Colorado House 2026 Legislative Day 112

Colleagues, please join me in saying the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation of God and the indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Representatives Bacon. Amel Bacon. Excuse. Barone. Basinecker. Bottoms. Bradfield. Representative Bradfield. Bradley. Brooks. Brown. Caldwell. Camacho. Representative Camacho. Excuse. Carter. Clifford. DeGraff. Duran. English. Representative English. Excuse. Espinoza, Ferre, Flanelle, Froelich, Garcia, Garcia Sander, Gilchrist, Goldstein, Gonzalez, Hamrick. Hartsook. Jackson. Johnson. Joseph. Representative Joseph. Excuse. Kelty. Leader. Leader, Lindsey, Luck, Representative Luck, Lukens, Mabry, Marshall, Martinez, Morrow, McCormick, Winn, Paschal, Phillips, Richardson, Ricks. Representative Ricks. Excuse. Routenel. Representative Routenel. Excuse. Excuse. Raiden Sirota Rep. Sirota Slaw Smith Representative Smith Soper Stuart K Stuart R Story Sukla Taggart. Titone. Valdez A. Rep Valdez Excuse Velasco Weinberg Oh hello Wilford Winter Woodrow Woog Zokai Representative Zokai excused and Madam Speaker here with 57 present

thank you Madam Speaker friends, colleagues we have rain we have moisture that we've long been awaiting But with moisture comes slick roads, and we have estimations of snow coming later today. So colleagues, please be careful. This is more of a PSA, public service announcement, that while you're going home tonight, after a long, vigorous day on the floor and many of us heading to committee, please make sure that you all stay safe. And with that, and for the reign, Madam Speaker, I move that the Journal of Monday, May 4, 2026 be approved as corrected by the chief clerk.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Today is, well, we're recognizing World Ovarian Cancer Day, and we have some folks here in the gallery, and Rep Gilchrist is going to read the short tribute that we have. Please proceed.

World Ovarian Cancer Day, observed annually on May 8th, raises awareness of ovarian cancer and supports those impacted by this disease. Established in 2013, this global initiative seeks to improve early diagnosis and advance better outcomes for women worldwide. The 2026 theme, No Woman Left Behind, highlights the importance of health equity and ensuring that all women have access to timely diagnosis and quality care. This day also serves to educate the public about key symptoms, including abdominal bloating, pelvic or back pain, feeling full quickly and changes in fellow habits. On this day, we stand with patients, families, and advocates and encourage all to wear teal and help raise awareness of ovarian cancer. Thank you to our guests here. We're so glad you're here.

Shifting gears, thank you, Madam Speaker. Health and Human Services Committee will meet today upon adjournment to hear Senate Bill 66, Senate Bill 162, Senate Bill 17, and Senate Bill 138. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. D. Malay International is proud to be celebrating its 107th anniversary, founded in 1919 in Kansas City, Missouri, as a direct response to the end of World War I for the boys who had lost their fathers in the war D Malay has helped develop leadership and public speaking skills to thousands of young men around the globe based on the core principles of love of God love of home and love of country Noble members were entertainment giant Walt Disney, football player Fran Tarkington, Edward J. Peterson of Peterson Air Force Base, President Bill Clinton, Governor of North Dakota Edward Schaefer, actor John Wayne, voice actor Mel Blanc, radio journalist Paul Harvey, John Steinbeck, and many more. Okay, so visiting us today on the floor is John R. Sellers, a Denver, Colorado resident and local business owner of All-American Stair Company. He was elected among the adult leaders of this organization and is currently serving as their 94th international grandmaster. With him is Thomas Goodwin of the Aurora portion of HD56, who is currently attending the University of Colorado at Boulder, on a full scholarship. He is a musician who plays the oboe. He was elected and is currently serving as the international master councillor for the De Molay Congress. So he covers all 50 states and I believe 36 countries. The De Molay Congress is a youth-led, Senate-style body, some might say representative body, where two voting members represent each De Molay jurisdiction. The delegates meet once a year and elect an international master counselor who leads and serves as the head of the body for that year. Representative Hemrick. And I'm proud to say that Denver was the second DeMole International post after Kansas City, Missouri. These two positions are the two highest ranking elected officials within the organization, the international organization, and both are from the great state of Colorado. Members, please give a warm welcome to our guests.

I do have one brief announcement. I have been excused for the afternoon. It is my daughter's graduation. While I am not here, please make good choices.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Happy Cinco de Mayo, everybody. So I just wanted to come up here and speak a little bit about the history of Cinco de Mayo. Everybody got a sheet on your desk that I put out there with some pins from my fellow Latin-speaking members here. And I just want to tell you Cinco de Mayo is celebrated, obviously, on Cinco de Mayo. It commemorates the Mexican Army's victory over the French forces at the Battle of Puebla. Many people think that this is Mexicans' independence day. It is not. It is September 16th. Cinco de Mayo is a celebration done in Puebla for that famous victory over the French army that tried to invade. They fought them off. Eventually, the French army did take over Mexico City, but it was short-lived because then they were drawn back out by the Mexican forces. So for this day, I thank everybody for being here and just acknowledging the celebration of Puebla and the Cinco de Mayo. and we have a great potluck lunch over here at the kitchen for everybody to enjoy here today. And I'll give it over to the Majority Leader. She wants to say some words about the potluck.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just thank you, everyone who signed up and brought some good potluck, which will be in the kitchen, as mentioned. And just thank you for celebrating today. I think Cico de Mayo is often mistaken for Mexico Independence Day but Mexico actually celebrates its independence on September 16th The Battle of Puebla was unexpected Mexican forces, about 4,500 troops, were greatly outnumbered by the French army of 6,500 troops. So with that, members, I know we need to get moving, but I just want you to acknowledge the importance of today and bringing everyone together over food and bonding. So thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Judiciary Committee members, we're going to be meeting in room 107, 10 minutes upon adjournment. we're going to hear House Bill 1426, Senate Bill 169, Senate Bill 174, House Bill 1427, and Senate Bill 177. Ten minutes upon adjournment.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. For those who don't know, I'm a proud graduate of the University of New Mexico where in which I had a form of great love for Cinco de Mayo and all of its accoutrement. I have as a gift from myself to you, I've given each one of you a jar of salsa from a proud Denver company, 505 Green Chili. They're special peach salsa. They're also a proud sponsor of the Broncos. So please enjoy.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The Transportation, Housing, and Local Government Committee will meet in LSBA upon adjournment for 1430 Senate Bill 157, 172, and 182.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Capital Development Committee will meet tomorrow morning at 820 a.m. in Senate Committee Room 357 to consider property transaction proposals from Colorado Parks and Wildlife and consideration of legislation. See you there.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Colleagues, I would just like to turn your attention to the gallery. We've got tons of state employees from Department of Corrections, and we want to thank you all for what you do. Thank you for protecting the state of Colorado, so if you don't mind giving them an applause.

Thank you, AML. Members, just to build off of that, today, this is the Correctional Officers and Employees Week. And so you can see them having joined us today. If you can, members, this week gives us a moment to recognize the professionals who carry out one of the most difficult responsibilities in public service. Every day they show up in environments that most people will never see, maintaining safety, order, and dignity under constant pressure. Here in this building, we often debate numbers, capacity, and policy. We debate budgets, but those conversations matter. Behind every line item and every decision are real people doing real work, often without recognition, and sometimes in the midst of competing priorities beyond their control. The men and women in our correctional system are steady in ways that don't always make headlines. They adapt, they endure, and they serve with professionalism in a system that asks a great deal of them. This week, and hopefully every week, we can recognize their commitment to public safety and to the communities that we all serve. Ultimately, members, I do want to again say, you know, you see myself here along with Representative Luck, and many of you know that I often talk about DOC. But the one thing that has been the common through line through our discussions are how do we support our staff? And so for those who work in corrections, whether you're a correctional officer or our teachers who are sweeping or our folks who are doing work outside of their scope, we do want folks to know that despite the conversations we might have around beds or sending people through processes, we do always believe in supporting working people and that they are able to provide a living for themselves and support their families. And so I did want to say thank you to the team for allowing me to talk about this because I do hope that they have heard throughout all of the bills and all the conversations, the through lines have always been, how do we support people to keep our buildings safe, and how do we support people within the jobs that we're asking them to do because they've been doing much more than has been expected. And with that, hand it over to Representative Luck.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to thank all of you for coming today. I know a number of you drove here from my county, from Fremont County, or that you work in Fremont or Pueblo or other places around the state. And I want to thank you for taking the time to get up here today in the weather and in the traffic so that we could have this opportunity to look at you and say thank you. Genuinely to say thank you. We are grateful for the work that you do. It is a tireless work, made more tiring by the fact that not all of the positions in your prisons are filled. It is a stressful work, a work that doesn't allow for the stress to just stay in the building, but often comes home with you and impacts family, impacts emotional and mental health, impacts relationship. It is an essential work, a work that our society could not function without. Often the narrative that gets communicated through the grapevine and down different channels is that we don't appreciate you in this building. But we do. And I hope that in years to come we can find ways to show that through all of the policies and all of the dollars and all of the decisions that are made. so that you know that the efforts you are making on behalf of the people of Colorado are worthwhile and well-respected. To those in the chamber, I would kindly ask that you give our guests a round of applause.

Thank you Madam Speaker I have two announcements this morning At 8 tomorrow morning the House Appropriations Committee will meet We will hear six bills We will hear 10 14 14 Senate Bill 20 Senate Bill 23 Senate Bill 36 And we also may hear any other bill that has been referred to appropriations. I also want to just say that tomorrow, Wednesday, May 6th, is please join the National Alliance of Mental Illness outside the old Supreme Court from 730 to 9 for breakfast to mark Tardive Dyskinesia Awareness Week. Tardive dyskinesia is a movement disorder that causes a range of repetitive muscle movements, and so please join those folks in celebrating that awareness week tomorrow outside the old Supreme Court for breakfast. Thank you.

Please read reports of committees of reference. Committee on Appropriations. After consideration of the medidas, the committee recommends the following House bills 1100 as amended, 1309 as amended, and 1425 as amended and Senate Bills 113 and 135 as amended. Be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation. Committee on Finance. After consideration of the medida, the committee recommends the following House Bill 1250 as amended and Senate Bill 131 as amended. Be referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Senate Bill 134 and 163 as amended. Be referred to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation. Committee on State, Civil, and Military Affairs. After consideration on the Merit State Committee, recommends the following Senate Bill 146 be referred to the Committee of the Whole with failed recommendation. House Joint Resolution 1029 be postponed indefinitely. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, I move that the following bills be made special orders on May 5th, 2026 at 9.45 a.m. Senate Bill 134, House Bill 1043, House Bill 1100, House Bill 1309, House Bill 1425, Senate Bill 163, Senate Bill 146, Senate Bill 113, Senate Bill 48, Senate Bill 147, and Senate Bill 6.

