-E-P-U-T-E.in St. Louis, MS. Thus, I am hopeful that a Convention of States to consider amendments to the US Constitution could help determine ways we can limit federal jurisdiction and return to self-determination. We will do better to limit federal bureaus and build strength in Colorado! Thank you again for your consideration of the Convention of States Resolution. Pati Thomas  D-31 CONVENTION OF STATES HJR24.IA24 Chairman Woodrow, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to present to you today. My name is Dr. James Oates , representing the Convention of States organization, and I am here to support this bill because Colorado needs to participate in the Convention of States. I am a former US Navy Hospital Corpsman and now a retired Doctor of Dental Surgery. I will address the subject of Federal Jurisdiction Overreach. This will be an agenda item at the Convention of States. Federal Jurisdiction Overreach is when Federal agencies and bureaucracies make their own laws and apply them to the states as the supreme law of the land. These agencies are administered by non-elected officials who often spend their entire career in these agencies. These agencies include EPA, CDC, Homeland Security, NIH, FDA, Department of Education, and many other federal agencies and bureaucracies. Time does not permit me to delve into all these agencies, so I will use the Department of Education as an example. Every state has a department or agency that oversees the administration and curriculum of their state schools. They are best suited to assess the educational needs of their state and local communities. The Federal Department of Education has a budget of over $68 Billion dollars and over 4,400 employees. The proposed budget for 2025 is $82 Billion dollars. Their mission is Promote Student Achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. The entire department is failing its mission. In the 1960's and 70's the US ranked number one in the world in education. It now ranks 13th overall, but 38e in math and24th in science. Their overreach requires states to use or not use specific books, present specific courses, and curriculum, and adopt specific administrative procedures. State Departments of Education can do a better job of tailoring their curriculum to educate their students appropriately. I encourage Colorado to support HJR-24-1024 and participate in the Convention of States where the size and scope of Federal Agencies will be debated, and resolutions drafted to amend the Constitution appropriately. Does the committee have any questions for me  D-32 Category 7 General and Other Supporting Testimonies  D-33 Daryl Rice: Thank you Representatives for taking this time out of your busy schedules. I was a naval pilot during the last half of the Vietnam war, and now live in Brighton Colorado District #48. My fellow airmen, soldiers, and sailors thought that we were fighting for the American way of life, individual Freedom and against the spread of Communism. 250 years earlier, George Washington and his Revolutionary Army were fighting King George III for their Freedom and against Royal control. Our Founders understood the Danger of Governmental Control of it’s Citizens, so the US Constitution gave it’s New Federal government very few enumerated powers and all the rest stayed with the States. So YOU are very powerful, as Article V gives States the Power to propose Constitutional Amendments which can limit the expanding Power and Jurisdiction of the Federal Government. You also have a much better knowledge of what Colorado citizens want, than do Washington DC bureaucrats. I believe that your constituents are unhappy with: 1 Trillions of dollars in New Federal Spending and the subsequent new taxes needed to pay for it. 2 An Open Southern Border with millions coming for Free Benefits that US Citizens pay for while we do have a LEGAL Immigration system that brings in over 1 million people a year; more than any other country. The Convention of States has the Only Answer in our US Constitution to return power to the States and We the People. PLEASE Pass this Resolution so that the full Colorado House of Representative can Vote for all Coloradans.  D-34 Frank Vaughn Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of an Article V Convention of States. Our nation's founding principles are deeply rooted in the belief that power should ultimately reside with the people and the states, not just in Washington, D.C. An Article V Convention of States provides a constitutionally prescribed method for addressing issues that are not adequately handled by Congress alone. It allows state legislatures to propose amendments to the Constitution, providing a crucial check and balance to federal authority. An Article V Proposal Convention is not a partisan issue; it is about safeguarding our union and ensuring that our government remains accountable to the people. It provides a constitutionally prescribed method for addressing issues that Congress won’t take up. Contrary to concerns about risk, the process is designed with safeguards. Any amendments proposed at such a convention must still be ratified by three-fourths of the states, ensuring a high threshold for constitutional changes. This process has been carefully crafted to allow for meaningful dialogue among states while maintaining a robust system of checks and balances. While some may raise concerns about the need or potential risks of an Article V Convention of States, it's important to recognize the practical benefits it offers. This process provides a peaceful and lawful means for states to propose solutions to pressing national issues. Rather than being risky, it is a structured and transparent approach that empowers states to address challenges that are not adequately addressed at the federal level. By working together states can propose amendments that benefit all Americans and uphold the principles of our republic. In conclusion, I urge this committee to consider the merits of this approach and pass this resolution on to the house floor. Thank you for your time and attention  D-35 Category 8 Closing Statement – Cure for the American Nation (healing the nation’s division)  D-36 Closing Statement – Cure for the American Nation (healing the nation’s division) To members of the committee, my name is Michael Forbis and thank for letting me speak with you today on the Convention of States Resolution. During the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln led the nation through its greatest trial and division in U.S. History. There were 620,000 American lives lost on the battlefield, and the magnitude of losses was strong evidence of the country’s division. Slavery was the core issue at this division, and Lincoln believed the 13 th Amendment abolishing slavery was necessary to help end the division and heal the nation from the Civil War. President Lincoln called the 13 th Amendment “the King’s cure for all the evils.” In other words, Lincoln believed God used the 13 th Amendment to help heal the nation from the Civil War. In today’s age, the United States faces another great division, and it’s about the increased centralized power that exists within the federal government. For example, members of Congress have become career politicians, and they refuse to give up power. In addition, the federal government has not been disciplined in spending because the national debt has grown exponentially and out-paced the gross domestic product. The American public has great distrust and senses enormous corruption within the federal government, and it is time for a cure to come forth to help heal the nation. The U.S. Constitution Article V amendment process involving a Convention of States is the best approach to help heal the nation, and its sole purpose is to limit the power of the federal government. The Convention of States can propose a series of amendments to limit the power of the federal government, and it serves as a cure to help heal the nation from its current divide. So, let’s apply the historical lesson from President Abraham Lincoln and use the amendment process to the U.S. Constitution to help heal the nation. For Colorado, it can start with this committee passing the Convention of States Resolution and sending it to the main House Floor for full consideration! Thank you.  