Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
House passes bill to channel IIJA-related funds to state defense efforts after heated debate
Summary
The Colorado House voted to adopt House Bill 13‑21, a measure authorizing use of an Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) cash fund to support the state’s response to adverse federal action, after a 43‑22 roll‑call vote following extended floor debate.
The Colorado House voted to adopt House Bill 13‑21, a measure authorizing use of an Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) cash fund to support the state’s defense against adverse federal action, after more than an hour of floor debate that split lawmakers along policy and procedural lines.
The bill passed on third reading, 43‑22. The tally was announced in the roll call after final debate and the motion to adopt passed. The measure allows specified state spending tied to IIJA-related accounts, including a provision that would make up to $4,000,000 available for the governor’s office and related legal and contract work to protect state interests tied to federal grant action.
Why it matters: Sponsors said the legislation gives Colorado flexibility and capacity to respond quickly if federal agencies seek to withhold or terminate grants to the state. Opponents said the measure diverts money originally intended for infrastructure and public projects and concentrates authority in the governor’s office rather than primary operational agencies such as the Department of Law (the attorney general).
Major points from debate - Minority Leader Puglisi warned the House that she opposed the bill’s structure and that she was “disappointed we couldn't pass the subject to annual appropriation,” arguing the measure moved too much authority and money into the governor’s office without the usual annual appropriations oversight. (Minority Leader Puglisi) - Representative De Graaf (opposed) framed the bill as diverting infrastructure dollars from projects such as pothole repairs and argued lawmakers should not repackage funds into another pot; he repeatedly characterized the maneuver as an improper shifting of promised infrastructure money. - Representative Bacon and others (supporters) described the measure as a necessary tool to protect federal funding streams that serve Colorado residents; Bacon framed it as defending the state’s contractual rights and ability to pursue federal reimbursements. - Multiple members raised questions about…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat

