Colorado House 2026 Legislative Day 099

All right, everybody. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Representatives Bacon.

Barone. Basinecker. Bottoms. Bradfield. Bradley. Brooks. Brown. Caldwell. Camacho. Representative Camacho.

Carter. Clifford. DeGraff. Duran. English. Espinoza. Foray. Flannell. Froelich. Garcia. Garcia-Sander.

Gilchrist. Goldstein. Gonzalez. Hamrick. Hartsook. Jackson.

Johnson. Joseph. Kelty Leader Lindsey Representative Lindsey Luck Lukens Mabry

Marshall Martinez Representative Martinez Ojai Morrow.

Wynn. Pascal. Phillips. Richardson. Ricks. Representative Ricks.

Routenel. Representative Routenel.

Raiden. Sirota.

Sloth. Smith.

Stuart K. Stuart R. Story. Sukla. Taggart Titone Valdez A Velasco Representative Velasco Weinberg Wilford Representative Wilford Winter. Woodrow is excused. Woog. Zokai. And Madam Speaker is excused. With 53 present, 12 excused, and zero absent, we have a quorum.

Okay, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. I move that the journal of Tuesday, April 21st, in the year 2026, be approved as corrected by the Chief Clerk, and this one, for those of you who know, is for Carl. I want to hear a yes vote.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. I want to remind everyone, tomorrow is Sportsman's Day at the Capitol, meaning the wild game lunch will be tomorrow. You'll get flyers on your desk for the time. It's outside next to the West Steps. Please show up. It's going to be great food, free food, Don't pack your lunch tomorrow and come talk with our sportsmen and sportswomen of the state.

Representative Johnson. Representative Sucla.

Rep Sucla.

Thank you. Representative Joseph.

Further announcements. Rep Mabry.

Representative Lukens.

Representative Gilchrist.

Representative Satone.

Representative Garcia Sander.

Representative Hartzik.

Rep Valdez. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There'll be no energy and environment today.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay, colleagues. I have a couple announcements here. If all the Jefferson County legislators could come down to the well, that would be great. And in the meantime, for business and labor, I would like to make an announcement. We will meet upon adjournment. We have one bill to hear, Senate Bill 26137, Measures to Reduce Administrative Burdens. It a Coleman Simpson and McCluskey bill See you upon adjournment in room 0 Representative Leader Thank you Colleagues, I just...

Thank you, Mr. Chair. With that, I would just like to recognize the Jefferson County legislators. We are the best county here in Colorado. Come on down, Rep Story. And I also want to recognize it's House District 28. We're kind of split up between up in the gallery and down here on the floor. If you all could stand up. And some of them are still missing, but they'll be here because we're having pizza in my office at noon. 1.30 for a tour for House District 28 of the Capitol. So welcome. Please stand up and be recognized. And thank you for coming.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem. I move that the following bills be made special orders on April 22nd, 2026. Thank you, members. Once again, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem, I move that the following bills be made special orders on April 22nd, 2026 at 9 20 a.m. House bill 1132, House bill 1130, Senate bill 136,

Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to serve with you. Ditto. Mr. Schiebel, would you read the title? I move House bill. Representative Froehlich, hold on just a moment. Mr. Schiebel, if you could read the title of

House Bill 1132 by Representative Froelich, also Senator Kipp, concerning increasing pollinator habitats on lands in the state.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's still a pleasure to serve with you. I move House Bill 1132, the Appropes and Agriculture Committee reports. Finance? Oh, and finance. Finance. Finance.

In finance committee, they kindly allowed us to go forward because we don't cost any money. So I ask for an aye vote.

Aye.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, the bill was well received. We adopted an amendment to make sure that CPW and all of the initials folks were on board, and we asked for an aye vote. Okay.

All those opposed, no.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm pleased to be joined by Rep. Lindsay on this bill. This comes from many, many years of work trying to support pollinators who are just awesome tiny animals in our state, and the recommendations from our pollinator study one of which probably the signature piece of this bill is to encourage the planting of native plants on all of our public lands. And so we ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, I'm super excited about this bill. If anybody has kids and has seen the bee movie five million times, that was my first introduction to the importance of pollinators. Bees play a huge part in that. butterflies, obviously beetles, ladybugs. If this collapses, so too does most of our food system. So it's really important that we're encouraging this. I also serve on the Capital Development Committee, and we talk a lot about when new projects are coming, how we can make sure that they are adhering to better standards And so on places that are redoing landscaping what better time to do natural Colorado scapes as we like to call them, that support the ecosystem that's so critical to even us. So we urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. and I think my question on the bill is about the fiscal note. So I'm going over the fiscal note. It's quite hefty, but I'm sure there's a reason for that. I was wondering if the bill sponsors could explain that one for me just a little bit more

Representative Frillick. Thank you, and thank you for the question. So this is work that the Department of Natural Resources and particularly CPW will be undertaking. They have a continuously appropriated funds that go to CPW and DNR, and so they're using those continuously. It's GOCO lottery money, and then it's the money from the oil and gas fee that already are going in, which is why there's no appropriation, because it's money going in, and it's simply the department saying, oh, yeah, we've been wanting to do this, and we're going to use those funds we have that are coming in. So that's why they're putting a price tag on it, but they're also saying we have the money to do it.