D-37 Timeframe Vote Summary Government Element April 8, 1864 38 (86%) – Yes, 6 (14%) – No Note: 6 did not vote U.S. Senate June 15, 1864 93 (59%) – Yes, 65 (41%) - No Note: 23 did not vote U.S. House of Representatives (1 st Attempt) January 31, 1865 119 (68%), 56 (32%) – No Note: 8 did not vote U.S. House of Representatives (2 nd Attempt) Passage of 13 th Amendment 29. CA – Dec 19, 1865 25. AL – Dec 2 17. MN – Feb 23 9. ME – Feb 7 1. IL – Feb 1 30. FL – Dec 28, 1865 26. NC – Dec 4 18. WI – Feb 24 10. KS – Feb 7 2. RI – Feb 2 31. IA – Jan 15, 1866 27. GA – Dec 6 19. VT – Mar 8 11. MA – Feb 7 3. MI – Feb 3 32. NJ – Jan 23, 1866 By Dec 6, 1865, 27 of 36 states (or 75%) ratified the 13 th Amendment. It was officially in the Constitution. 20. TN – Apr 7 12. VA – Feb 9 4. MD – Feb 3 33. TX – Feb 18, 1870 21. AR – Apr 14 13. OH – Feb 10 5. NY – Feb 3 34. DE – Feb 12, 1901 22. CT – May 4 14. IN – Feb 13 6. PA – Feb 3 35. KY – Mar 18, 1976 23. NH – Jul 1 15. NV – Feb 16 7. WV – Feb 3 36. MS – Mar 16, 1995 28. OR – Dec 8, 1865 24. SC – Nov 13 16. LA – Feb 17 8. MO – Feb 6 - Border State - Confederate State Order of Ratification: 36 States in the Union in year 1865 (6 states ratified after 1865) Note: both were slave states  D-38 Potential Questions and Talking Points Potential Committee Questions: • What is the point of this chart you put on the back of your testimony handout? • In reference to Lincoln’s quote: “a King’s cure for all the evils.” o When did he say that? o Who did he say it to? o What speech does it come from? o Did he really say that? o How do you know he said it? Potential Talking Points to Committee Questions “Representative Woodrow and committee members, President Abraham Lincoln made the statement about the 13th Amendment being ”the King's cure for all the evils” during casual conversations he had with people (e.g., Missouri U.S. Representative James Rollins) after he signed the 13th Amendment on 1 February 1865, the day after Congress finally passed it in both chambers. Now, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required by the President, but he did it as a matter of historical principle. The supporting evidence of this quote was almost immediate, and I invite you to turn over to the 2nd page of my testimony handout I provided. As you can see on the chart, there were 18 states that ratified it within the first month, and four of them were slave states. In particular, the slave state of Virginia ratified it within 9 days (Feb 9th), and this was where a significant part of the Civil War still raged on until Lee surrendered to Grant on April 9, 1865. Of the 27 states needed to ratify it, 10 were slave states, and it is an indicator of the nation's strong desire to end the division and heal from the Civil War. I highly doubt the 13th Amendment would have passed as quickly or as easily if it were not for the huge emotional need for the nation's healing from the Civil War.” “The great division we face today as a nation can find healing in the same manner through the U.S. Constitution Article V amendment process involving a Convention of States.”  D-39 Remaining Testimonies Submitted Not used for Verbal Testimony  D-40 Sheri Tuffield Good Morning Representatives – Thank you for hearng our testimony regarding this important resolution: My name is Sheri Tuffield and I live in Unincorporated Arapahoe County in State House District 61, - Eliza Hamrick’s District. I moved to Colorado in 1975 to attend college at the University of Colorado. It was the natural beauty that was one of the things that drew me here, but the pioneering spirit and independent minded thinkers that made up the population was also a huge attraction. In the ensuing decades, I have watched as the leaders of this great state have become less inclined to be representative of that mindset and instead have allowed the command and control attitude of a centralized federal government take over decision making powers. I have to believe the people in control of our state government would prefer to make those decisions closer to home as the elected representatives of their constituents. Article V of the Constitution allows this. If passed by 34 states, the Convention of States resolution before you, allows states to reclaim their rights. The resolution would allow the states to call for a Convention of States at which amendments could be proposed to rein in the out of control spending and bureaucratic overreach of the federal government. Term limits is another issue that could be addressed. The important thing to remember is, the STATES would get to discuss and decide what issues are considered. The bottom line is, power would be returned to the states and the federal government overreach would be reigned in. But none of this can happen unless the states take advantage of Article V in the constitution and call for a Convention of States. I strongly urge you to pass the Convention of States resolution and begin the process of returning power to Colorado and the people you represent. Thank you for your time.  D-41 Dennis Powelson: Article V, Convention of States Term Limits Good afternoon. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Dennis Powelson. I live in Brittany Pettersen’s Seventh District. I am here to urge you to vote in favor of the Convention of States resolution. Because of the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, an alternate method to amend the Constitution was inserted in Article V of the Constitution. The people have a way to address and resolve perceived issues with the way our federal government is functioning, or not functioning, as the case may be. I would like to bring the issue of Congressional Term Limits to your attention. Career politicians are not what the Founding Fathers envisioned. Congress today has an historically low 14% approval rating. Not only is Congress dysfunctional in terms of passing legislation, it is burdened with career entrenched politicians whose first priority seems to be to stay elected. Regarding these entrenched career politicians, why does it seem like: o fund raising is more important than passing legislation, o they get richer the longer they are in power, o they are re-elected every term despite their lack of productivity, o they cling to their old ideas and lose perspective of the ever changing needs of the people, o they are in office for literally decades even though many are failing physically and mentally. There are too many issues with career politicians to ignore any longer. 82% of voters want to see term limits established. Yet Congress continues to ignore the will of the people by failing to vote for term limits on themselves. This is not a left or right issue, it’s an American issue. That is why this Convention of States approach is so very important. I have faith that the delegates to the Convention of States will address any concerns and arrive at sensible and workable language for a Term Limit Amendment. On behalf of the will of the people, I am asking that you to pass the resolution that will ultimately enable the Convention of States to convene to resolve this important issue. Thank You.  D-42 Gregg Fanselau I'm Gregg Fanselau, here today to urge you to put forward the Convention of States resolution because the political system in this country has become incredibly dysfunctional in recent decades. Every week we see Senators who are severely incapacitated by age acting as mere figureheads for unaccountable faceless staff members. Numerous members of Congress from each party have made fortunes greatly in excess of their gross salaries with no plausible ethical explanation. Congress often passes bills so immense that no member could possibly read them before voting on them. Since the turn of the century, Congress routinely fails to comply with the budget process it adopted in 1974. Bureaucracies run amok with no accountability. In a few short years the interest on the national debt will exceed current tax revenues. This is simply not sustainable. The electorate is angry and rightfully so. Benjamin Franklin was asked what sort of government was created by the 1787 Constitutional Convention and famously said “a republic if you can keep it”. The process of keeping that republic has included twenty-seven Constitutional amendments to date, each of them introduced by Congress. It is simply unreasonable to believe that Congress could or would rectify these issues which are of its own making.The framers of the Constitution foresaw the potential of a crisis of this type in providing for a Convention of States to amend the Constitution.The states as the laboratories of democracy are best positioned to devise creative and effective solutions. So while I thank you for your kind attention, I again urge you to put forward this resolution to the full House.  D-43 Donelson Lawry- Balanced Budget Amendment Mr Chairman, Committee members, thank you for hearing my testimony. I am Donelson Lawry from Palisade, CO, a retired aerospace engineer, and volunteer with COS. I am here today to speak with you about the need for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. Today the federal government prints or borrows money to cover their continued revenue shortages. If borrowed, interest on the debt takes away money needed for other priorities If printed, we see rampant inflation. Our federal government has been juggling these two techniques to cover this runaway spending. Our nation debt today is $[34.4] Trillion dollars. If this were a stack of $100 bills, it would stretch nearly around the world, 24,901 miles. According to the Government Accountability Office, reducing the debt and deficit right now is not enough. Spending reductions and revenue increases need to be made consistently over the next 75 years to keep debt constant as a share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and address the gap between projected growth in program spending. No federal politician wants to take on the hard task of disappointing any of their constituents and spending is increasing… So where does that leave us? Article V allows the State Legislators to Propose a Constitutional Amendment requiring a balanced budget. Spending Limit amendment proposals must however be linked to amendments that restrain the Fed from imposing unfunded mandates on states. Imagine the congress debating a budget and Deliberating spending cuts It is good for CO to watch its State taxing and spending. Why would We The People not hold the Federal Gov to the same standard? Thank you  E-1 Annex E Convention of States Action (COSA) Survey & Statistical Hypothesis Test Overview. Annex E provides a statistical hypothesis test of the COSA survey conducted by the Trafalgar Group from 7-10 July 2022. This annex provides a technical description of the statistical hypothesis test, and it is meant to demonstrate the validity of the scientifically based survey conducted by the Trafalgar Group. It is likely that a person with a statistical and mathematics background will have an easier time understanding the explanation.  E-2 Situation. The Convention of States Action (COSA) is a national movement to amend the U.S. Constitution as described in Article V. There are two approaches to proposing amendments. The first approach involves Congress proposing amendments by 2/3’s super majority vote in both chambers. The second approach involves 2/3’s of state legislatures (or 34 of 50) approving a resolution for a Convention of States (COS) to form to propose amendments. Afterwards, any proposed amendments are then sent to the states where 3/4’s of the states (or 38 of 50) must ratify the amendment for it to become part of the U.S. Constitution. The current 27 amendments originated from Congress, and the second approach involving a COS has not occurred in U.S. History. The goal of COSA is to limit the power of the federal government. To gain a perspective of the American population, COSA hired the Trafalgar Group to conduct a national survey, and the chart below provides an overall summary. 1 1 The actual survey results can be found at the following link: https://conventionofstates.com/polling . The Trafalgar Group established a scientific methodology to conduct the survey, and it is described at the following link: https://www.thetrafalgargroup.org/polling-methodolgy . Survey Question: Would you support a Convention of States (COS) to meet and propose Constitutional Amendments focusing on term limits for Congress and federal officials, federal spending restraints, and limiting the federal government to its constitutionally mandated authority? (Support, Oppose, Not Sure) 35.6% 25.1% 39.3% 100% % of Response 383 271 424 1078 # of Responses 65.7% 16.6% 17.7% 50.2% 63.3% 81.3% 25.6% 24.2% 18.8% 17.9% 6.7% 12.0% Convention of States Action (COSA) National Survey Results: July 7-10, 2022 Conducted by Trafalgar Group  E-3 Research Question. For the COSA survey results, there is an interest in understanding any potential relationship between a person’s party affiliation and response. So, here is the following research question to address this interest. What type of relationship exists between a person’s party affiliation and survey response (i.e., independent or dependent relationship)? • Null Hypothesis (H o ): There is an independent relationship between a person’s party affiliation and survey response. • Alternate Hypothesis (H a ): There is a dependent relationship between a person’s party affiliation and survey response. • Test Statistic. In this situation, there are two categorical variables under examination, and the appropriate test statistic to use is a proportion (Chi-Squared Distribution Test). Potential Error Types and Risk. Overview. This table depicts the multiple potential and possible outcomes for this hypothesis test. Decision Made Accept H o Reject H o Situation H o is True Correct Decision. Probability = 1- alpha (α) Type I Error (false positive) Probability = alpha (α) H o is False Type II Error (false negative) Probability = beta (β) Correct Decision. Probability = 1- beta (β) (a.k.a. Power) For Type I Error alpha (α), the risk is that the hypothesis test concludes a dependent relationship exists when the reality is that an independent relationship exists. The mitigation to prevent this error is to set a level of significance (α) that is appropriately small. Typically, statisticians state alpha (α) = 0.05 is an acceptable level. For purposes of this hypothesis, alpha (α) = 0.01 level of significance. For Type II Error beta (β), the risk is that the hypothesis test concludes an independent relationship exists when the reality is that a dependent relationship exists. The mitigation to prevent this error is to collect a fairly large random sample size that is representative of the U.S. population. Typically, statisticians state a minimum random sample size is 30, and the COSA survey has a random sample size of 1,078 individuals. Thus, there is a fairly large random sample size from the survey. In addition, this sample size is large enough to yield a small standard error for the survey of +/- 4.2%. Thus, the percentage of the American Population that supports the COS Resolution ranges 61.5% to 69.9% (or 65.7 +/- 4.2%). This is clearly a vast majority.  E-4 Hypothesis Test Re-stated Mathematically. Below is each hypothesis and corresponding mathematical expression. Null Hypothesis (H o ): There is an independent relationship between a person’s party affiliation and survey response. • Actual Survey Proportion = Expected Survey Proportion Alternate Hypothesis (H a ): There is a dependent relationship between a person’s party affiliation and survey response. • Actual Survey Proportion ≠ Expected Survey Proportion Data Analyzed. The following tables originated from a supporting excel spreadsheet. In this case, Table 1 is the actual survey data collected by the Trafalgar Group. Table 2 is the expected (or calculated) survey data that is based on the fundamental mathematical definition of independence [P(A∩B) = P(A)*P(B)]. In the excel spreadsheet, there are two additional tables that apply this basic mathematical equation as another reference point. Table 1: Actual COSA Survey Data Table 2: Expected (or calculated) Survey Data Democrat No Party / Other Republican Total Response Not Sure 102 48 46 196 Oppose 109 51 26 186 Support 213 172 311 696 424 271 383 1078 Party Affiliation Survey Response COSA Survey Data (Actual) Total Democrat No Party / Other Republican Not Sure 77.1 49.3 69.6 196.0 Oppose 73.2 46.8 66.1 186.0 Support 273.8 175.0 247.3 696.0 424.0 271.0 383.0 1078.0 COSA Survey Data (Expected) Party Affiliation Total Survey Response Total  E-5 P-Value Calculations & Results. For this hypothesis test, the use of the Chi-Squared Distribution is appropriate because it provides a p-value addressing independence between two categorical variables. From the supporting excel spreadsheet, Table 3 depicts the p-value results and decision. Within excel, the following formula was used to compare Tables 1&2: =CHISQ.TEST(C10:C12,C18:C20) . Table 3: P-Value Results and Decision In this situation, the overall (or total) decision is to reject the null hypothesis, and there is strong statistical evidence to conclude a dependent relationship does exist between a person’s party affiliation and survey response. Thus, the result answers the research question: What type of relationship exists between a person’s party affiliation and survey response (i.e., independent or dependent relationship)? Even though the overall (or total) hypothesis test concludes a dependent relationship does exist, there was an interesting insight with the “No Party / Other” subcategory by itself. The calculated p-value (0.79139) for this individual subcategory was significantly greater than alpha (α) = 0.01, and it means there is an independent relationship with the survey responses. This specific result is an interesting outcome because it indicates a potential attitude independent of political affiliation. In other words, someone who is neither a “Democrat” nor a “Republican” is considered an “Independent.” Overall Conclusion. The results of the statistical hypothesis test provide evidence that “Democrat” and “Republican” responses are primarily based on “bias” (or dependent) because they are influenced by a party affiliation / opinion. In the opposite way, the results of the overall statistical hypothesis test provide evidence to support the “No Party / Other” responses are primarily “unbias” (or independent) because they are not influenced by a party affiliation. Potential Way-Forward. • It may be helpful to have a similar scientific based survey conducted by the Trafalgar Group to gain a perspective on the citizens of Colorado. • The evidence of the survey that demonstrates the “unbias” attitude of “No Party / Other” (or independents) can support other efforts. For instance, it helps to justify the random selection of Colorado citizens for holding a state level convention. Decision Total 3.00319E-18 < 0.01 Reject Null Democrat 3.24743E-09 < 0.01 Reject Null No Party / Other 0.791390572 > 0.01 Accept Null Republican 2.58778E-11 < 0.01 Reject Null Chi-Squared Distribution for Independence P-Value (Chi-Squared Test) P-Value (Chi-Squared Test) P-Value (Chi-Squared Test) P-Value (Chi-Squared Test) alpha ( α ) = 0.01  F-1 Annex F Colorado Historical COS Summary Overview. Annex F provides a general historical summary of Colorado COS Resolutions from years 2016-2024. Annex F contains the actual COS Resolutions found in the Colorado General Assembly historical record.  Year Description Result General Testimony Record 2024 HJR24-1024 (Call for Article V Convention of States):Concerning an application to the United States Congress for an Article V Convention of the States for proposing amendments to the United States Constitution that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress. Introduced on April 8, 2024 and referred to committee. Hearing conducted on April 22, 2024. Vote 8 “no”, Vote 3 “yes” Supporting Testimony: 27 witnessess. Opposing Testimony: 2 witnesses. 2023 SJM23-004 (Call for Article V Convention of States): Memorializing an application to the United States Congress for an Article V Convention of the States for proposing amendments to the United States Constitution that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress. Introduced on March 20, 2023 and referred to committee. Hearing conducted on March 23, 2024. Vote 3 “no”, Vote 2 “yes” Supporting Testimony: 12 witnessess. Opposing Testimony: 1 witness. 2022 HJR22-1021 (Call for Article V Convention of States): Concerning an application to the United States Congress for an Article V Convention of the States for proposing amendments to the United States Constitution that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress. Introduced on April 11, 2022 and referred to committee. Hearing conducted on May 10, 2022. Vote 7 “no”, Vote 4 “yes” Supporting Testimony: 2 witnesses. Opposing Testimony: 1 witness. 2021 HJR21-1006 (Rescind Previous Requests For Constitutional Convention): Concerning the rescission of all previous requests by the Colorado General Assembly or either house thereof for a convention under Article V of the United States Constitution. Introduced on April 19, 2021 and signed by House Speaker / President of Senate on April 27, 2021. No Hearing Testimony Record 2020 No Record Found. N/A N/A 2019 No Record Found. N/A N/A 2018 No Record Found. N/A N/A HJR17-1034 (Call Constitutional Convention For Term Limits): Concerning an application to the United States Congress to call a convention under Article V of the Constitution of the United States of America for the purpose of proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America to set a limit on the number of terms that a person may be elected as a Member of the United States House of Representatives and to set a limit on the number of terms that a person may be elected as a Member of the United States Senate. Introduced on May 4, 2017 and referred to committee. Hearing conducted on May 8, 2017. Vote 8 “no”, Vote 1 “yes” No Hearing Testimony Record SJM17-008 (Constitutional Convention Term Limits): Concerning an application to the United States Congress to call a convention under Article V of the Constitution of the United States with the sole agenda of proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to set a limit on the number of terms that a person may be elected as a member of the United States House of Representatives and to set a limit on the number of terms that a person may be elected as a member of the United States Senate. Introduced to Senate on April 24, 2017. Voted by the Senate on April 25, 2017. Vote 25 “no,” Vote 10 “yes No Hearing Testimony Record SJR17-044 (Planning Convention For An Article V Convention): Concerning participation in a planning convention for an Article V Convention for proposing a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution. Introduced to Senate on May 8, 2017. Voted by the Senate on May 8, 2017. Vote 24 “no”, Vote 11 ”yes“ No Hearing Testimony Record 2016 SJR16-040 (Application For An Amendment-proposing Convention): Concerning an application to the United States Congress to call a convention under Article V of the Constitution of the United States with the sole agenda of proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to set a limit on the number of terms that a person may be elected as a member of the United States House of Representatives and to set a limit on the number of terms that a person may be elected as a member of the United States Senate. Introduced to Senate Committee on April 29, 2016. Testimony and Committee Discussion on May 3, 2016. Postponed indefinitely on May 12, 2016. No Hearing Testimony Record 2017 Overall Summary. In year 2017, there were three single issues (2 Senate, 1 House) introduced involving a Convention of States. The single issues addressed Term Limits for Members of Congress and a Balanced Budget Amendment. Interestingly, the two issues in the Senate did not seem to involve a committee, and they went straight to the Senate Floor. However, they did not pass, and they did not meet the 3-part platform. So, these single issue resolutions may not have served Colorado well at an actual COS anyway. In year 2021, there was a specific rescinsion memo for a Convention of States, but there were no records found for years 2018-2020. So, it is unclear why the 2021 memo was signed / approved. For years 2022-2024, the COS Resolution represented the 3-part platform and was consisent all 3 years. Also, there is a gradual improvement from years 2022-2024 in the level of testimony participation, and the trend is the State, Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee received the testimony. Key Take-Away. There is strong evidence from this historical record that an Article V Convention of States is not a very favorable topic within the Colorado State Legislature.  Second Regular Session Seventy-fourth General Assembly STATE OF COLORADO INTRODUCED LLS NO. R24-0642.01 Caroline Martin x5902 HJR24-1024 House Committees Senate Committees State, Civic, Military, & Veterans Affairs HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 24-1024 C ONCERNING AN APPLICATION TO THE U NITED S TATES C ONGRESS FOR 101 AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION OF THE STATES FOR PROPOSING 102 AMENDMENTS TO THE U NITED S TATES C ONSTITUTION THAT 103 IMPOSE FISCAL RESTRAINTS ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT , 104 LIMIT THE POWER AND JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL 105 GOVERNMENT , AND LIMIT THE TERMS OF OFFICE FOR ITS 106 OFFICIALS AND FOR MEMBERS OF C ONGRESS . 107 WHEREAS, The founders of our Constitution empowered state 1 legislators to be guardians of liberty against future abuses of power by the 2 federal government; and 3 WHEREAS, The federal government has created a crushing 4 national debt through improper and imprudent spending; and 5 HOUSE SPONSORSHIP Pugliese, Armagost, Bradley, Catlin, Evans, Hartsook, Lynch, Soper, Taggart, Weinberg, Winter T. SENATE SPONSORSHIP (None), Shading denotes HOUSE amendment. Double underlining denotes SENATE amendment. Capital letters or bold & italic numbers indicate new material to be added to existing law. Dashes through the words or numbers indicate deletions from existing law.  WHEREAS, The federal government has invaded the legitimate 1 roles of the states through the manipulative process of federal mandates, 2 most of which are unfunded to a great extent; and 3 WHEREAS, The federal government has ceased to live under a 4 proper interpretation of the Constitution of the United States; and 5 WHEREAS, It is the solemn duty of the states to protect the liberty 6 of our people, particularly for generations to come, by proposing 7 amendments to the Constitution of the United States through a convention 8 of the states under article V for the purpose of restraining these and 9 related abuses of power; now, therefore, 10 Be It Resolved by the House of Representatives of the 11 Seventy-fourth General Assembly of the State of Colorado, the Senate 12 concurring herein: 13 (1) That the Colorado General Assembly hereby applies to the 14 United States Congress, under the provisions of article V of the 15 Constitution of the United States, for the calling of a convention of the 16 states limited to proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United 17 States that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the 18 power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of 19 office for its officials and for members of Congress; and 20 (2) That this application constitutes a continuing application in 21 accordance with article V of the Constitution of the United States until 22 the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the several states have made 23 applications on the same subject. 24 Be It Further Resolved, That copies of this Joint Resolution be sent 25 to the President and Secretary of the United States Senate, the Speaker 26 and Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, each member 27 of Colorado's congressional delegation, and the officers of each of the 28 legislative houses in the several states, requesting their cooperation. 29 HJR24-1024 -2-  First Regular Session Seventy-fourth General Assembly STATE OF COLORADO INTRODUCED LLS NO. M23-0917.01 Zach Blaes x4348 SJM23-004 Senate Committees House Committees State, Veterans, & Military Affairs SENATE JOINT MEMORIAL 23-004 M EMORIALIZING AN APPLICATION TO THE U NITED S TATES C ONGRESS 101 FOR AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION OF THE STATES FOR PROPOSING 102 AMENDMENTS TO THE U NITED S TATES C ONSTITUTION THAT 103 IMPOSE FISCAL RESTRAINTS ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT , 104 LIMIT THE POWER AND JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL 105 GOVERNMENT , AND LIMIT THE TERMS OF OFFICE FOR ITS 106 OFFICIALS AND FOR MEMBERS OF C ONGRESS . 107 WHEREAS, The founders of our Constitution empowered state 1 legislators to be guardians of liberty against future abuses of power by the 2 federal government; and 3 WHEREAS, The federal government has created a crushing 4 national debt through improper and imprudent spending; and 5 SENATE SPONSORSHIP Pelton R. and Pelton B., HOUSE SPONSORSHIP Holtorf and Winter T., Shading denotes HOUSE amendment. Double underlining denotes SENATE amendment. Capital letters or bold & italic numbers indicate new material to be added to existing law. Dashes through the words or numbers indicate deletions from existing law.  