The committee will come to order. With your unanimous consent, the bills will be read by title unless there is a request for reading a bill at length. Committee reports are printed and in your bill folders. Floor amendments will be shown on the screen on iLegislate and in today's folder on your box account. Bills will be laid over upon motion of the majority leader, and the code rule is relaxed. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of Senate Bill 134. Senate Bill 134 by Senators Lindstedt and Judah, also Representatives Doran and McCluskey, concerning the imposition of fees by payment card networks.

Majority Leader Duran.

Rep Luck.

Rep DeGraff.

and then with the emotional bait of saying that we are going to be helping small business. This would help. I don't think it would actually help small business in the sense that we think it would because of the unintended consequences. So that's why I'll be a no on this bill. These businesses do need relief. They need actual relief that comes out of this building by stopping the face-stomping boot of this room. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of Senate Bill 134. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. No. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 134 passes. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of House Bill 1043.

Rep. Ryden.

To the committee report. Thank you.

One moment. Thank you. It's well done. Okay. L2 is properly displayed. Rep. Ryden. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of L2. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. L2 passes. To the committee report, Rep. Ryden.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of the Business Affairs Committee report as amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The Business Affairs report as amended passes. To the bill, Rep. Ryden.

Rep Paschal.

Rep.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Rep. Bradley.

Rep. Ryden.

Yes.

Even if they're not picking up the service animals?

Rep. Pascal.

out. Rep Bradley. Thank you. So you're telling me that a driver that will not be picking up a service animal because they have allergies to a service animal now has to complete mandatory service animal education I need you to make that make sense for me Rep Ryden

The education that they receive is about discrimination across the board. It includes education about service animals, people who might have canes. It also includes information about people with wheelchairs, everything around the American Disabilities Law. This is just saying that we want that codified, essentially, that it should be included in that. And current practice, a lot of, at least I'll speak for one of the rideshare companies, they are already trying to educate their drivers on this and have those videos and whatnot. That's already included to some extent in it. The challenge that we're seeing, Representative, is that drivers are not necessarily, they're either fast-forwarding through, they're not necessarily completing that, or for some reason the education piece that's currently in practice is not working. So that's why we are putting it into law to make sure that that education is happening.

Thank you. So if I'm hearing you correctly, you're saying that mandatory service animal education includes people that need assistance with wheelchairs, canes, and all the other things, not just service animal education?

things but that is not specific in the bill. Rep. Radley. Thank you Madam Chair

Rep.

Rep. Bradley.

Rep. Ryden.

Rip Bradley.

Rep. Ryden.

Rep. Rep. Johnson.

Rep. Ryden.

Is there any further reptograph? Okay. So like my previous colleague, I won't try to be argumentative. I can just do it without trying. So my concern, I heard this in committee, and I see once again that we have, the state has imposed a value. The state has said, we have a value. And how do we handle that value that we have or that preference that we have? And the way to do this is then to impose it and say, thou shalt, which is kind of a violation of the consent of the governed. Now, nobody wants anybody to be discriminated against. I certainly don't. But let's look at what we can do instead of forcing the General Assembly's preferences on other people. For instance, this bill is punishment-based. That's standard for socialism. But this bill is punishment-based instead of reward-based. And the problem when you have when you have when you rely on compelled labor why compelled labor fails is because it requires a compelling It requires somebody in the background to compel that labor whether it by physical pain or whether it by financial pain or whether it by emotional pain Compelled labor works on pain. The free market works on gain. from each according to their motivation to each according to their utility. If you're motivated and you're useful, you're going to make money. And then who is the repeller in the free market system? The repeller becomes the individual themselves. They become the driver, literally in this case. They're motivated and they're useful. So where this is going, this bill, bills like it, are going to driverless cars. And maybe that's fine. That is ultimately the model of Uber and Lyft, that they will move into this space, eventually get driverless cars, they'll replace the drivers, and then they will be able to make money without having to pay those individuals, and then you have the carless society, except for those that are controlled by these companies. So I don't know who's behind this. Once again, it has the emotional bait of saying that this is for blind people, service dogs. Fair enough. But there are lots of reasons why somebody might not want a service dog in their vehicle, whether it's allergies, whether it's a religious exemption, prohibition, or preference, or whether it's extreme trauma as a child. maybe they just don't like chihuahua clutch environmentalists riding with them and they just yappy little things and the dogs but you could have an incentive based program and how could you have an incentive based program like the one that I sent to the example that I sent to the sponsors and the sponsors are not interested in an incentive based program when you can just take the cudgel of the state and you can beat people into submission. It's really no different than White Fang. It's an excellent book, and it talks about compelled labor. So where would we get the money for that? Well, let's look at the reason to drive. I mean RTD. The person who runs that, the governor appointee, makes about half a million dollars per year. that's a significant amount of change that program has about 3% ridership why? because people are averse to riding on mobile mugging centers but what does that mobile mugging center do for the state? well for less than for each passenger mile that reason to drive is subsidized by about $2.50 So I think somebody calculated it's like for every dollar that is collected, $20 are spent. So do we have the money? So we're just subsidizing that program. Programs like Uber and Lyft, gig rides, cost about $1 to $2. So now what is better for a person that is disabled? Somebody showing up at their door or forcing them to walk a half mile or a mile through snow? or roll or wheel, whatever they want. their conveyances, showing up at their door, taking them from point A to point B, or showing up every now and then, every 15 minutes, and taking a busload of five people, lumbering slowly in the wrong direction from point A, point five, to B, point five, half a mile away from each. because what we could do is we could take that program and we could incentivize, actually, you could incentivize riders and you could say, look, if you are equipped to pick up service animals because that is a value to us as a state, we have decided that the state will value that, then you could pay extra. The state would just simply have to pay extra. And where would it get that money? Well, instead of subsidizing a ride at $2.50 per passenger mile, most of which are going in the direction that the passenger doesn't even want to go, you could incentivize the ridership. You can incentivize and say, look, if you pick up a service animal, you get a $10 bonus. Now, what would happen if we took that? And the ironic thing is that these buses that are supposed to be reducing traffic, one, it's made for about 50 people and it's toting around five, so it's really just a big traffic jam where one person is effectively driving 10 cars. So it is completely the opposite. What does it accomplish for ozone? Absolutely nothing. They have no idea why they even do it. Literally. They have no idea why. But we could do that. And now the other part of this bill is that it is a foot in the door. Because other examples that were given is what if a driver shows up and they have to pick up somebody that's extremely nonverbal? Now that extremely nonverbal person is 100% as valuable in the eyes of the law as created the image of God, and we need to secure those rights. but to force somebody to say somebody it's like well now you need to take you need to take a course in helping somebody who's extremely non-verbal how do you communicate with that that takes a special that takes a special level of empathy now if we took if we made medical transport like there's lots of medical transport medical type transport and actually prioritize that and say hey, we could subsidize this, and there are individuals that have extra challenges, and we want to make sure that they have the ability to fully participate in society, we will give you a reward. We will take that money from the reason to drive, maybe take it away from the half-million-dollar salary for the governor appointee who can only seem to attract less than 3% ridership to a multimillion-dollar program. Oh, no, I mean, $24 million was given to it just to increase ridership for one month, to make one month free. And that was the bozo, if you remember. But what we could do is we could take that money and we could incentivize these gig drivers who are, what are they doing? I mean, right now we already have taxi cabs. Taxi cabs are much higher regulated. And then Uber and Lyft came in and said hey we going to step outside the market and we going to allow you to use your private conveyance your private vehicle to make a little extra money because goodness knows you need some relief from the state And it's just an optional way. It's just an optional way to reduce costs on society. And now the nanny state comes in and says, no, we are going to compel your labor. and the way you get rid of a fiscal note in here oh I already got rid of the other fiscal notes but it was half of a FTE like the sponsor say instead of a $550 fine I think it goes up to like $1300 or something and then you pay for the extra manpower or even out of the $550 You pay for the program out of the fines that you impose. Because instead of the state doing something that it could do, it could say, hey, we are going to incentivize, we are going to create an incentive-based program where we say, we're going to take money out of the RTD budget. and we are going to create an incentive structure for people to serve, to help these individuals that we literally need to expend more resources in order to allow their full participation in society. We could redirect some of that budget, and it wouldn't even be a large portion of the budget. if you look at how much they spend. I'd be willing to sacrifice a great deal of the RTD president or whatever they are, the governor appointee. I mean, just prior to this, it was looking at .5 FTE. You know, take that .5 FTE out of the RTD budget. Take the incentive structure out of the RTD structure, and then you know what? you'll have people that are actually competing. You can create a structure where people are actually competing to get that ride. There are people that are okay with having dogs in their vehicle. You know what? If you incentivize them and say, look, you already ride with a dog in your vehicle. If you pick up this ride, you'll get an extra $10 for that ride. You're going to have people that are actually competing for that job, for that ride. And then when somebody shows up to see them, instead of being resented because it's something that they are compelled to do with the boot of the state, they will be thrilled to see that person because they see that it is another ride for which they are going to be rewarded for taking instead of punished for not. operating on a system of reward I know is contrary to the socialist mindset but it really does work there is an interface that would go the same with blind it would be so much better to have somebody who is rewarded for taking the class and being that better steward of the money and saying, hey, there are some people that would be great, would specialize, could really serve the blind community so much better And all you have to do is take money out of the buses that drive around three quarters empty But isn't it funny how there's no solutions that come with taking money from RTD? None of the solutions come with taking money from government programs. You just impose more compelling onto the citizens of Colorado. And so what do you have? Now you have, okay, if this voluntary service doesn't work and you say to the driver and you say, hey, if you don't do this right, you're going to get fined $550. Well, that's probably like 50 trips that that person has to, they just lost 50 trips. That might be, that's a pretty significant chunk of driving that you just took from them. What's their incentive to stay in this program at all? What you're ultimately doing is you're encouraging people to exit this program instead of enter the program. Instead of encouraging them to enter the program with bonuses, you're encouraging them to exit the program by the compulsion that you are compelled to. So I'm a no on this bill, definitely a no on this bill, not because I don't think these individuals should not be served. I'm a no on this bill because I think these individuals should be served. I think these individuals should have the full benefit of society made possible to them. And that is not done by spending billions of dollars on buses that drive around empty and a salary of half a million dollars. I would like to see these individuals not have to transport themselves through the snow, wind, or rain a half mile just to get on a bus, to risk to ride on a bus where you're having trouble getting drivers for those buses because they don't like the crime situation on them. This is an easy solution. Take the money, create an incentive-based program. You already have the money. You're just wasting it. So the only thing, so the RTD budget is just another thing where the only purpose in that spending is taxation and pretending like you're doing something. If you want to actually help these individuals that you're pretending to help, actually help them. Create an incentive-based program where they'll be welcomed instead of resented, and then you're on to something. Then you have drivers that are competing for these rides instead of dreading these rides, or worst case, exiting the scenario, exiting the situation entirely. Stop feeling like it's your job, that it's your duty, that it's your obligation. Now, we did hear at the beginning of the year that it is our right to rule, and that is 100% contrary to the oath that you took. So I ask you to actually scrap this, go with an incentive-based program, make it a program, take the money from places that we already have it easy enough and create a program where these individuals can be valued in society instead of resented. This bill creates resentment and it will create scarcity. Repsucla.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of House Bill 1043. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. House Bill 1043 passes. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of House Bill 1100.

Rep. Espinosa.

So move to the Appropriations Report. Rep Stewart.

L4 is properly displayed. Rep. Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of L4. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. L4 passes. To the appropriations report. Rep Stewart.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of the appropriations report as amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The appropriations report as amended passes. So that means that the finance report and judiciary report are struck, and now we are to the bill. House Bill 1100, Rep. Espinoza.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of House Bill 1100. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. House Bill 1100 passes. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of House Bill 1309.

Rep. Froehlich.

To the Appropriations report.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of the Appropriations report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The appropriations report passes. To the judiciary report, Rhett Froelich.

To the committee.

L6 has been moved to the Judiciary Committee report and is properly displayed.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of L6. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. L6 passes. To the judiciary report, is there any further discussion? Reps law.

One moment. L7 is properly displayed. Reps law.

Brett Froelich. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative from Weld and Larimer. Religious exemption already exists for firmly held beliefs, and we certainly don't agree with the second half of this, so we ask for a no vote.

Reps Law thank you Madam Chair and thank you to the sponsors I understand and kind of expected that that might be the case that there was some concerns with some of the language so I had some of the language removed and ask that L008 I move L008 to the committee report and ask that it be displayed.

Rep Sloth. Thank you. This amendment, it strikes some of the language that I think was most concerning to the sponsors, but it still maintains some of the things that I think are most important, and that is that a parent acting in good faith and to their beliefs, still will not have those beliefs or those convictions held against them in the determination of parenting time and things like that. I think that that is important. I don't think that parents should be restricted in being able to be a parent just because they may have some slightly different opinions than a child. I know that as a father of four children, oftentimes my children, who are still learning, still growing, still becoming who they are, have different opinions. I had a deep conversation with my 15-year-old earlier today about the super importance of a stop at the coffee shop on her way to school. We still disagree, I think, and I think that that is a much less important thing for a parent to be considering than what this amendment addresses. So with that I would ask for an aye vote on this amendment Thank you Rep Froelich Thank you so much Madam Chair and thank you reps from Weld and Larimer

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of L8. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The no's have it. L8 fails. To the Judiciary Committee report, is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of the Judiciary Report as amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The Judiciary Report as amended passes. To the bill, Rep Story.

Brett Froelich. Thank you very much Madam Chair and thank you to my colleague from Jeffco for this and to our majority leader for this long effort The central issue that we are addressing in this bill and as was mentioned this is our fifth bill on this is how to get judges and magistrates to place the safety of the child first and foremost when they are making custody decisions When judges ignore or minimize or dismiss domestic violence and abuse and award custody to the abuser, it has terrible and sometimes deadly consequences. This is a national movement, a bipartisan national movement, and as the children who have suffered through family court for decades reach maturity, they are increasingly telling their stories and advocating for reform. These bills go by the name of deceased children, which is horrifying. In Connecticut, it's Jennifer's Law, plural. In Pennsylvania, it's Caden's Law. In Utah, Ohm's Law. In California, Pequie's Law. In New York, Kira's Law. So in Colorado, we're actually unique in that our first effort on this is called Julie's Law, and Julie is a survivor who was returned home to her mother after 10 years living with her sexual and child abuser. we went into this again focused on judges and magistrates and the number one ask from the advocates was can judges and magistrates please be trained on domestic violence they clearly don't understand domestic violence if they are behaving in this manner when they're awarding custody we quickly found out that that is the bridge too far and so all the attempts have been to do everything we can think of in that courtroom, minus training of judges. And so everyone in the first law in 21, 1228, the first law trained everyone in the courtroom except for the judge on domestic violence. In 23, we upped that and complied with the federal then cadence law. That gave us the opportunity to get a million dollars in funding through the Violence Against Women Act if we only train judges. Still unable to do that, and so we still are giving up on that money. Then in 1108, we said, why can't we train judges? So we formed a task force to look at training judges. They came forward with a series of recommendations, none of which have been implemented. And that was the hard work of the majority leader, and it was bipartisan. And then in 24, we passed with my colleague from Jeffco additional parameters in the courtroom. We said, listen to the child. How about if the child spoke, would you then believe domestic violence is occurring? And here we are. We just had the most disastrous year in terms of child fatalities of kids caught up in this family court system. So here we are at 1309, which just does, as my colleague outlined, condenses all of the definitions of domestic violence into one place. So, Judge, here is your list of what you're looking at. And then it says the first decision you're making is on the safety of the child. Is the child safe with both parents, and therefore that needs to be where your first custody decision takes place. And just to illustrate that this is a national movement, almost this exact same bill passed in Tennessee. We have the recording, and our trustee aides transcribed it. It took 10 minutes. For the purposes of this, I will be playing Senator Hatcher, and Rep. Story will be playing the Speaker of the House. Rep. Story.

we are both elderly Southern gentlemen. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Senate Bill 2539, there are two parts of the Tennessee Code annotated that work together to keep kids safe by making courts look first at whether a parent's behavior could harm the child. If there are safety concerns, the law requires the parent's time with the child before the court even looks at what is in the best interest of the child. A recent update makes clear this rule applies to all situations where the parenting plan is temporary or final.

Brett Froelich. Thank you, colleagues, for indulging us. The point is, come on, man, we're better than Tennessee. They went unanimous, and we can do this, and we ask for an aye vote.

Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1425 until after Senate Bill 6.

Senate Bill 163 by Senator Roberts, also Representative Smith, concerning the regulation of gambling activities in the state and in connection therewith, expanding the membership of the Colorado Limited Gaming Control Commission, expanding the scope of the licensing duties of the Colorado Limited Gaming Control Commission, may delegate to the Division of Gaming, allowing individuals to voluntarily exclude themselves from sports betting in the state and allowing the director of the Division of Gaming to approve option wagers and minor modifications for certain table games.

To the Finance Committee report.

Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of the finance report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The finance report passes. Thank you, Madam Chair. To the bill, Rep. Smith.

Do you have an amendment to the finance report that we just passed? I'm still doing the finance report. We just passed the finance report. Oh, I wanted to explain. Okay. The second amendment that we had. Oh, I'm sorry.

Okay, so we are to the bills, Senate Bill 163.

Okay, Rep. Smith.

First, there are currently two trivial gaming regulatory approvals that require commission approval. They are minor vendor licenses and approved table game modifications. This bill delegates those authorities to the gaming director, allowing greater agility for the industry by eliminating the wait time between monthly commission meetings. The second part of this bill makes a variety of statutory updates to clarify the Division's investigative and enforcement authority to safeguard the competitive landscape and to protect consumers. The definition of illegal gaming is modified to reduce criminal activity around gray market gaming devices. Third, there is a responsible gambling policy called self-exclusion that allows individuals to voluntarily prohibit themselves from participating in certain gaming activities. This bill adds references to sports betting, sports betting operations, and Internet sports betting operations to existing exclusion language in 44-30-1703 to clarify individuals can be excluded across all gaming licenses. Finally, an amendment was adopted in the Senate that clarified requirements around FBI fingerprint background checks. A bill in 2025 passed updating many definitions. However, racing were deemed insufficient. The department worked with the Colorado Department of Public Safety on modifications to the language to better align with federal requirements and ensure the fingerprint background program can continue to operate in compliance with the law. These changes eliminate administrative delays strengthen enforcement capability and improve regulatory consistency with no fiscal impact And I just want to say on the record I made a mistake last night when I said that we only have one racetrack that runs races just one day and it turns out it's a longer period and it's one match. And with that, I please urge you to vote yes. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, the question before us is the passage of Senate Bill 163. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 163 passes. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of Senate Bill 146. Senate Bill 146 by Senator Cutter, also Representative Froelich, concerning restricting the distribution of single-use food serviceware. Rep. Froelich. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 146. To the bill. This bill comes to us from the children, from the youth, from COIAC and several students across the state who visited with us in committee, did an amazing job of presenting this bill. It has been dubbed skip the stuff. It just adds to our previous pollution reduction, pollution ban, plastic pollution ban. that was passed in 21 and it adds items to it. Originally the students came forward and they wanted to add styrofoam. That began a whole bunch of discussions and we really zeroed in on those fistfuls of extra things that get thrown into your takeout order. And I think the students did a great job of putting forward a terrific bill and explaining and asking the committee to support them in their efforts to reduce plastic pollution. And really the only objections to this are, we feel, based on the fact that it goes after sort of some of the most convenient things that happen in our daily life, and we ask you for a yes vote. Is there any further discussion? Rep. Woog. Thank you, Madam Chair. No. To the representative from Arapahoe and Denver, this is America, guys. Come on. Rep. Bradley. Thank you. I'm wondering if I should speak like I'm from Tennessee so that they can understand it. And just for the record, Tennessee people are pretty strong, educated, graduated, Alpha Sigma Nu. We're pretty educated, smart people. We might talk a little slower, but we're still smart. So there's that. If passed, this bill will prohibit. Retail food establishments prohibit. So this isn't America. I'm not sure it is America anymore. Retail food establishments from providing single-use items unless the customer confirms they want them. Starting January 1, 2027, retail food establishments and third-party food delivery services, DoorDash, Uber Eats, in Colorado may not automatically include single-use food serviceware with delivery or carryout orders. Items can only be provided if the customer either requests them or confirms they want them after being asked. Next this expands Colorado existing Plastic Pollution Reduction Act you know the one that makes you pay 10 cents for a plastic bag to then put all the plastic from the grocery store into said plastic bag that one which already restricts single plastic bags And poly containers single food serviceware is broadly defined and includes utensils napkins straws stirrers lids cup sleeves spill plugs, splash sticks, cocktail sticks, chopsticks, trays, single-use condiments, ketchup, mustard, soy sauce, syrup, sugar, salt, pepper. The representative from, where is he? Wells. That's Taco Bell sauce, buddy. Get ready. Have some of those in your car. Packaging necessary to contain food for delivery, bowls, clamshells, not covered. Styrofoam's not covered because we use those for school cafeterias to put all of our kids' food on every day. So that's not covered. We did hear testimony. We heard testimony from the kids say that in two days they got about 165 restaurants to support it. So why the compulsion to mandate it is the question. Why not a campaign? Why not public education? there's nothing in the law saying that the restaurants that you go to have to put two three ply napkins in your container we have not mandated that we have not said hey with every big mac you got to put five napkins in there and two utensils and a hot mustard sauce we have not done that but now we're going to mandate that they are prohibited from doing it unless you're a big boy or girl and you ask for two napkins so that's what we're going to do in the state of colorado even though 165 restaurants in two days said they were in support of it. Now, the question should have been, are you in support of the $500 fine after the first warning, and then the second fine, and then the third fine, and then fine after fine after fine? Because I'm wondering if these students, when they went and talked to the businesses, if the businesses were okay getting fined, if their teenage employee that just started working there happened to put a napkin into the bag without the customer asking for the napkin for their Big Mac. Or the temporary worker did that. So is the temporary worker being fined the $500? Is the Grubhub driver getting fined the $500? Is the business getting fined the $500? And that's what happens when you don't have good mentorship and we bring a bill forward to save the environment and not thinking about the repercussions onto the businesses. So with that, I move Amendment L-014 to Senate Bill 146 and ask for it to be displayed. One moment. Taco Bell sauce. Out. Out. L-14 has been properly displayed. Rep. Bradley. Hey, let's incentivize. Let's learn a new word in this establishment. incentivize instead of mandate and regulate and regulations and all those good things that you guys love let's do a shall or a may elect to let's do an opt-in since all the businesses and the teenagers testified that all the businesses just love to do this and they're going to do it and they just love it so much let's just do a may elect to and then let's let the free market work and and if people are being bad bad environmental justice people then you can say this business handed out two napkins and we had to throw those two napkins away or three soy sauces and man that was cluttering our drawers and they deserve a $500 penalty then we are not going to go eat at Little Holly's and instead we're going to go to JP's who does not give consumer soy sauce unless they ask and we will not have to find them for that soy sauce let's let the free market work and let's let the businesses opt in since we are the sixth most regulated state. I wonder if the kids on COIAC knew... that we're the sixth most regulated state, that we're strangling the businesses, and that we're going to fine them if they don't do this. And in the bill, we're also opting out school cafeterias because they're exempted from law. But back in the day when I was, before COVID and all these crazy experimental things came forward, I was eating off of utensils that we would then run through the little school washer. and then the next group would eat from utensils and we didn't have a bunch of plastic forks that we threw away. So maybe we get back to the good old days and we let businesses elect to do this. The teenagers also said we're saving the businesses so much money. They're coming in to save the businesses so much money because the businesses haven't thought of this. They haven't thought that maybe if we limit ketchup packets and condiments, maybe we could save money. We needed some people to come in and tell us we need to mandate this so we can save our businesses money, and boy, they came in to save us. Please vote yes on this amendment to opt in. I know that we don't do that under the Golden Dome. We like to regulate and mandate businesses, but hey, maybe with eight days left of session, we'll actually stop strangling the small businesses in the state and give them a choice. Thank you. Rhett Froelich. Thank you, Madam Chair. Of course, restaurants can right now. She wants you to say it with a southern accent. Oh. Okay. No, thanks. But anyway, so restaurants can currently do this. Of course, they can currently not give you things you don't want, or they can ask you what you want and do this. The point of the bill is really to level the playing field so that the restaurants that don't do this are not penalized by restaurants who are throwing five ketchup packets, and that becomes the norm. So we want a state-level common practice where all consumers and customers start to shift their behavior. This is an ask, so the restaurant either asks you, would you like ketchup, or you say, may I have ketchup, please. So it's consumer-based, customer-based, and the plastic bag law is a great example, where if we did that optionally, it would never have happened. But once it was a law, people changed their behavior. They grumbled, grumbled, grumbled, and then behavior changes, and we grossly reduced our plastic waste because of that. We asked for a no vote. We are on L14, 2L14. Repluck. Thank you, Madam Chair. So in this bill, there is a reference to 25-17-507, which is the enforcement provision that was created under a different bill related to a similar topic. And it's interesting because in that particular enforcement section, the counties have the ability to decide whether to enforce this particular law. They have the ability to say, nope, we're not really going to go forward in enforcing this. And so in many ways, we're not actually changing the status quo in this state by this bill. We're still basically keeping May elect to the standard because there'll be a number of counties, just like with the plastic bag situation who don enforce Who won go around and fine their food service providers for giving somebody a fork without being asked And so I think it a curious argument to say that we standardizing the rules across the state when there is a very clear exception that allows for these counties to opt out. And I'll make note that there are already jurisdictions who do this. Breckenridge, Boulder I believe is either there or close to being there, Denver County itself. And so I don't see why making this change is problematic because in essence, that's what is going to happen in most of these jurisdictions anyway. On L14? Okay, rep to graph. All right. The sponsor wants me to talk to the amendment because that's on the jumbotron. All right. So may elect two. I don't know that there's a – is there a law that's requiring that – do we have some sort of agency that goes and enforces and says you must put seven ketchup packs and two mustards and a family of five worth of plasticware? Is there a reason that they have to? I mean, there's some sort of CDPHE law behind this. So if the restaurants are all in favor of this, if they're all in favor, then they can do it. and they could do it just based on just purely on election, and they could say, I know sometimes when you go to a hotel, it'll say, hey, if you want to participate in this program, just leave your towel hanging on the hook, and then we'll leave it there for you for the next day, and you can save the plan. Or, of course, the purpose of it is really just to save them some money, which is fine, but you can do that voluntarily. You don't have to be voluntold. So, why not just make this optional? And you could say instead of, so this would just override what must be in the Colorado statute that says all of these, that the current Colorado statute requirements to add all of these things would just have basically a Colorado statute said, you may elect to not do all of these things. Because if they want to already, then you don't have to add the compelled, you don't have to add the compulsion behind it. You don't have to have somebody in the background monitoring and snitching on everybody. So, yeah, this is an easy amendment because I think we should just get rid of the part of the Colorado revised statute that compels the addition of condiments and plastic ware into a bag of food. and once that law is gone, then it's all optional. And so we just give permission for people to do the thing that they want to do, which seems like it's a win-win. Having the compulsion aspect behind it is a little bit surprising to me when it's something that people want to do. So a little confused as to why this would not be taken other than just the desire to compel people to do your bidding We on L14 Is there any further discussion A division has been called. The committee will go into... What is the division called? If you would like to withdraw the division, can you please state so on the record? Rep. Bradley. In the spirit of Cinco de Mayo, I withdraw my division. Okay. Is there any further discussion on L14? Okay, a division has been called. The committee will go into a brief recess. The committee will come back to order. Rep. Bottoms. While we're waiting on everybody to get back in the room, I do want to address this because when we discuss this in committee, this bill was started by some teenagers, which is not a negative thing. In fact, I appreciated them coming down and speaking. I appreciated them testifying. But we did ask questions like, are you okay with the state doing this? And they said yes. So you're okay with the state mandating this? Yes. Do you think that this is the job of the state? They said, yes, if the state doesn't mandate this, the restaurants won't do it. And then they said, but we got 165 restaurants on board to do it. But if you don't mandate it, they won't do it. And I guarantee you, they didn't tell those 165 restaurants that there was going to be a $500 or $1,000 fine for this. The restaurants were saying, this is a good idea. and I do think it's a good idea. This is already happening in many places. Maybe not here in Denver but down in Colorado Springs if you order something you you order whether you want utensils or not. That's part of the that's part of the question. Do you want condiments? I made the huge mistake of going through Taco Bell recently and they asked me do you want sauce. And I looked back to the 20 years ago and I thought, I remember I liked that. So I said, yes. And, uh, they, they asked me, it wasn't a given that they were going to put all that stuff in there. So there's a lot of places already doing this. It's a, it's an affront to the restaurants to, to say, Hey, this is a good idea. And you present this to them and they go, Oh yeah, we're all on board. And then we say, okay, good. Then we're going to find you if you don't. That's extremely disingenuous That unhealthy to the restaurant industry But this is part of the same thing that we always do in this room We attack small business We continue to attack small business This state, if you look at it from the outside, you would assume that every person in this state hates small businesses. This is very unhealthy for us, but we just continue to regulate, fine, fee, all kinds of things to continue to shut down small business. that this small business, especially something like a food truck or something like that, you find them a thousand dollars that takes. Thanks, Matt. That takes a lot of that takes a lot of things. A thousand dollar fine would harm them. And some food trucks are so much on the wire that it could really hinder them or even put them out of the business. we just attack small business so much so much when do when does this stop when do we stop attacking businesses when do we stop feeing fining taxing when do we stop doing this this bill is just another bill you could have stopped you could have stopped with the first thing and made it a a suggestion that's what the that's what the amendment is is you just take the first half of the bill and say, well, we're going to make this a suggestion. Businesses, we're going to get behind you and help you say, would you like to request something? Sure. I have no problem with that. I still think it's overreach, but I have no problem with that because I think a lot of businesses are already wanting that to happen. But then to say, oh, wait, this business doesn't agree with it. We're going to beat you down with a fine. Oh, this business doesn't agree with it? We're going to try to destroy your business with a fine. This business doesn't agree with it? We're going to mandate this with some kind of enforcement group that's now going to be created by the state to walk around like the condiment police and attack these businesses. Why do we keep doing that stuff? It just hurts businesses. Well, you You better step in line with the state of Colorado's mandates. You better step in line with this new police force we're going to have to police condiments and forks. You better step in line. If not, we will destroy you. Because it's not about the business. It's not about the money. It's not about the environment. It is about control. Control from the head down. It's called Marxism. we are still on amendment l14 aml winter thank you and i also agree with part of it and that's the part that restaurants are already doing but at the end of the day when we talk about business this is a business savings for them first and foremost to say would you like these utensils i just looked up and i think for a case of single use it's around i think it was a couple hundred and that's for only 950 sets. So if you look at especially a big restaurant, as many sets as they'd be putting out. So I think there's also some business incentive for businesses to do this on their own with everything that they're facing. If they're not having to put that cutlery set at 95 cents, 65 cents, whatever it is in the bag, or they're not having to put those packets in there, that's cost savings for them because they're having to buy those to put those in there. So I think in the business environment that we're in already, the businesses are self-governing and they are doing this. So, I mean, the concept of what the bill is trying to get done, I think, is already being done. I think it behooves businesses at this point being in the sixth most regulated state in the nation to make cutbacks wherever they have. And if you do 500 orders, and out of the 500 orders you only end up having to put 100 sets of utensils in, that's a big cost saving day after day after day. So I urge an aye vote on this amendment. Rip Wilford. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to offer members that I'm going to vote no on this amendment. I appreciate what my colleagues are trying to do here in terms of making the bill permissive, but I think that ultimately misses the mark of what we're trying to accomplish here. if one of us were to order in food and we made the assumption that there would be utensils included because we didn't ask and we get our food and there are no utensils, but then we order next week from a small business and we get utensils, then we're constantly like, are we going to get them, are we not going to get them? And so I think what is the intent of this bill is to really ensure that across the board, people know what to expect. They know that they're not going to get anything outside of the food that they have ordered. And if there is anything else that they want, that they have to ask for it. And I think that that is ultimately fair because businesses can't read the minds of their consumers and what they want or expect in the bags. I think that's on us as consumers to ask the businesses for what we want and what we need. So I would encourage a no vote on this amendment. Rep de Graff. All right. So following up on my constituent. Well, he is in Colorado and all of Colorado. I consider a constituent. But if you're looking at $0.10 per and you're looking at maybe five of those in a bag, if you were going to put in for a family meal, $0.50, we're already talking on the order of what we started with, with talking about the money savings with the fees, the credit card swipe fees. So if you give the permission, obviously we're saying that these businesses are hurting because this room is killing these businesses all the time. I mean, and when we say you're killing it, it's not a good thing. I mean, it just means you're killing it. All business, you're killing it. Reptograph, we're on amendment L14. Me too. and so but bottom line is this is just giving these businesses the ability to save as much or more than the swipe fees that you're concerned about so i'm not sure why we need to impose this and put a whole nother layer of law in the crs just to be kind i know i know you're just like we're like languishing at number six, and I'm not sure who's ahead of us anymore. I don't know how anybody could be ahead of us. And I know the General Assembly's true desire is to be the number one most regulatory body in the United States, if not the world, since we're incorporating all of their regulations as well. But this amendment just allows them and just says, hey, you can save the equivalent of swipe fees on this on this and with absolute permission of the state, and the state will not come after you for saving that money. So this is a great amendment, voluntary, the compliance, giving permission to not do that. And at this point, everybody should just assume that the cutlery is not going to be included. That just a small cultural shift So yes on this amendment The question before us is the adoption of L A division has been requested All those in the chamber not entitled to vote please sit and remain seated All those in favor of amendment L-14, please stand and remain standing in one place or raise your hand and keep it raised until the count is taken. Thank you. People need to not be walking around, please. Please just stay in one place. You may be seated. All those opposed, please stand and remain standing in one place, or raise your hand and keep it raised until the count is taken. You may be seated. L14 is lost to the bill is there any further discussion Rep Flanel Thank you Madam Chair I do question how is this bill going to be enforced because are we going to have a sting operation where people pretend or maybe they order food from Uber or a restaurant and then it's like oh I got a napkin or I got like a ketchup packet and I'm going to, you know, turn this over to the state. I don't even know how this is going to be enforceable. But I guess that's a concern for the bill sponsor. I do ask, I move amendment 015 and ask that it properly be displayed since you guys did not accept 014. Hello. Amendment L015 is displayed. Representative Flannell to the amendment. Thank you. So I think that in order for there to be a fine on a business, I think that there should be a violation within, I don't think that, well, let me rephrase. I don think that there should be multiple violations within a month I think that one month if there one violation or if there two violations that it should count as one strike and that there needs to be three strikes within three months, whether it's consecutive or it's not, before there is a fee imposed. And the reason why I think that this is a reasonable amendment is because there are people that are making, let's say sandwiches, and they're just kind of doing it sort of, you know, sort of by muscle memory. And the minute that they're done making that sandwich, they throw in a napkin. I don't think that a restaurant should be penalized because somebody is, they have that muscle memory of just instinctively throwing in a napkin or throwing in some utensils with that food. And in addition to that, there's going to be, I think we need to give restaurants some grace because there's going to be a little bit of, you know, some training period before the staff gets to know what those rules are and before they, you know, kind of break out of that habit of including napkins. And then I also think that we need to give just Colorado in general some time to catch up with what the law is. I can't help but think, you know, as a small business owner myself, and if somebody isn't completely met with 100% expectations. So if somebody is expecting to get utensils or ketchup with their fries and they don't, I can't help but think that it's going to result in a bad review. And so I think that this kind of gives everybody sort of the chance to catch up with what that law is, but also prevent restaurants from getting fined just because a staffer is used to throwing in a napkin. And so I ask for a yes vote. Rep Froelich.

Is there any further discussion on Amendment L015? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption. Representative DeGraff. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Is there any further discussion on Amendment L015 Seeing none the question before is the adoption of Amendment L015 All those in favor say aye All those opposed? Amendment L015 is lost. Rep. Kelty, to the bill.

Rep. Wilfridge.

You know what? If anything, if you try to run that bill, I bet you it would pass, unfortunately. Catch up by burglar catch ups. Alert. No. Honestly, this bill needs to just go away. Let businesses handle everything on their own. We don't need to have more regulations on them. For God's sake, just leave them alone.

Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. You know where I come from, we've got common sense. First they told us we've got to get rid of the plastic bags because we've got to save the whales in the ocean. And I have not seen an ocean very close to where I live. Well, I might have seen one up the other day in Cherry Creek Reservoir. And now they're telling me that I can't have a fork. And I've got to tell you what, this is forking crazy. I have never seen anything like this in my life where we are forking talking about not being able to use utensils. Why can't we just go to Las Vegas where they have that deal where you eat with your hands? Or we can go to Louisiana. No, no, we can't have forks. And I say, fork it, vote no.

I know, we could put a fork in it and call that done, but... How do you follow that So I am really against this because it just more a government imposition on small businesses and quite frankly the consumer There's a restaurant that rhymes with pick till ray, and every time they don't put my fry sauce in, I get really upset. And to think that I would have to ask for fry sauce or tartar sauce or ketchup or mustard or whatever, Or every time instead of I just order my fries and the fry sauce is in there, that would be really frustrating. Here's a really good example. And I bet, I would bet most of you are in this situation. Sunday I got sushi, grocery store sushi, but it was good. And I got home and I had forgotten the soy sauce. But guess what? I had soy sauce packets in my drawer. And I bet most of you have soy sauce packets and ketchup. and even sometimes I pick up extra chopsticks because sometimes they forget to give me chopsticks too. So I've got extra chopsticks in the drawer because sushi with a fork is just not right. I think this should really be up to the business owner and I think in Colorado there are a lot of businesses that are already socially and environmentally conscious and I think there are a lot of individuals who are already socially and environmentally conscious. In fact, the good representative from Douglas County this morning was looking at my reusable bag that I brought in my limes for our lunch. And she's like, oh, I love that bag. I said, it's like 25 years old. This is my second set of reusable bags. I was not compelled to get these cloth bags. I chose to get them, and I love these reusable bags, and I think it matters. I didn't want to have piles of plastic bags in my closet. I think that people can make good choices. Restaurants can make good choices. And they can let people know there's signs on their doors. Please ask for utensils. We don't, I mean, we saw that a lot right around COVID when we started having single use, that people had to ask for straws. People had to ask for utensils. And honestly, I think it's really gross. and I think we'll have a public health concern if people start carrying around their forks and spoons and knives in a little silicone pouch when they go to restaurants. Because not everybody washes their utensils in hot water with soap, and so they'll use their utensils, stick them. How many of you have worked with teenagers? They will stick those forks and knives and spoons back in their little silicone pouch. They'll lick them clean, then they'll bring them out for their next meal at Arby's or Carby's or wherever. and I think that could be a health concern. So one final concern is that I think it does disproportionately affect some of our poor people because some of them, if they are living in their cars, if they are living couch surfing, they sometimes rely on those utensils because that is their life. They don't have space and storage for hardware, hard silverware, and so they use plasticware and that is really important. And again, to think that a restaurant has to ask or that a consumer has to ask for their plasticware every time I think puts people in an awkward position. So I think there's a lot of reasons that this bill just doesn't make sense. Number one, it's government imposition on what should be individual's choice to be socially and environmentally conscious about asking for it. but also the restaurant position for saying if you don want it please let us know Otherwise we going to give them to you because we know that it provides a service And again you all know how valuable those soy sauce and ketchup packets are in your drawers when you don't have to ask for them, and they're just there. I urge a no vote.

Y'all play too much. You can't just come up here and thank you, Madam Chair. Fork it, vote no, best line of the day. You know, it's a very special bill when you take an extreme left Democrat and bring it together to vote no with an extreme right Republican. God bless you for bringing the world together, Representative. Thank you for bringing the world together to vote no on your bill. That's amazing. So, you know, when we heard testimony, I couldn't help but think about all the kids that testified for this bill that were talking about how much they grub hub. And I sat there listening, thinking, man, I must be the meanest mom ever that I don't let my kids grub hub or Uber Eats because of how expensive it is. But these kids, man, they were talking about grub hub in like three, four or five times a week. And so I thought to myself, man, we are just not in touch with what's going on in some of our other districts when we're testifying about how much we grub hub. So I asked them also, did you talk to any food trucks? Did you go to any farmers markets? Did you talk to any of these businesses about the penalties or how you guys do business or any of that? All 165 restaurants that they petitioned were Asian food restaurants, just for the record. They didn't go to any food trucks. They didn't go to any farmer's markets. They didn't come to Douglas County and talk to any of my restaurants. They were all Asian food restaurants. So we talked to the mayor of Boulder because she came to testify and gave some really good expert testimony. And in lieu of that, I move L012 to Senate Bill 146 and ask for it to be displayed.

out these amendments early let's see about nine o'clock so the representative was going to run it up the food chain. Her words, not mine. We want to carve out because farmers markets and roadside markets were in this bill under stores. We looked up the statute. And a lot of the farmers markets are run by retirees, grandparents, people that just want to make a little extra money on the weekends. And we feel like they shouldn't be susceptible to this, especially if there was no stakeholder with those people. So why not carve them out and start with maybe just the restaurants around town since we say that those are the ones that want to conform to this mandate. So this is a simple amendment to ask for the farmers markets and roadside markets to be carved out. I don't know that they probably hand out tons of different things, but the last thing we want or for these people to be shut down with a $500 fine, a $1,000 fine. I see my representative that produces honey is coming up to talk about this as well. There no reason not to carve them out There no reason to invoke a penalty like this when the people that did the stakeholding of this didn even go and talk to the people that this is going to affect We only went to Asian restaurants and asked them how they felt about this bill. We had kids from Cherry Creek that talked about Grubhub and how much they get from Grubhub. We didn't talk to the retirees. We didn't talk to the farmer's market. We didn't even talk to food truck people. So I would like to carve them out. These are people trying to make a little extra money in their retirement, people trying to pay for maybe car repair, people just trying to make ends meet in this economy that has us all trying to live above the red line. I urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is really important, actually, for farmers' markets especially. And I was even thinking about those big box stores that give you samples too. But at farmers' markets, we often will have samples of things. And, you know, especially like with honey, you can use a little plastic dipper. Again, I mean, I'm thinking even beyond farmers' markets now. This amendment is really important. But, like, there's an ice cream shop where it has, like, 30 or 32 or something flavors. and you go in and you sample, they give you a little pink plastic spoon to try samples and they don't want to double dip so you keep getting new spoons. But again, when you go to a farmer's market or a roadside stand and you want to sample things, you don't want to have to use hardware because who wants to wash all that many spoons and forks and knives in a dish soap pan next to the road or at a farmer's market? So this is actually a really helpful amendment I urge a yes on this.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I, too, come up here in support of this amendment. At farmers markets and events like that, you know, one of the things, the reasons why they have individually wrapped items is because they're out in the open. They're out with a lot of people. And it's just a sanitation thing to do. You know, coming out of the COVID era, you know, we realize that we need to have a lot of germ protection. I mean, people don't want to get sick. I don't want someone coughing and hacking on open plasticware. So I'm appreciative of something that is wrapped and in a little bundle and ready for me to use. And if, again, going back to the fines, if someone at the farmer's market, a farmer's market, Well, they may make only a couple hundred dollars for that day or even the weekend, and then you have a complaint, and now that poor farmer or whoever's selling at the farmer's market is not going to be slapped with a $500 fine. We need to use common sense. This amendment actually helps bring a little bit to this bill. if we want to actually care about germ protection, food protection, sanitation, we need to carve this part out. I'm asking for a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Also, another discussion is county fairs, state fairs. I mean, the farmer's market option is huge, especially a lot of the vegetable and fruit growers. They sell, you know, you get a watermelon or cantaloupe that gets ripe. They cut that up, they sell that at the market out of a cool always comes with something, but I tend to think about the county fairs and the state fairs and how this will affect those vendors there. If you get an overzealous government official or whoever is going to be walking through and watching this transaction between a business and somebody where they don't see somebody ask if they want a spoon or a fork. So just thinking about all of those different types of events in this state, I mean, we had Cinco de Mayo here last weekend wanting to know how it might even affect that event. You know, we would say that we wouldn't put government past doing things like this, but I'm sure you've all seen the clip of here in Denver County where there was somebody selling food, and I don't know if it didn't meet a temperature or they didn't have the right license, so the Denver County health official literally bleach imported and all of this food kind of became viral on the Internet. But I wonder, you know, we say that government entities, whoever it may be, wouldn't do things like this. But, like, after seeing that video, I lost a lot of faith in how things work. So I just don't know how this would affect fares and farmers' markets. So I urge a yes on this.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I didn't want to get in the way of the sponsor saying she loved this amendment. I also rise in support of this amendment. Members, Colorado has many retail food establishments. Some look like what you and I think of. They're brick and mortar, tables and chairs. But there's a lot of other creative takes on that as well. For example, our farmers markets, our fairs, our roadside fruit and vegetable stands. We have done a lot in this state to try to protect our farmers markets and our roadside fruit and vegetable stands and our fairs. I think about Palisades Farmer's Market, which was, by the way, just named by USA Today as America's best farmer's market. and you can buy a peach, and if you don't get a napkin with your peach, you're going to be pretty miserable because picked at the height of ripeness, it's going to be very juicy, especially something like Globe Haven, Red Haven, Alberta. They're just really juicy, and you want to make sure you have a napkin with that as well. Likewise, you're going to be buying different things from different vendors, whether it's eating. And you might like to have some of those condiments or a fork, a napkin, a plate to go with that. It's inferred by the business transaction that you will be receiving things that are customary. And the fact that Meals on Wheels, for example, is included in here, hospitals, nursing homes. I mean, we don't expect a patient in a hospital to say, oh, I specifically want to have a napkin and could I get some ketchup on the side and have a knife or a fork. Same thing at a farmer's market. I mean the minute you walk away and then you go oh shoot I really could have used some utensils a napkin maybe some condiments to go with it That something to where to punish that vendor with an egregious fine is pretty mind-boggling, to tell you the truth. We should be looking for every way possible to help promote Colorado agriculture, our farmers, our agricultural products, and specifically calling out on page four, farmers markets and roadside markets, your Cottage Food Act kitchens, so your at-home kitchens, as being specifically included in here when there's a long list of items that are already not included within the bill. We have already carved out a number of industries from the bill. For example, hotels are also carved out. I mean, someone who's probably staying at a hotel would be a little bit more sophisticated in terms of knowing that they're going to have to ask for things because they're traveling than someone who is going to a roadside stand or a farmer's market. I mean, those are different levels of expectations that you have there, but yet it's the same type of transaction. We, you know, it's an arbitrary parsing out of what's so magical about a hotel versus a farmer's market. What makes that so special that one gets to be carved out, but the other one doesn't? And that's why this amendment is incredibly helpful. I will be in full support and thank the sponsor for the amendment.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Folks, the whole point of this is that there's a conversation that takes place. Would you like X? May I please have Y? And you can get a fork, you can get a fork, nobody's taking away your fork, you can have a ketchup packet. If you are a suburban white lady like me, then you are legally obligated to dip everything in ranch dressing. you're very accustomed to asking for ranch. If you're a ketchupist, you are very accustomed to getting packets of ketchup thrown at you. This bill is just about a dialogue, and that dialogue takes place all the time at the farmer's market where consumers are selecting what utensils they would like. And did we talk to farmer's market? You bet. Talk to food trucks, farmer's market, and guess who's registered in opposition? Nobody, not even the Restaurant Association, not even the American Chemical Council. So ask for a no on this amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And those are all interesting arguments, but they lend to the particular question of why then are there exceptions in this bill? Right? If it is as you say, then why not add to the exception list or get rid of all exceptions and just make it apply to everyone equally?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Right. So in one sentence we say we need statewide regulation so there's a clear policy for all. But if you turn to page four in the bill, let's talk about all the people that we don't regulate. hotels Sorry wrong page There a whole carve out for a bunch of different meals provided to patients or residents of a health facility licensed or certified by the department School cafeterias I know somebody says because it already in law Meals provided as part of a social service program directed at serving one or more vulnerable populations such as school children and low-income eligible households. Meals provided to guests staying at a hotel, lodging house, or rooming house. Single-use food services are intended to prevent spills as provided by a retail food establishment. You can't come up here and say we need statewide clear policy and then carve people out. that is hypocritical in nature. You can't say the rule's for thee but not for me and then carve a bunch of people out in this bill. You either say it's a statewide policy or you don't. Period. End of sentence. You don't have two pages of carve-outs.

I like the idea of having this nice conversation between the individual going to the store or the restaurant and whether or not they want this. And then it turns into the conversation just kind of becomes less nice, however, when there is the force of law behind it and the threat of fees. And again, what is the enforcement behind this? What is the enforcement mechanism? Is it just whatever time a law enforcement orders something that it becomes part of an investigation? So let's just make – this is – I know we're spending a ridiculous amount of time on a ridiculous bill, but this is the kind of stuff that adds to the regulation of Colorado, and it makes it untenable to do business here.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It was brought to my attention. One other reason for why this amendment is so important. We look to law to make sense and to be logical. And when we struggle, that's because there's not necessarily a logic to the nexus of what the exceptions are. I understand the exceptions being hospitals, long-term health care facilities, meals on wheels, because that's probably someone who's a shut-in. Those individuals may have difficulties asking for forks, napkins, so it's included. However, someone at a hotel, that's a little bit different. Why are they excluded? The amendment brings more clarity to that because in particular, farmer's market, roadside stand, there's a lot going on there. And if you're putting together kind of a package, let's say you're selling singular peaches and it includes a couple of napkins, it takes time to have to wait for, would you like a napkin? Yes, I would. May I please have a napkin? Not really something you want because you know that person is going to need a napkin. Why have that conversation? But what I don't see in the bill that is really troubling is something that really carves out individuals who are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act. So someone for example who mute who can talk someone who is blind who doesn realize what the change of law is maybe something been posted Those are individuals that I worry about by this not being specifically touched upon for individuals with an ADA-recognized disability. because those individuals will have difficulty asking. And if our nexus is to carve out places where those individuals might be, a hospital, a long-term care facility, a shut-in requiring Meals on Wheels, then we need to go one step further and also recognize other places where those individuals also might be. They're going to be at our farmer's markets. They're also going to be buying from someone who's taking advantage of the Cottage Food Act, for example, a tamale. And they probably would like to have a fork and a napkin and maybe a paper plate, maybe some hot sauce. I have heard from some of our colleagues that that's very much essential. And without this amendment, there has to be that additional conversation. It's like going to the grocery store and forgetting your reusable bag. All of a sudden it's a moment where you're like, no, I certainly hope the grocery store has a paper bag for me to buy at 10 cents or more, or another reusable bag, probably $4 or $5 or more. Otherwise, hopefully you buy enough things, or few things, that you can carry them out with your two hands. I do appreciate using less, being really mindful. I think that that should be a goal of everyone, to reduce our waste. and so I really do think the sponsors do come from a good position here. But even in the plastic bag ban, we exempted farmers markets and roadside stands. And all we're asking is that farmers markets and roadside stands be exempted from this bill as well. There's plenty of reasons for why that's a good exemption. It's pretty tough to say when you're actually at a roadside stand. My brother and I used to sell corn, albeit we didn't have the butter and salt to go along with it. You had to do that at home. But when things are really busy, I mean, you are selling very quickly. I mean, people are very excited about our Colorado agricultural products. And to have to stop and to have an additional conversation back and forth when it's something that has always been inferred in the transaction that's included. It's part of this business transaction that's there. I mean, if you're buying, for example, it is popular at farmers markets to have roasted corn. And so when you're buying that, you're kind of inferring that the butter and salt comes with it. And a napkin, because it can be quite messy and your hands get quite oily. And so that has been inferred as one whole contract, not parsing it out, not government stepping in and dividing up the contractual terms to really have a secondary contract that has to take place. It's not just a barter for exchange. I ask for whatever good that I'm buying, now law is telling me I have to have a second contract take place. And that, I'm afraid, could even violate the contracts clause in the Constitution. you knew where I was going I'm glad a few people are listening so it's fraught certainly with multiple layers where it's ripe for being challenged whether it's under the ADA and there's no provision for carving out individuals who are disabled who maybe can't talk. Whether it's the contracts clause and the government forcing a secondary contract to have to take place. Because what happens if the retailer says, no, I'm not giving you a napkin or ranch dressing or paper plate. I only have to provide the food. As a customer, you can come in with everything else. They could do that. because we've now forced the separation of what was one whole contract now into two different contracts. And everyone should be very mindful of those two reasons for why there's weaknesses here. I would hope that there would be more stakeholder work that would be done to really look at these specific issues. I understand why certain individuals carved themselves out completely. If I'm the hotel and lodging industry, I would have done the same thing. It's kind of mind-boggling that they are the ones that came and carved themselves out. If you're staying in a hotel, you're probably pretty sophisticated in terms of at least having to know what's going on in the world. For all those reasons, I am once again in full support of the amendment and would ask for a yes vote.

Rub the grass to the bill. Okay. So we have another bill that accomplishes nothing except more regulation. Here's an idea that was specifically banned, and I've just been looking up some numbers on it. And there the idea of waste to energy Now last year we talked about paralysis of using a lot of energy to create a little bit of energy Incredible waste of it but it made people feel good So just wanted to throw out for all the tree huggers here that there is a process of waste to energy. Some places use it and it reduces your landfill requirement probably about 80 to 90 percent. And in the end, because you end up generating electricity and heat and then reducing the hydrocarbons to ash, and then you can also create, liberate a lot of additional recyclable materials. So if you clean the recycled material first out of it, what you can, pull out the aluminum, you pull out the glass, you pull out anything that you can, and then you burn the rest, and then you create. And then you liberate another level of recyclables. So for every ton of landfill that is converted in waste to energy, you actually save about 1.1 to 3.5 tons of CO2. So the absolute best scenario here is to just burn it. Convert those hydrocarbons that are the actual materials that in this, whether the paper or the plastic, That can be used to generate electricity. And when you actually do those things, you actually say you generate power, you reduce waste, and you free up a recycling stream. So if you actually want to create a solution as opposed to just more impositions on people for the sake of controlling every aspect of their life, then waste to energy is an actual solution, but interestingly one that was banned by this body.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to run Amendment 017 to Senate Bill 146 and ask it to be properly displayed. I move, sorry.

After talking to a couple of my friends that own businesses, they were just wondering if I could exempt my House District. There's been so many exemptions within the bill. They were just hoping in the spirit of exemptions that we could exempt House District 47. And with that, I urge an aye vote.

Rep. Wilford. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. On behalf of House District 34, I request a no vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As this only pertains to House District 47, I am also going to request a no vote on this. This seems very specific and only pertaining to one part of the state, so I am also going to request a no vote on this.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And being able to talk about the whole state and something that going to affect them I move L018 to Senate Bill 146 and ask that it be broadly displayed Make it bigger.

I urge a yes vote for this. When we do policy that affects the entire state, when we have voices coming and saying our areas don't want it, if people want this, do it as a local effort. Do it as a county effort. I can speak that all seven of my counties don't want this. When we saw the plastic bag ban, our small businesses and our farmers markets were getting yelled at because people don't know it's coming from this building. Instead, it caused a lot of disagreements on the businesses, on the people. And when they tried to explain it's not because of us, they said, you're the one enforcing it. You're the one we see. We're going to yell at you. Let's listen to the people who have different districts. Let's listen and stop doing one size fit all on behalf of House District 63. I urge a yes to carve us out of something that we do not want to participate in.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, as this only pertains to House District 63, I'm going to request a no vote on this amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And as we all are here elected to represent our specific districts, if another district feels like they don't want this, they can come forth and make that known. but we should stop including the entire state on things that are a band-aid fix, a one-size-fit-all, more mandates, just for our small businesses, just for our farmers, just for all the businesses and all the organizations to be the ones that get yelled at.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. So I guess some folks want to work on Mother's Day. You'll be ordering in to the Capitol. We're in Denver, where they already have skipped the stuff law, so you'll have to specifically ask for your forks. So please vote no, and let's skip the stuff. Is there any further discussion on Amendment L-018?

Thank you, Madam Chair. In the spirit of today and all things with this bill, I move L019 and ask for it to be properly broadly displayed. You know what?

I feel this amendment is absolutely ridiculous, and it's as ridiculous as I feel, that the fines that we are putting on to the small businesses here in Colorado. My amendment says, and I want to exempt an individual with blonde hair, blue eyes, with German-Scottish heritage, who loves cats. Is it ridiculous? Yes. Is it something that we should vote for? No. And I asking also for you to vote no on this bill in spirit of protecting our businesses from being fined and fined to the oblivion when they don deserve to be Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And with that, so I've had a colleague down here asking to vote no on many of the amendments that we've brought. and I think my good colleague, I can smell what he's cooking, so I would like to move L020 to Senate Bill 146 and ask that it be properly displayed. Amendment L020 is displayed.

You know, in the, like I said, the spirit of bipartisanship, my colleague has been coming up and asking for no votes for carving out specific House districts, but I figured if I carved out Southern Colorado, I could get some bipartisan support on this. So with that, I urge a yes vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is an amendment I can support. This is Southern Colorado, so I urge a yes vote on Amendment L20.

Madam Chair, I would urge a no, unless this amendment had an amendment to it because when some areas ask for a yes, we should also acknowledge the other areas that ask for a yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Amendment L021 and ask that it be properly displayed.

So, as I mentioned before, America's number one farmer's market is west of the Continental Divide, but since we couldn't do a direct exemption, this exempts all districts west of the Continental Divide. It's really important in Colorado's farm and ranch country on the West Slope that we also get our carve out. I mean, we're just like any other industry. I mean, I know you worked with the hotel association to get their carve-out, the hospital association to get their carve-out. All the West Slope is asking for is our carve-out. And we're a pretty big industry within Colorado. We may only be roughly one-eighth of the state's population. But the residents who live in western Colorado, if you look at them as an industry in and of themselves, We are bigger than the hotel industry, or bigger than the hospital association, or bigger than Meals on Wheels, all of them got their carve-out. We're asking on the Western Slope for our carve-out as well, and to be treated just like the other industries that got their carve-out from the bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I urge you, yes, vote.

I wanted to share with you today that I have a gift. Oh, no. I have a gift that I can read minds. You just ordered takeout. I did. And you're thinking, I would love 11 ketchup packets, six forks, and a mountain of napkins. No, I just wanted one fork. Okay, okay, wait. Now I'm getting... Yep, yep. You're thinking, please, give me a lifetime supply of soy sauce that I'll put in a drawer and never use. this is clear now this is clear yes you're thinking yes I absolutely need utensils for the salad I'm eating at home with my own silverware in my own kitchen fucking no hold on one second I have to recognize you before

Almost like we shouldn't be guessing What people want

Exactly because when we guess

We get waste Vote yes on the bill

I'm not sure how to follow that, but I'm going to try. No, that's okay. Yeah, I'm not going to do any duets. I've had enough of those the last couple days, so running solo. Appreciate the thought, though. So yesterday in committee we did, as has been mentioned numerous times, hear from students. And these students have some good ideas. They made some good points. One student said, quote, when things are free, people take more than they need. I laughed out loud thinking of other conversations we've had in this building around health care and other stuff where that piece of wisdom could be applied to a good effect, I dare say. This idea, this idea in and of itself is a good idea. It's a good idea that restaurants not anticipate what people desire, but instead ask. We heard from a representative out of Boulder explaining that they did a study of 287 restaurants and found that there a 70 roughly annual savings assuming that they get customers who only ask for these things 20 of the time These restaurants can save that much money. It's a good idea. It's a good idea for our environment that these restaurants have a policy by which they don't automatically fill your bag with items, but either lay out items that you could take or inquire with you as to which items you desire. It's a good idea. It makes sure that people get things that they want and will use. If they're not getting things they don't want and won't use, we're just going to throw away items that they received. All of that is a great idea. One of my struggles with this building is, though, the Good Idea Fairy. The Good Idea Fairy comes along with all of these grand ideas and then seeks to use the power of government to enforce them. And that's where, for me, I diverge from this bill. Does this good idea raise to the level of government compulsion? Right, to the gun. Or is it a good idea such that it'll just be adopted in community and can be? We heard from a representative from a culinary foundation who put out an email or put out a request to members and within two days received 100 responses back that said, yeah, we support this idea. We support the idea of not proactively providing all of these different supplies at a higher cost to us and with a recognition that many of them will end up in the trash can or unused. We support that idea. The student who brought this forward, she too had taken two ideas to connect with area businesses, area restaurants, and 65 restaurateurs said, hey, this is a good idea. In two days, 165 entities were like, yeah, we're on board. imagine what a week or two of calling the area chambers of commerce and floating this idea might result in we heard from some restaurateurs who said we love this idea please pass this law my question is well what's keeping you from doing it already is there a law that i didn't know about that keeps you from providing all of these things. If you think it's a great idea and it's a cost savings and it's fire mentally friendly, market yourself that way and go and do. I encourage it. I'm one of those people who, when folks start to put stuff in the bag, I'm like, no, no, no, no, no, no. Thanks. Here, let me give this all back to you. Here, you take it out so that it doesn't end up in the trash because I touched it, right? Health, food standards, all the rest. but the reaction, the response to that came down to a couple things. One, there was a fear, a fear that if they didn't provide all of these different goodies that customers had come to expect that there would be complaints and they would lose business and so they desired for us in this room to be the bad guy Here you guys impose. You be the fall guy. So that when there is a... You might get comfortable, I have a few more things to say. But they want us to be the bad ones. So that when their customer goes in and says, hey, why didn't you give me my traditional XYZ that you've given to me for the last 30 years when I've come to your business? Oh, well, that state legislature, they're at it again. Those people always meddling in, right? And it becomes a local conversation. Everybody's all up in arms. You know what I'm talking about. instead of it being a conversation about hey you know what small businesses we're struggling we also are conscientious about the future we want to make sure that we are being good stewards of our money so we're not increasing your costs because we have these increased costs providing stuff that people throw out and we want to make sure it doesn't end up in landfills it's a beautiful opportunity to teach and I bet you a lot of people after their rah-rah-rah is over

Is there any further discussion on Senate Bill 146? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 146. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. Senate Bill 146 is adopted. Mr. Sheba, please read the title of Senate Bill 26113.

Representative McCormick. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 113, the Finance Committee Report, and the Health and Human Services Committee Report.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In Finance Committee, we did bring an amendment in response to the Judicial Department to make things more clear. And with that, I move L018 to the Finance Committee Report and ask that it be properly displayed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. L018 just further clarifies for the Judicial Department that they are not contracting with unlicensed recovery residences. and that they can still set their own terms of procurement when they are choosing recovery residents. And this is upon request from judicial. We urge and I vote on L-18.

Brett McCormick.

I move that we accept the Finance Report as amended.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. In Health and Human Services, we made some technical changes. We also made sure that Oxford Homes are included in this new arrangement with the BHA and clarified some definitions, and we urge an aye vote on the Health and Human Services Committee report.

amendment L016 is displayed representative Bradley to the amendment thank you madam chair

Brad Carter.

Rob Bradley.

Are there any further discussion on Amendment L016? None. The question before us is the adoption of Amendment L016. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. Amendment L016 is lost. To the Health and Human Services Report.