Will it take away from any other programs or anything like that? Representative Frillick. Thank you, and thank you for the question. So that's what the Appropriations and Finance Committee discussion was sort of about, and CPW has a memo and came to say this is kind of in line with what we wanted to do and what we were planning on doing.

All those in favor say aye.

House Bill 1130 by Representatives Story and Jackson, also Senators Cutter and Judah, concerning baby diaper-changing stations in restrooms accessible to the public.

To the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. and we have been I want to move House Bill 1130 and the committee report can you please take back that I move House Bill 1130 all right

Representative Story go ahead Thank you, Madam Chair. We move L019 to House Bill 1130 and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The amendment exempts local government from the bill. It expands criteria for small business and it clarifies designation of restrooms and we urge an aye vote Alright there no further discussion on the amendment Representative Brooks Chair thank you So I have clarity

after this has been put on pause for as long as it has. So this is simply just exempting businesses that have only 25 or fewer employees and government agencies. I know we like to make sure that whatever we do doesn't impact government because God forbid, you know, we all play by the same rules, but I just want to make sure the 25, I would be really interested to see how, you know, these amendments play out given the

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to my colleague from Douglas County. The reason this has taken so long is because we have really been intentional about engaging all stakeholders. We really have been working hard to bring everyone to the table to make sure that we have something that works for everyone. And so if you read the amendment, when we're regarding small businesses, it's an employer with 25 or less employees and generates no more than $3.5 million annually. So that really is a large carve out for our small business community, as well as our public entities. And you can see the definition up on the board. Further discussion on the amendment?

Aye.

No.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We've talked about this bill prior. There's not a lot of new information. We have continued to do stakeholding and have been working to accommodate stakeholders in their request. We think this is a good bill, and we urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And exempting, you know, I do appreciate the sponsors taking out the small businesses. That's definitely an issue. and I just thought of an example. I was actually out to lunch last week at one of my favorite spots around here, La Pazadita and I think the bathroom's about as deep or long as this podium here and as I walked out of there, I'm thinking there's no way and I was thinking about that, there's no way you could put a changing station in here. So that's a positive and I want to read it. I actually know someone that works for a company that would or will install these and it is around $1,500 and I've had people say, oh, $200 to install these. That's not true. There's a liability. To think of the walls, how thick they are, the anchoring, the liability that they have because, God forbid, one of these falls out when someone's baby is on it. So they are not as cheap as $200 or $300. This is an expense. So that being said, the bill ultimately, though, again, picking winners and losers is ultimately, it's just a mandate businesses don't need. I mean I fully believe there are plenty of businesses out there that can and would do it if that becomes an issue and someone comes up to them and asks for that I think some will do that willingly and be happy to do that But the reality is again just mandating something that not a need it a want And also, the people that are the customers that are going to these places of business or offices, they can go somewhere else if that's a big, big thing to them. It's choice. It's freedom. We don't need these businesses to be mandated to put in a baby changing station. As nice as that sounds, ultimately, whatever size the business, it's a mandate, and they're going to have to fund it and get it done. So I will still be a no, and this is just a really glaring example of one of the many bills that goes after businesses in general in this state, and I'm frankly just beyond tired of it.

Chair, thank you. I echo the comments of my good colleague here. I have some concerns that go beyond just the unfunded mandate piece that we're putting on businesses. Yet, another way, I know we love it. We love it. We love us from regulation. Oh, boy, howdy. We love us some regulation. Here we go again with our regulation. Here we go with our unfunded mandates, and we're going to press things down. Now, I do appreciate the carve-out for the small businesses, right? But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Or in the case of my second complaint about this, it's really just the tip of the meth-berg, because the issue with a lot of these areas, And folks, you can think that I am acting in great frivolity. However, I am not. All across the front range, all across the front, it's a fact. You can look it up if you choose to want to base your opinion on facts. It's in multiple news agencies. multiple stories have been reported about areas that have had to close their public restrooms, they've had to close, they've had to remove baby changing tables. Why? Because of contamination with methamphetamine. You can look it up. I'm waiting. I'm waiting. You all can look it up. It is a real thing. All throughout the front range, what we have been doing with the little baby changing tables is providing a nice, convenient surface for people to do their drugs on. And you want to go and you want to change your baby on the table where it is 15 times more contaminated than what's allowed with methamphetamine. I am willing to give a path that there's an intent here that's pure to make sure that parents have a place to be able to take care of changing their babies. I get that. I do not like the push down yet again on businesses. however I really have a hard time when we're ignoring what has happened methamphetamine use rampant in the news you can look it up I didn't just come up here and create it Colorado Suns reported on it I I'll give you my phone if you would like my phone you might have to get through a paywall yeah I might have to get through a paywall but I if If anybody had any doubt whatsoever about the authenticity of the words with which I speak, all you have to do is spend five seconds on your little handheld computer and say, is Rhett Brooks full of nonsense when he says that methamphetamine levels have been found on baby changing tables? And you'd be like, oh my goodness, well, he sure isn't. There's one story, there's two stories, there's three stories, there's four. And when there's four, you know there's more. methy babies. I don't want methy babies. That's what we're doing here. We're going to put all of this on our little changing tables. A growing danger in public restrooms. Actually, you know what the remediation is? It's also in one of the stories, if we care to do some research. The remediation is somewhere between $10,000 and $30,000. 10 and 30 grand to remediate meth contamination in a bathroom. As much of a problem as it has been, it has been reported as facts show that it has been, with methamphetamine alone, I think we all probably understand that there has been a growing concern, a growing epidemic with fentanyl in this state. actually across the country. This state was particularly profound as well. We have a fentanyl problem in this state. Can you imagine that if you go into an average test, you go in and you test a baby diaper-changing table, and it is 15 times higher than the allowed amount for meth contamination? Can you imagine what happens if somebody is cutting lines or doing anything that involves fentanyl, and you go and you put your baby on it. You know, there are police officers that when they inhale fentanyl from a vehicle stop, from transporting, that you have to have Narcan to be able to revive the police officers just from a simple little dust. You want to put your baby on a baby changing table that contains fentanyl? Goodbye, baby. Goodbye, baby. The baby's going to be gone. we already know that we've got an issue with methamphetamine on baby changing tables and in the restrooms. Interesting enough, the surface of it, the surface of the baby changing table, contaminated with methamphetamine, you'd think that, okay, well, there's something in this bill that says that they must be sanitized. Problem is, you can't just take a Clorox wipe and wipe down the messy baby table and think that it's good. It's not good. You've got to change out the drywall. You've got to change out the vents. You've got to change out the fans. You have to close your public restroom completely and spend, as a business, $10,000 to $30,000 to effectively remediate this issue. Why did this bill sit on sidelines for a month? That's bad policy. Why did this bill sit out away from this well for a month? Because it's a bad idea. It's a bad idea from yet another mandate we're putting on businesses. It an even worse idea if we want to put our babies on tables that are contaminated with methamphetamine Show of hands Quick survey Anybody want to put their baby on a on a messy table I don see any hands Nobody wants to put their baby on a messy table. I don't want to put my baby on a messy table. I don't have babies anymore.

Wow. Methy babies. So we had this thing on this weird document, and I know it's strangely prohibitive, but it's called the Constitution. And the 10th Amendment, often referred to as abbreviated as 10A, limits federal government to its specifically enumerated powers. Colorado has a different framework but the provisions in Colorado Article 2, Section 1, all political powers vested in drive the people the government, the rights originates from the people and is instituted solely for the good of the whole this is not for the good of the whole, this is at the expense of some for the good of others, so this is not a broad base This is something that what I would classify as the Caren state, the C-A-R-E-postrophe-N state, that somehow there's some sort of virtue in caring about stuff more than feeling like you care about stuff more than others. This is another fees for feels program. I feel that this would be a good thing to have. Therefore, I will fee it. Oh, I can't fee it because I can't produce another enterprise right now. but what I do what we do is we impose on the citizens of Colorado yet another unfunded mandate Now I know I think it should be like anybody that gets stuck with this unfunded mandate should go back to the original discussion that we had on this because the sponsors stated very clearly that the intent of this bill was not to cost any more than about $250. So I think if somebody gets a quote and they say it's going to be over $250, then they can go and they can reference what the sponsors have said and they can say, well, it's over $250 and the sponsors said it shouldn't cost more than $250 so therefore we're exempt. So make sure you do that. Mark the tape, as we say in aviation. So mark the tape. But we have these things where we are supposed to be working for the entire good of the entire state, not taxing some, because again, what that unfunded mandate is, is another tax. It is a tax. It is you, the sponsors requiring the General Assembly, if you sign on to this nonsense, it is requiring that the citizens of Colorado remit a certain amount of money in order to pay for something that the General Assembly just has a good warm fuzzy about. Now, we should not be legislating on warm fuzzies. We should not be imposing fees for the feels. I feel this is good, therefore I will impose it. I will set up a mandate. If a good intention was a good idea, it wouldn't need a gun. So it's kind of funny to me that this warm, fuzzy feeling ultimately comes with the force of the police state behind it. And you can say all you want. That's not the intent, but that's ultimately the reality because you're putting something into law. You're putting something into law. Those businesses have to comply with it. They have to spend the money. If they don't spend the money, they're going to have somebody come and shut down their business. If they don't comply with that, shutting down their business or paying some fee or going to court, they're going to incur somebody coming after them and ultimately enforcing their law. Now, if you don't know, most law enforcement carry guns. So, yes, this is another good intention. That's not a good idea because it ultimately needs the force of a gun behind it. So baby changing tables and the coercion of law should not be something that goes together. And that's what this bill puts together. It puts parenthood together with the coercion of the state. So we need to go back to making sure that we don't do these silly kind of bills that are just imposing fees for the feels of a few. and make sure that we're governing on behalf of everybody. And you know that it's expensive because what happened is that the sponsors exempted the government. So where the government can actually act and where the government is authorized to act and where the government is authorized to lead in this realm and to say, look, we have led in this realm, that means you're going in advance. If you're leading, you're going in advance. This is a dictate This is a dictate based on feels Dictators dictate That how that works Leaders lead Dictators dictate This is a dictate You will do this because it makes us feel good We will take your money because it makes us feel good That's what this is. There's really no way to get around it. So this is a, this is maybe, maybe the good intention is a good idea. If it was, it wouldn't need a gun. So if you have to coerce people into doing this, then I think the answer is obvious, and that this General Assembly needs to stop imposing taxes, because this is ultimately a tax, whether you do it or not. whether you impose it is a government-mandated extraction of funds from the citizens of Colorado. And I will note that it does not have approval from the voters, because if you're going to, oh, wait, we're not going to take money from our general fund. We're just going to take the money directly from the pockets of the citizens of Colorado, so that's okay. That's okay. So, not this side, but this side is ever reaching deeper and deeper into the pockets of the citizens of Colorado to grab whatever they can find there, literally. This is a bad idea on many levels. Not just for this, the meth-y baby tables, but it's a bad idea for precedent. because there's no limit to the amount of feel-good stuff that you're obviously willing to impose on the citizens of Colorado by tax-tracting dollars out of their pockets, reaching deeper and deeper into their pockets. Stop. Colorado has a spending problem.

I am on the bill, but yeah. We're talking about imposing the cost of these baby changing tables, whether they're $1.50, $250, or $15,000. We're talking about imposing these costs on the citizens of Colorado. Those costs are passed down from whatever business into higher prices. and so this is ultimately a tax on the citizens of Colorado who will pay for these who will pay for these it is not an approved tax it is just a tax so this is I think a violation of our taxpayer bill of rights and I know that you don't want to violate you don't want to have the taxpayer bill of rights because you would prefer just to have it have a tax and I think the purpose in, I think the purpose of spending is taxation to make sure that nobody has any extra money. So citizens of Colorado, if you want to know what's going to happen without the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, this is an example. They are going to reach deeper into your pockets to pay for all their fields, and there is no shortage of fields in this building. Stop the Fees for Fields program. Vote no on this bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And, boy, let's crack this baby open. I actually, unfortunately, was on the committee that this was heard on. I had to fill in, and I heard it all. Now let me tell you, and it wasn't pretty. So let's start out with this right here. Let's start out with Colorado being the sixth month. regulated state and apparently we're going for number one. In 2024-26 by the Colorado Chamber of Commerce rakes Colorado as the sixth most regulated state in the United States with over 205 state level restrictions. The analysis which highlights a 7.1% rise in business restrictions between 2020 and 2023. It says Colorado is among the top regulated states with significant restrictions on businesses' sixth regulated state as of 2024 continuing into 2025. Now, mind you, in mid-2024, we were the 12th most regulated state. So since mid-2024 and today, we have jumped up from 12th to 6th. Let that sink in. And you wonder why businesses are shutting down, why businesses are leaving, why corporations are literally fleeing Colorado. We have lost near 36,000 jobs out of Colorado. 36,000 jobs. That is something we should not be proud of, and not in any way, shape, or form. This is probably one of the most anti-business bills I think I have seen in a very long time. and I sit in on the Business and Labor Committee. I understand having a mother heart and wanting a feel-good bill, and this makes you feel good, but the logic is not there. And we heard it in committee. From business owner to business owner to business owner, they're saying we cannot afford this. And to say it's only $200 per business, that's false. is anywhere between $1,500 to $2,000 per installation, per bathroom, per floor, per business. Let that sink in. You have these small businesses that can barely make ends meet as it is because we keep taxing them and feeing them and driving them out of business as it is, and you're going to put this extra burden on businesses in a mandatory way, saying you will do this. We will dictate this to you. This is how you're going to run your business. This is what the free market is for. The free market allows a business owner to have their business and do with it what they feel that their customers require. And if they decide that they don't want these changes, as we've seen and heard, and you can quickly Google it, meth baby tables, they don't want these and they don't want the burden and the added insurance that's going to cost, added risk it's going to cost to them to have these in their business, or even the space or the money or any of that. They don't want it in their business. It's their business. It's not our business. It's their business. And if they don't want the customers to come in that require these, it's up to them. So a customer has the choice whether to use that business or not. and if they say, oh, they don't have a baby changing table, I'm not going to give them my money, I'm not going to give them my business, that's up to the customer. And it's up to the business to change their business model to attract whatever customers they want into their business. Most businesses do not budget for this and to demand this immediately on them is ridiculous They have one two five plans And you saying you know we don care about that You going to do this hell or high water We going to make you spend your money on something that we want to feel good about That's ridiculous. Are we not in the United States of America where we're supposed to be free? This is ridiculous. And then on the fiscal note, get this. on the fiscal note, it was originally going to cost $2.1 million. Want to know why? Because it was also including universities and state buildings and government buildings throughout Colorado. Then they realized, oh, no, that's going to cost a fiscal note. So we're going to exempt the state buildings. We're going to say, you know what, it's good for thee, but not for me. Oh, okay. Make that make sense. So we're going to force this mandate on all of our businesses across Colorado. You will do this. But we're not going to. I think this is egregious. Absolutely egregious. We have businesses leaving, fleeing Colorado. And I don't blame them. I don't blame them. After all this that we see going on with our business in Colorado, actually, you know what? Please go to a state that's going to appreciate you. please go to a state that's going to let you live your life the way you want to, run your business the way you want to run your business. Because Colorado's not going to let you. Nope, they're not going to let you at all. Bills like this, it's embarrassing. We cannot run and put out law off of feelings and feel-good measures. It either has to match facts and data. It has to make logical sense. This does not. This makes heart sense, but not logical sense. Leave it up to the businesses. Let the free market dictate what happens with their business. You say, oh, well, you know, it'll help them, you know, get their, have more customers come through the door. Well, that's up to them. It's not up to you. Who are you to tell me what to do with my life, my children, my family? my home, now the business. This is not the free state of Colorado. This is a dictator-shaped state of Colorado. This is a shameful bill, and I'm hoping everyone will gain some logic today and votes this down. Vote for freedom. Vote no on this bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, colleagues. And I have no doubt that the sponsors are trying to address what they see is a problem. And as legislators, the only tool we have to address problems, at least in this chamber, other than just talking to people and encouraging good behavior, is to write legislation and try to pass bills. So I understand why this is a bill, because that's our tool to address issues. But I do think it's unfortunate the bill is kind of symbolic of larger issues that we have in this building. We're trying to mandate what is truly a courtesy. It's a good business practice. It something that actually most publicly facing businesses actually provide to their customers because it the right thing to do And there probably some that do not and that impacts their relationships with their customers And if it becomes enough of an issue, they will provide this service. I don't think we need a bill to do so. it's been addressed before but i do think it is a bad look that we carved out government agencies at all levels it's fiscally responsible of us to carve out government it's fiscally responsible when we have no money to not make this a priority in our own government buildings though most government buildings i've been in already have changing stations, so it's kind of moot. But to then come back and say that we're going to make it a priority for private businesses when we're not willing to do so for ourselves, I just think is a very bad look for this chamber. And then I do have just to note and perhaps question, I appreciate the amendment to define what a small business is in terms of this bill, but I'm not sure why we had to define small business in a manner that's different than how we've generally defined small businesses as less than 50 employees in this state for other purposes, because when you go back to the bill itself, what we've carved out and exempted is a building that's owned or managed by a small business, now defined as 25 employees or less and making less than three and a half million gross per year but also has an occupancy of less than 25 people and i'm not sure what why the 25 people occupancy is magic you could have a you know a five person coffee shop that seats 26 people and grosses much less than three and a half million and they're exempt but I don't see what that adds to the bill this definition that we adopted in the amendment really doesn't provide any change to the bill the true trigger is the occupancy level of 25 people or less so I don't think that amendment did anything to strengthen this. I do think the amending out of our public businesses really says this isn't a priority for us. We're just making it a priority for you. Again, overall, it's not a tremendously impactful bill because most businesses already do this, but it is symbolically

Thank you, Madam Chair. And let's definitely talk about the business impact. As a small business owner that has been affected by policies in the state, maybe if we talk numbers, maybe if we talk jobs, maybe we'll get through to the people of Colorado. 98 companies have left or expanded elsewhere since 2019 in the state. 98 companies. That's almost 14,000 jobs lost. So what does that mean according to dollars? Average wage in Colorado in the private sector is about $65,000. Multiply that times $14,000, that's $950 million per year in lost wages. That's about $1 billion per year in lost payroll. Over five to six years that to billion in cumulative lost economic activity Lost tax revenue income tax plus sales tax for those workers rough estimate $50 to $100 plus million per year in lost state and local revenue. And each job supports local businesses, restaurants, retail services, housing demand, supply change. Economists typically use a 1.5 to 2.5 time multiplier, meaning total economic impact is likely $1.5 billion to $2.5 billion per year in lost economic activity, long-term structural losses, loss of headquarters jobs, higher-paying decision-making roles, reduced capital investment, fewer future expansions, declining corporate tax base. We're losing jobs. We're losing companies. Ninety-eight companies have left our state since 2019. We're the sixth most regulated state. After this year, we might be top three. I know this seems like a small bill, but the small businesses, especially in rural Colorado, the small coffee shops trying to stay above water are sick of what we're doing in this building. Why can't we just go in and ask them, hey, I don't want to change my baby on the floor. Do you mind putting in a diaper changing station? What happened to communication? We had a representative from Jeffco who asked a local coffee shop to do it. I asked a local sandwich shop to do it, and they put them in. They put a diaper-changing station in. Heck, we're not even going to let the taxpayers come into this building and have a diaper-changing station because we took state buildings out of this bill. So, again, rules for me, not for thee. So, taxpayers, we're going to put this on businesses, but you still come to the Capitol to visit, and you've got to change your baby on the floor because we're going to carve the state buildings out that you visit, that you pay taxes to. You get to change your babies on the floor because we're going to carve them out, but all the small businesses we're going to regulate on top of because that's how we do business in this golden dome. We regulate on small businesses. We carve out the others that we don't want to have a fiscal note impact for. It's wrong. It's not okay. this bill should be postponed. It's not good policy. I've had to kill two of my bills. Good policy and good governance is postponing bills that have bad policy, not trying to keep amending it to make a square peg fit through a round hole. So we're going to regulate small businesses. We're going to drive more businesses out of Colorado, and with that goes money. Goes money and the billions of dollars that could be spent on businesses and hotels and restaurants because we won't let the free market do what the free market does so well. If coffee shop A doesn't have a diaper changing station and coffee shop B does, then more people with babies will go to coffee shop B. That's called the free market. That's what the free market does. We don't regulate and strangle small businesses. We let the free market work. And a mature adult goes to coffee shop A and says, hey, you will have more business if you just put a diaper changing station in here. And the owner of coffee shop A says, oh my god, you're right, let me put one in there. That's how mature people do business. We don't regulate 600 laws on the small businesses of Colorado. Still a valid bill, vote no.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I wasn't actually planning on coming up to talk to this, but a lot of you know that I We really just rely on a lot of personal experience. And last night, the Greeley Facebook page chatter was all about bathrooms and accessibility. And there's a certain drugstore that's a very well-known drugstore that has closed their bathrooms now. And the reason given was that there are just too many rules to follow to have public restrooms. And so I think it's important that people remember that in addition to the statistics that the good representative from Douglas County just cited around Colorado being the six most regulated state, the growth rate of our regulations, there's a 2.4% increase in regulations that surpasses the average growth rate of federal regulations. We have more regulations. We're growing faster in regulations than the federal government. That's crazy. And the fact that our local drugstore is saying we no longer have a public bathroom because of regulations and rules is really too bad because those are places that if you used to be standing in line, you used to be buying something there, it might say, you know, must be a customer to use, that's no longer accessible, and that's really a disservice to our public. So this is just one more regulation that I think puts our businesses in the place that they just don't want to be in that place of providing customer service anymore, and that's unfortunate because it's not that they don't want to. It's because rules and regulations make it too difficult to. I encourage a no vote on this.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that. My colleagues have belabored a lot of the points, and I won't reiterate them. The issue I have is right now the state is in a self-inflicted budget crisis that we've been talking about not only this year but through last special session and the year before, and now that structural deficit has hit, and it's hit rock bottom of the piggy bank. And what makes this really hard is not only the state, but legislators in this building have realized that the budget crisis that the state's in, so that's why government was taking out of this bill, because it would drive a fiscal note if government buildings had to do the same. But our businesses are in the same type of fiscal pinch and fiscal crisis. So we're okay with saying, well, the state, because of our fiscal crisis, we have to tighten our belt, and we, within our own budget, cannot afford to put these changing stations in government buildings, but those of you on the outside looking in, you have to tighten your belt as well, but we're going to mandate this on top of you. We say it all the time from the well, this is the sixth most overregulated state you've had. The business community come out and say,