WHEREAS, The federal government has invaded the legitimate 1 roles of the states through the manipulative process of federal mandates, 2 most of which are unfunded to a great extent; and 3 WHEREAS, The federal government has ceased to live under a 4 proper interpretation of the Constitution of the United States; and 5 WHEREAS, It is the solemn duty of the states to protect the liberty 6 of our people, particularly for generations to come, by proposing 7 amendments to the Constitution of the United States through a convention 8 of the states under article V for the purpose of restraining these and 9 related abuses of power; now, therefore, 10 Be It Resolved by the Senate of the Seventy-fourth General 11 Assembly of the State of Colorado, the House of Representatives 12 concurring herein: 13 (1) That the Colorado General Assembly hereby applies to the 14 United States Congress, under the provisions of article V of the 15 Constitution of the United States, for the calling of a convention of the 16 states limited to proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United 17 States that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the 18 power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of 19 office for its officials and for members of Congress; and 20 (2) That this application constitutes a continuing application in 21 accordance with article V of the Constitution of the United States until 22 the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the several states have made 23 applications on the same subject. 24 Be It Further Resolved, That copies of this Joint Memorial be sent 25 to the President and Secretary of the United States Senate, the Speaker 26 and Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, each member 27 of Colorado's congressional delegation, and to the officers of each of the 28 legislative houses in the several states, requesting their cooperation. 29 SJM23-004 -2-  Second Regular Session Seventy-third General Assembly STATE OF COLORADO INTRODUCED LLS NO. R22-0563.01 Bob Lackner x4350 HJR22-1021 House Committees Senate Committees State, Civic, Military, & Veterans Affairs HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 22-1021 C ONCERNING AN APPLICATION TO THE U NITED S TATES C ONGRESS FOR 101 AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION OF THE STATES FOR PROPOSING 102 AMENDMENTS TO THE U NITED S TATES C ONSTITUTION THAT 103 IMPOSE FISCAL RESTRAINTS ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT , 104 LIMIT THE POWER AND JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL 105 GOVERNMENT , AND LIMIT THE TERMS OF OFFICE FOR ITS 106 OFFICIALS AND FOR MEMBERS OF C ONGRESS . 107 WHEREAS, The founders of our Constitution empowered state 1 legislators to be guardians of liberty against future abuses of power by the 2 federal government; and 3 WHEREAS, The federal government has created a crushing 4 national debt through improper and imprudent spending; and 5 HOUSE SPONSORSHIP Hanks, Baisley, Bockenfeld, Bradfield, Catlin, Holtorf, Lynch, Pelton, Pico, Rich, Soper, Will SENATE SPONSORSHIP (None), Shading denotes HOUSE amendment. Double underlining denotes SENATE amendment. Capital letters or bold & italic numbers indicate new material to be added to existing statute. Dashes through the words indicate deletions from existing statute.  WHEREAS, The federal government has invaded the legitimate 1 roles of the states through the manipulative process of federal mandates, 2 most of which are unfunded to a great extent; and 3 WHEREAS, The federal government has ceased to live under a 4 proper interpretation of the Constitution of the United States; and 5 WHEREAS, It is the solemn duty of the states to protect the liberty 6 of our people, particularly for generations to come, by proposing 7 amendments to the Constitution of the United States through a convention 8 of the states under article V for the purpose of restraining these and 9 related abuses of power; now, therefore, 10 Be It Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Seventy-third 11 General Assembly of the State of Colorado, the Senate concurring herein: 12 (1) That the Colorado General Assembly hereby applies to the 13 United States Congress, under the provisions of article V of the 14 Constitution of the United States, for the calling of a convention of the 15 states limited to proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United 16 States that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the 17 power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of 18 office for its officials and for members of Congress; and 19 (2) That this application constitutes a continuing application in 20 accordance with article V of the Constitution of the United States until 21 the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the several states have made 22 applications on the same subject. 23 Be It Further Resolved, That copies of this Joint Resolution be sent 24 to the President and Secretary of the United States Senate, the Speaker 25 and Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, each member 26 of Colorado's congressional delegation, and to the officers of each of the 27 legislative houses in the several states, requesting their cooperation. 28 HJR22-1021 -2-    First Regular Session Seventy-first General Assembly STATE OF COLORADO INTRODUCED LLS NO. R17-1063.01 Cara Meeker x2044 HJR17-1034 House Committees Senate Committees State, Veterans, & Military Affairs HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 17-1034 C ONCERNING AN APPLICATION TO THE U NITED S TATES C ONGRESS TO 101 CALL A CONVENTION UNDER A RTICLE V OF THE C ONSTITUTION 102 OF THE U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA FOR THE PURPOSE OF 103 PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE C ONSTITUTION OF THE 104 U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA TO SET A LIMIT ON THE NUMBER 105 OF TERMS THAT A PERSON MAY BE ELECTED AS A M EMBER OF 106 THE U NITED S TATES H OUSE OF R EPRESENTATIVES AND TO SET 107 A LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF TERMS THAT A PERSON MAY BE 108 ELECTED AS A M EMBER OF THE U NITED S TATES S ENATE . 109 WHEREAS, Article V of the Constitution of the United States of 1 America requires the United States Congress to call an 2 amendment-proposing convention upon application of two-thirds of the 3 HOUSE SPONSORSHIP Saine and Singer, SENATE SPONSORSHIP Lundberg, Shading denotes HOUSE amendment. Double underlining denotes SENATE amendment. Capital letters indicate new material to be added to existing statute. Dashes through the words indicate deletions from existing statute.  legislatures of the several states for the purpose of proposing amendments 1 to the Constitution of the United States of America; now, therefore, 2 Be It Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Seventy-first 3 General Assembly of the State of Colorado, the Senate concurring herein: 4 (1) The Colorado General Assembly hereby makes an application 5 to Congress, as provided by Article V of the Constitution of the United 6 States of America, to call a convention limited to proposing an 7 amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America to set a 8 limit on the number of terms that a person may be elected as a Member 9 of the United States House of Representatives and to set a limit on the 10 number of terms that a person may be elected as a Member of the United 11 States Senate. 12 (2) The Secretary of State is hereby directed to transmit copies of 13 this application to the President and Secretary of the Senate of the United 14 States and to the Speaker, Clerk, and Judiciary Committee Chairman of 15 the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, and 16 copies to the members of said Senate and House of Representatives from 17 this State; also to transmit copies hereof to the presiding officers of each 18 of the legislative houses in the several States, requesting their 19 cooperation. 