Representative's Law.

Any further discussion on the bill? Seeing none, the question before us is passage of House Bill 1130 as amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. No. The ayes have it. House Bill 1130 as amended is passed.

All right. Representative English.

All right. Tell us about your bill, Representative Sucla.

Representative English.

So I was quick. I didn't even read the whole thing. Any further discussion on the bell? All right, seeing none, the question before us is passage of Senate Bill 136. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 136 passes.

All right, so moved. Continue. Speaker Pro Tem Basenecker.

Hey, any further discussion on the committee report? Seeing none, the question before is this passage of the committee report to 1287. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. All right. The Transportation Housing Local Government Committee report passes.

All right. Any further discussion on Representative Kelty?

Speaker Pro Tem.

Thank you for that. That helps. I still think that's a whole lot. But my other question is, so the schedule for repeal, I guess it's 11 years. Was it 11 years on here? And most of the other sunsets, we actually knocked it down from 13 or 11 years down to 7 years. so that way it can be reviewed a little more often, as we probably should as stewards of the money of the people. Is there a reason why, because we found in other sunsets that regulations and laws and everything else has changed so much from year to year to year. So to have something over a decade long, the amount of changes that could happen in this industry are obviously probably going to happen much sooner than that. Is there a reason why we didn't make it seven years versus the 11 years?

Representative Kelsey. So with that being said, and I understand what you're saying, would you be open to an amendment changing it down from the 11, like we've done on so many of the other sunsets, with realization that it's probably something that we should look at, it's just a look at more often. Would you be open to an amendment to say seven years versus the 11 years?

Any further discussion on the bill? Seeing none, the question before us is passage of 1287 as amended. All those in favor say aye. All those in favor say aye. There we go. All those opposed, no. All right. The ayes have it. House Bill 1287 passes. Madam Majority Leader.

We will rise and report. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the report of the Committee of the Whole. Madam Speaker, your Committee of the Whole begs leave the report as under consideration the following attached bills, being the second reader of it, makes the following recommendations are on. House Bill 1130 is amended, 1132 is amended, 1287 is amended, passed on second reading, ordered engrossed and placed on the calendar for third reading and final passage. Senate Bill 136, passed on second reading, ordered revised and placed on the calendar for third reading and final passage.

Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, ma'am.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move to proceed out of order for third reading.

Madam Speaker, I move to lay over Senate Bill 43 and Senate Bill 95.

Until tomorrow.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to Senate Bill 59. Senate Bill 59 by Senators Cutter and Ball, also Representative Lindsay, concerning a prohibition on a member of the General Assembly holding multiple elected offices.

The motion before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 59 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Bottoms, Joseph. Joseph is excused. Please close the machine. With 34 I, 28 no, and 3 excused, Senate Bill 59 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1028 on third reading and final passage.

Yes, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes yes.

Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1143. House Bill 1143 by Representatives Ricks and Joseph, also Senator Weissman, concerning information collected for a background check by entities that provide non-employment-based educational opportunities.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1143 on third reading, final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Please close the machine. With 42 aye, 22 no, and 1 excused, House Bill 1143 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move. House Bill 1283 on third reading and final passage.

taking the documentation from them, basically leaving them in an exploitable and expendable status. And that is one of the big issues that I have with our current immigration process when people are brought over, cartelled over often at the great expense to them, but then leaving them in a position where they're exploitable and expendable. So this bill is to prevent that, but we have a policy that incentivizes that. Now, that policy is a carryover, and that is trying to be dealt with, but I think this bill is an interesting example and highlights the problem of leaving people in a permanently exploitable and expendable undocumented status. and now this is, I'm not sure exactly what this is trying to achieve when we have that as our underlying policy. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1283 on third reading final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Representative Weinberg votes no. Please close the machine. With 41I23 excused House Bill 1283 is adopted Co Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1226.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1226 on third reading and final passage. Representative DeGraff. Okay, bills like this have cost us 40% of our baseload generating power, what's called dispatchable power, that power that we can actually rely on. And we're trying to increase our electricity. Now, I mean, that's just a bad idea. I mean, you have the age-old examples of putting all your eggs in one basket, and that's one example. All electrification is a great example of that. But this focus has cost us, again, in this case, up until now, $17 billion. $17 billion, over $17 billion, in order to actually lose capacity. Now, does this accomplish anything? Well, when I've talked to the Colorado Energy Office, no, it does not accomplish anything. They cannot point to anything that it accomplishes. What we have is carbon goals. They established, the General Assembly established carbon goals, and then gives lip service to science-based climate goals, and then says all these things somehow need to be cost effective, but never discuss cost in terms of what they're trying to affect. So right now, again, we know that we've lost $17 billion. We've just basically destroyed our landscape. We've paved over lots of areas with heat-absorbing solar panels to cool the earth somehow. And if that makes sense to you, then probably the entire anthropogenic climate change narrative makes sense to you as well because you're just not paying attention to the science. But the overall benefit...

The overall benefit, again, I would like to emphasize, if you do the math, and if you consider that carbon dioxide is 100% responsible for the 33 degrees Celsius that takes our planet from being an ice ball to habitable, that 33 degrees multiplied by the fraction of our 0.125 billion tons that Colorado generates over the 3,300 billion tons that are in the atmosphere comes to a 0.00125 degrees Celsius. So we have spent over $17 billion, and we have impacted that by a fraction of a percent. So we've lost our baseline power. We experiencing blackouts because that what the governor wants And we have maybe affected the planet temperature by 0 degrees Celsius Now, if you look at the logarithmic effect of carbon dioxide, it's probably about an actual effect. That's probably about a thousandth of that. But just in good faith, let's just call it 0.00125 degrees Celsius. And these programs, these programs here are going to add to that cost because you're not, when you're dealing, you're not actually accomplishing anything other than building infrastructure. And that infrastructure, the purpose of that infrastructure is to bolster the bottom line of the investors in the investor-focused utilities, the IFUs, the investor-focused utilities, so that they can earn 9% to 10% on the investment of your money, on the guaranteed return of your money by increasing rates. So Colorado, again, you've lost $17 billion to this superstition. It has a grossly overinflated effect of 0.00125 degrees Celsius, a fraction of that. The Colorado Energy Office cannot speak to you any more than that. The General Assembly cannot speak to that. when I quered the General Assembly, the people who signed on to these bills, the answer that I got as to what the climate goals were, that the General Assembly is subjecting the citizens of Colorado to roughly $3,000 apiece so far, and to actually achieve their goals would be another $100 billion at least. Every single representative that signed on to those bills about cost-effective climate goals, etc., could not name or point to a single climate goal. The charlatans in the Colorado Energy Office, nor could they. The Colorado, at the behest of the governor, has zero climate goals, has zero idea what this will do other than draining the money out of the citizens' pockets, which is the only climate goal in Colorado is to tax-stract you more and make sure that you will have nothing, and then they'll be happy. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1226 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Representative Weinberg votes no. Please close the machine. 42, aye. 22, no. And one excused. House Bill 1226 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1343.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1343 on third reading and final passage. The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1343 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Representative Weinberg votes yes. Please close the machine. With 64 ayes, 0 no, and 1 excused, House Bill 1343 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Shebel, please close. Please read the title to House Bill 1342.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1342 on third reading and final passage. The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1342 on third reading and final passage Mr Schiebel please open the machine and members proceed to vote Representative Weinberg how do you vote No ma Representative Weinberg votes no

Please close the machine. With 40 I, 25 no, and zero excused, House Bill 1342 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Members, we are on thirds. Please keep your voices down. Thank you. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1344.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1344 on third reading and final passage The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1344 on third reading final passage Mr Schiebel please open the machine and members proceed to vote Representative Weinberg, how do you vote? No, ma'am. Representative Weinberg votes no.

Please close the machine. With 51 aye, 14 no, and zero excused, House Bill 1344 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1052.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1052 on third reading and final passage. The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1052 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Weinberg, how do you vote?

Representative Weinberg votes yes.

Please close the machine. With 65 ayes, 0 no and 0 excused, House Bill 1052 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move to lay over the balance of the calendar to Thursday, April 23, 2026. Seeing no objection, the balance of the calendar will be laid over until tomorrow. Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move that the House stand in recess until later today. The House is in recess until later today. Thank you.