20 (3) This application shall be considered as covering the same 21 subject matter as the applications from other States to Congress to call a 22 convention to set a limit on the number of terms that a person may be 23 elected to the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United 24 States and the Senate of the United States; and this application shall be 25 aggregated with same for the purpose of attaining the two-thirds of states 26 necessary to require Congress to call a limited convention on this subject, 27 but shall not be aggregated with any other applications on any other 28 subject. 29 (4) This application constitutes a continuing application in 30 accordance with Article V of the Constitution of the United States of 31 America until the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the several states 32 have made applications on the same subject. 33 Be It Further Resolved, That copies of this Joint Resolution be sent 34 to the President and Secretary of the United States Senate; the Speaker, 35 Clerk, and Judiciary Committee Chairman of the United States House of 36 HJR17-1034 -2-  Representatives; each member of Colorado's congressional delegation; 1 and to the officers of each of the legislative houses in the several states, 2 requesting their cooperation. 3 HJR17-1034 -3-  First Regular Session Seventy-first General Assembly STATE OF COLORADO INTRODUCED LLS NO. M17-1177.01 Cara Meeker x2044 SJM17-008 Senate Committees House Committees SENATE JOINT MEMORIAL 17-008 C ONCERNING AN APPLICATION TO THE U NITED S TATES C ONGRESS TO 101 CALL A CONVENTION UNDER A RTICLE V OF THE C ONSTITUTION 102 OF THE U NITED S TATES WITH THE SOLE AGENDA OF PROPOSING 103 AN AMENDMENT TO THE C ONSTITUTION OF THE U NITED S TATES 104 TO SET A LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF TERMS THAT A PERSON MAY 105 BE ELECTED AS A MEMBER OF THE U NITED S TATES H OUSE OF 106 R EPRESENTATIVES AND TO SET A LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF 107 TERMS THAT A PERSON MAY BE ELECTED AS A MEMBER OF THE 108 U NITED S TATES S ENATE . 109 WHEREAS, Article V of the United States Constitution requires 1 the United States Congress to call an amendment-proposing convention 2 upon application of two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states for 3 SENATE SPONSORSHIP Lundberg, HOUSE SPONSORSHIP Saine, Shading denotes HOUSE amendment. Double underlining denotes SENATE amendment. Capital letters indicate new material to be added to existing statute. Dashes through the words indicate deletions from existing statute.  the purpose of proposing amendments to the United States Constitution; 1 and 2 WHEREAS, A continuous and growing concern has been 3 expressed that the best interests of the nation will be served by limiting 4 the terms of members of Congress; and 5 WHEREAS, The voters of Colorado, through the citizen initiative 6 process, placed on the general election ballot of 1990 a measure to limit 7 the consecutive years of service for several offices, including the offices 8 of United States Representative and United States Senator; and 9 WHEREAS, The voters of Colorado incorporated this limitation 10 into the Colorado Constitution by an approval vote that exceeded 70 11 percent in the general election of 1990; and 12 WHEREAS, In 1995, the United States Supreme Court ruled in 13 U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton , 514 U.S. 779 (1995), a five-to-four 14 decision, that the individual states did not possess the requisite authority 15 to establish term limits, or additional qualifications, for persons elected 16 to the United States House of Representatives or the United States Senate; 17 and 18 WHEREAS, It is the solemn duty of the states to protect the liberty 19 of our people, particularly for generations to come, by proposing 20 amendments to the Constitution of the United States through a convention 21 of the states under Article V for the purpose of restraining these and 22 related abuses of power; now, therefore, 23 Be It Resolved by the Senate of the Seventy-first General Assembly 24 of the State of Colorado, the House of Representatives concurring herein: 25 (1) The Colorado General Assembly hereby makes an application 26 to Congress, as provided by Article V of the Constitution of the United 27 States of America, to call a convention limited to proposing an 28 amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America to set a 29 limit on the number of terms that a person may be elected as a member of 30 the United States House of Representatives and to set a limit on the 31 number of terms that a person may be elected as a member of the United 32 States Senate. 33 (2) This application shall be considered as covering the same 34 SJM17-008 -2-  subject matter as the applications from other states to Congress to call a 1 convention to set a limit on the number of terms that a person may be 2 elected to the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United 3 States and the Senate of the United States; and this application shall be 4 aggregated with the same for the purpose of attaining the two-thirds of 5 states necessary to require Congress to call a limited convention on this 6 subject, but shall not be aggregated with any other applications on any 7 other subject. 8 (3) This application constitutes a continuing application in 9 accordance with Article V of the Constitution of the United States of 10 America until the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the several states 11 have made applications on the same subject. 12 Be It Further Resolved, That copies of this Joint Memorial be sent 13 to the President and Secretary of the United States Senate; the Speaker 14 and Clerk of the United States House of Representatives; each member 15 of Colorado's congressional delegation; and to the officers of each of the 16 legislative houses in the several states, requesting their cooperation. 17 SJM17-008 -3-  First Regular Session Seventy-first General Assembly STATE OF COLORADO INTRODUCED LLS NO. R17-0649.02 Ed DeCecco x4216 SJR17-044 Senate Committees House Committees SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 17-044 C ONCERNING PARTICIPATION IN A PLANNING CONVENTION FOR AN 101 A RTICLE V C ONVENTION FOR PROPOSING A BALANCED BUDGET 102 AMENDMENT TO THE U NITED S TATES C ONSTITUTION . 103 WHEREAS, The national debt and mounting deficits are an 1 existential threat to the solvency, security, and prosperity of the United 2 States; and 3 WHEREAS, Congress has increased the total national debt every 4 year since 1957; and 5 WHEREAS, Under Article V of the United States Constitution, 6 Congress shall call a convention of the states for proposing amendments 7 to the constitution on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of 8 the states; and 9 SENATE SPONSORSHIP Lundberg, HOUSE SPONSORSHIP Saine, Shading denotes HOUSE amendment. Double underlining denotes SENATE amendment. Capital letters indicate new material to be added to existing statute. Dashes through the words indicate deletions from existing statute.  WHEREAS, In 1978, the Colorado General Assembly 1 memorialized Congress to call a constitutional convention for the specific 2 and exclusive purpose of proposing an amendment to the federal 3 constitution prohibiting deficit spending except under conditions 4 specified in the amendment; and 5 WHEREAS, A significant number of states have passed 6 resolutions applying for a convention to propose a balanced budget 7 amendment pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution, 8 thereby rendering it appropriate to select and instruct commissioners to 9 any such convention called on or before December 31, 2018; and 10 WHEREAS, It appears that the two-thirds threshold of states to 11 apply for a convention limited to proposing a balanced budget 12 amendment to the United States Constitution will soon be reached; and 13 WHEREAS, In its call, Congress will be required to specify an 14 initial time and place for the meeting of such a convention for proposing 15 amendments; and 16 WHEREAS, It is appropriate for the state legislatures to prepare 17 for the convention and to recommend to Congress an initial time and 18 place for the convention; and 19 WHEREAS, The state of Arizona called a planning convention of 20 the states in House Concurrent Resolution 2022, in 2017, to convene 21 initially at 12 p.m. on September 12, 2017, in Phoenix, Arizona, for the 22 limited purposes of: 23 (a) Planning for and recommending rules and procedures for the 24 prospective convention for proposing a balanced budget amendment to 25 the United States Constitution; and 26 (b) Recommending to Congress the criteria for determining the 27 initial date and location of a convention for proposing a balanced budget 28 amendment and a specific initial date and location of a convention for 29 proposing a balanced budget amendment; now, therefore, 30 Be It Resolved by the Senate of the Seventy-first General Assembly 31 of the State of Colorado, the House of Representatives concurring herein: 32 SJR17-044 -2-  (1) That the Colorado General Assembly shall send a delegation 1 to the planning convention; 2 (2) That a Colorado balanced budget amendment planning 3 convention delegation is established; 4 (3) That the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall appoint 5 one member of the delegation, the President of the Senate shall appoint 6 one member of the delegation, and the President and Speaker shall jointly 7 appoint one member of the delegation; and 8 (4) That the Colorado General Assembly shall pay all of the 9 delegation's costs of attending the planning convention from available 10 legislative resources. 11 Be It Resolved, That copies of this Joint Resolution be sent to 12 Governor John Hickenlooper; the Speaker of the House of 13 Representatives for the Arizona Legislature; and the President of the 14 Senate for the Arizona Legislature. 15 SJR17-044 -3-  Second Regular Session Seventieth General Assembly STATE OF COLORADO INTRODUCED LLS NO. R16-1223.01 Cara Meeker x2044 SJR16-040 Senate Committees House Committees State, Veterans, & Military Affairs SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 16-040 C ONCERNING AN APPLICATION TO THE U NITED S TATES C ONGRESS TO 101 CALL A CONVENTION UNDER A RTICLE V OF THE C ONSTITUTION 102 OF THE U NITED S TATES WITH THE SOLE AGENDA OF PROPOSING 103 AN AMENDMENT TO THE C ONSTITUTION OF THE U NITED S TATES 104 TO SET A LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF TERMS THAT A PERSON MAY 105 BE ELECTED AS A MEMBER OF THE U NITED S TATES H OUSE OF 106 R EPRESENTATIVES AND TO SET A LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF 107 TERMS THAT A PERSON MAY BE ELECTED AS A MEMBER OF THE 108 U NITED S TATES S ENATE . 109 WHEREAS, Article V of the United States Constitution requires 1 the United States Congress to call an amendment-proposing convention 2 upon application of two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states for 3 SENATE SPONSORSHIP Lundberg, HOUSE SPONSORSHIP Singer, Shading denotes HOUSE amendment. Double underlining denotes SENATE amendment. Capital letters indicate new material to be added to existing statute. Dashes through the words indicate deletions from existing statute.  the purpose of proposing amendments to the United States Constitution; 1 and 2 WHEREAS, A continuous and growing concern has been 3 expressed that the best interests of the nation will be served by limiting 4 the terms of members of Congress; and 5 WHEREAS, The voters of Colorado, through the citizen initiative 6 process, placed on the general election ballot of 1990 a measure to limit 7 the consecutive years of service for several offices, including the offices 8 of United States Representative and United States Senator; and 9 WHEREAS, The voters of Colorado incorporated this limitation 10 into the State Constitution by an approval vote that exceeded 70 percent 11 in the general election of 1990; and 12 WHEREAS, In 1995, the United States Supreme Court ruled in 13 U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton , 514 U.S. 779 (1995), a five-to-four 14 decision, that the individual states did not possess the requisite authority 15 to establish term limits, or additional qualifications, for persons elected 16 to the United States House of Representatives or the United States Senate; 17 and 18 WHEREAS, It is the solemn duty of the states to protect the liberty 19 of our people, particularly for generations to come, by proposing 20 amendments to the Constitution of the United States through a convention 21 of the states under Article V for the purpose of restraining these and 22 related abuses of power; now, therefore, 23 Be It Resolved by the Senate of the Seventieth General Assembly 24 of the State of Colorado, the House of Representatives concurring herein: 25 (1) The Colorado General Assembly hereby makes an application 26 to Congress, as provided by Article V of the Constitution of the United 27 States of America, to call a convention limited to proposing an 28 amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America to set a 29 limit on the number of terms that a person may be elected as a member of 30 the United States House of Representatives and to set a limit on the 31 number of terms that a person may be elected as a member of the United 32 States Senate. 33 (2) This application shall be considered as covering the same 34 SJR16-040 -2-  subject matter as the applications from other States to Congress to call a 1 convention to set a limit on the number of terms that a person may be 2 elected to the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United 3 States and the Senate of the United States; and this application shall be 4 aggregated with the same for the purpose of attaining the two-thirds of 5 states necessary to require Congress to call a limited convention on this 6 subject, but shall not be aggregated with any other applications on any 7 other subject. 8 (3) This application constitutes a continuing application in 9 accordance with Article V of the Constitution of the United States of 10 America until the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the several states 11 have made applications on the same subject. 12 Be It Further Resolved, That copies of this Joint Resolution be sent 13 to the President and Secretary of the United States Senate; the Speaker 14 and Clerk of the United States House of Representatives; each member 15 of Colorado's congressional delegation; and to the officers of each of the 16 legislative houses in the several states, requesting their cooperation. 17 SJR16-040 -3- |
| Page Metadata | |
| Login Required to view? | No |
| Created: | 2025-03-14 21:53 GMT |
| Updated: | 2025-03-14 23:05 GMT |
| Published: | 2025-03-14 19:53 GMT |
| Converted: | 2025-11-11 12:35 GMT |
| Change Author: | Vivian Garcia |
| Credit Author: | Mike Forbis |
public/cb_mirror/co_document_library_2024_resolution_testimony_pdf_files_28743.txt · Last modified: 2025/11/11 12:35 by 127.0.0.1