Is there any further discussion on the Health and Human Services Committee Report? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of the Health and Human Services Committee report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The Health and Human Services report is adopted. Representative McCormick to the bill.

Rep. Carter.

Is there any further discussion on Senate Bill 113? Seeing none, the question before is the adoption of Senate Bill 113. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. Senate Bill 113 is adopted. Mr. Schiavo, please read the title of Senate Bill 48.

Representative Joseph. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 48 in the State Civic Military and Veterans Affairs Committee report.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In this committee hearing, we adopted an amendment to the bill that changed the blanket ban on marriage for minors to mirror our statutory rape law, meaning that if you are within 10 years of your spouse, you still have to go through the regular process that's already outlined in law.

Representative Luck.

Thank you, Madam Scheer.

Some faith traditions do require you to have a license before you have sex. But putting that aside, in the state of Colorado, we have statutory rape laws which say that

Rep. Garcia.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Representative Espinosa.

Representative Luck.

Is there any further discussion on, are we still on the committee report? Yes, no, the amendment. The question before us is the adoption of Amendment L-004. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. Amendment L-004 is adopted to the committee report. Is there any further discussion on the state civic, military, and veterans affairs committee report? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of the state affairs committee report as amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed no. The committee report as amended is adopted. All right. Rep. Joseph to the bill.

Representative Garcia.

Representative Luck thank you Madam Chair

I think that that is something that they should be able to make as a decision in their life. And by having this barrier of time, you preclude some of the abuses that may still be continuing since the 2019 law. And so I do appreciate what the bill sponsors are trying to do. And like I said, I came down here initially to support what was done in committee and to shift my vote from a no to a yes. Because of my understanding of the other dynamics that we talked about just a minute ago, I won't. But I think overall, if you don't have that quirk of an understanding or that quirk of an issue, it's a good policy to advance. Is there any further discussion on Senate Bill 48? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 48. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. Senate Bill 48 is adopted. Ms. Sheba, please read the title of Senate Bill 147. Senate Bill 147 by Senators Cutter and Pelton are also representatives of Johnson and Froehlich concerning the regulation of lobbyists and a connection therewith making appropriation. Representative Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 26, 147 to the Committee of the Whole. To the bill. No, we're just moving the bill. To the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. This bill passed unanimous out of both House, State, Veterans, and Military Affairs and the House Approach. Colleagues, this bill is different than what you would have heard when it was in the Senate. What it does now is just adding the same lobbyist requirements onto the executive branch, the judicial branch, and the liaisons who act as lobbyists with the governor's office. What we're asking for is a fair playing field. We're asking that we have the same accountability for the 72-hour, three-day reporting on Secretary of State when someone decides to act on a bill. This doesn't mean that they're just reading the bill and talking in-house, but they decide to act, whether it's support, oppose, amend. But we are asking for that transparency, especially to the public. When different agencies and branches come in, the people deserve to know what's happening, and this will, again, create a fair playing field, and I will let my good co-prime. Representative Frohler. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the good representative from Morgan and a bunch of other counties. Yeah, let's just level the playing field, all lobbyists or lobbyists, and please vote yes. Representative Luck. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I support the bill. I'm not here to challenge the text of this bill. I am, however, here to add in, since it has this very wonderfully broad title related to lobbyists. So in that regard, I move L014 and ask that it be displayed. Amendment L014 is displayed. Representative Luck to your amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair. So how many of you have been in committee and have received a slew of text messages from the lobby corps? Nobody. Oh, a couple folks. Great. So, in receiving that slew of text messages, how many times have you noticed that those folks who are texting you don't actually make themselves available to the committee at the dais, at the witness table? Right? A number of times they sit in the back of the room and they text us and respond to whatever is going on in real time and say, ask this or what about that or here's a fact or what have you. And how many times have you, as someone who has been on the opposite side of a question, been sponsoring a bill, found yourself a touch bit frustrated because you know these conversations are happening around you. You don't necessarily know what the substance of the conversations are sometimes, but you know that they're happening, and you would very much like to ask those individuals who are taking these positions and influencing the committee to put it on the record, to present it out, and to answer questions. So what this amendment does is simply say that if a client takes a position of support amend or oppose not monitor but support amend or oppose that client must make a good faith effort for their lobbyist or themselves to be present during the committee hearing for that bill they taken a position on And they don have to actually testify right There no requirement that they testify no need to elongate committee hearings if they don't have all sorts of things proactively to handle, but it does say that they need to make themselves available for the committee so that the committee can ask questions of them. So that if the committee does wonder where they're at or how, what X stakeholder said combines with what Y lobbyist in the back is saying, that all of that can be flushed out on the mic in real time. Just allows for greater transparency. It allows for greater access and for a more holistic conversation so that everybody understands the dynamics by which these conversations are fluctuating. So I ask for an aye vote. Representative Bradley. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, we've all been upset with the lobby corps going against our bills and not saying why they're going against our bills. They make lots of money. the least they can do is show up to the table and tell us why they don't like our bill instead of secretly texting in the background like come up to the table come up to the table you want to be a part of the table come to the table let it be known why you hate the bill instead of texting in the background or 30 minutes before saying kill the bill at least go on the record answer some questions put your opinion on up there so we can put you on social media i'm just kidding No, I'm not. I will blast it all over social media. I sure will. So come to the table. The governor's office, I think, will love this bill even more. And we can know why you hate our bill or maybe support our bill. But at least, at the very least, making your six figures, you can come to the table and answer some questions on our bills and not secretly just try to kill them in the back of the committee room. I think this is a great amendment for all the legislators so we can tell everyone who's in charge of our own bills in our little room in here. We can vote on this amendment so that we know why and who's in favor and who's opposing. And then we can find out why they're in favor, why they're opposing. And maybe, who knows, they'll just move to monitor and just let us do the work that we are here to do for our constituents. Thank you. Representative Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. And very much appreciate the adding conversations as we flush out the whole process. We're going to respectfully ask for a no vote with eight days left of session. This is a lot that really does need more stake holding. Would love to continue this conversation next year, but respectfully ask for a no. Is there any further discussion on amendment L014? Seeing none, the question before is the adoption of Amendment L-014. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. No. Amendment L-014 is lost. Aye. Representative Detone to the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, this is a bill around lobbyists, regulation of lobbyists. And as such what I concerned about and what a lot of my constituents and everyone else is also concerned about is knowing when a check is given to a candidate by a lobbyist How do we know that they given something a check to somebody And we have a solution. And I move Amendment L010 and ask for it to be displayed. Amendment L010 is displayed. Representative Chitone to the amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair. So this amendment is really simple. It actually just has some requirements around the check itself and a little bit more about it. If you want someone to know that a lobbyist has been giving money to us, we have to be sure that there are guidelines to make sure that it is absolutely clear. And I'll let Rep Soper tell you a little bit more about the details of why this really works really well. Rep Soper. Thank you, Madam Chair. It's an honor to serve with you. It's an honor to serve. Thank you. Just to explain the amendment a little bit more. So it talks about when a professional lobbyist, as defined by what the bill does, makes a monetary contribution in the form of a check to a candidate or candidate committee. and then we're laying out some very specific details that are here. And it's important that the entire chamber understands the details. That the check be presented to the candidate or candidate committee at a public event. It displays the full name of the professional lobbyist, the monetary amount of the contribution, the name of the recipient candidate or candidate committee, the date of the contribution, and this is perhaps the most important part, that it measured no less than three feet by six feet. And we've been granted permission to show you how this check would look as defined by the amendment. We did get permission. We did have permission. So this would be the size of the check. And the image, just so everyone knows, is it would have to be a photo or video would have to be taken and then presented to the Secretary of State so that everyone could see that the check was given. Rep. Tone. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I think the last part here is that if a professional lobby is making a monetary contribution to campaign or candidate committee, must submit to the Secretary of State a photograph or a video of the presentation of the check. Does anybody want to come down and practice with us as we give you the check, and then you can take a picture of that while we give you the check? And for the record, members, they did get permission from the majority leader to display this prop. Now to the bill. Well, that's unfortunate. There's no takers for that. Representative Tartone. Thank you, Madam Chair. But, you know, in all jest, this is a little idea I cooked up a while ago. And with that, I withdraw the amendment. Representative Luck. The amendment has been withdrawn. Thank you Representative Frohlich Thank you Madam Chair You know that almost it almost too bad because the large check company is a small business just struggling trying to make it And they have such a small market for the large checks. Just no one asking for it. But even absent the terrific amendment and its withdrawal, we ask for a yes vote on the bill. Is there any further discussion on Senate Bill 147? Seeing none, the question before is the adoption of Senate Bill 147. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. Senate Bill 147 is adopted. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title of Senate Bill 006. Senate Bill 6 by Senators Amable and Kirkmire, also Rep. Brown and Tigert, concerning parity for the use of non-opioid pain management drugs. I'm going to move it. Representative Taggart to the committee. You know what? Hold on. Let me just pause for a second. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 6 and the Appropriations Committee report. To the Appropriations Committee report. The Appropriations Committee report was just a very simple change in the appropriation of about $4,000, and that was the extent of it. Members, can we tone it down a little, please? Thank you. And I would ask for an aye vote. All right. Is there any further discussion on the Appropriations Report? Seeing none, the question before says the adoption of the appropriations report. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. The appropriations report is adopted. Representative Brown to the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Today, my good colleague from Grand Junction and I have the honor to present to you Senate Bill 6. This is really about parity and access for pain treatment options. We all are very familiar with opioids as a form of pain relief. This bill makes sure that non-opioid treatments are treated at parity in insurance with opioid treatments. Non-opioid treatments are often subject to additional administrative barriers, like prior authorizations or step therapies, that opioids are not. And this bill will ensure that non-opioid treatments are not placed behind additional hurdles that don't apply equally to opioids. It's not about expanding coverage or mandating new benefits. It simply ensures that the tools that we have are applied equally to both non-opioids and opioids. And for that, we'd ask for an aye vote. Representative Taggart. Thank you, Madam Chair. And just to bring some background to this as well, In 2023, we lost 1,300 Coloradans to overdose, of which 77% of those individuals, they were opioids. At a national level, we lost 48,000 individuals in year 2024. and it's estimated today that 7.6 million, let me stress that, 7.6 million Colorado residents American citizens are today overusing or misusing prescription opioids. I would also say in Health and Human Services there was a concern that this bill might be centered around one drug. In fact, there are four drugs now approved as non-opioids in this space, and another eight that are very close to being approved. So this is not a one-drug bill. Rather, it's associated with many drugs that are coming on the market that are every bit as good at treating both acute and chronic pain as opioids are. And I would ask for an aye vote. Is there any further discussion on Senate Bill 006? Seeing none, the question before us is the adoption of Senate Bill 006. All those in favor say aye. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no. Senate Bill 006 is adopted. Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 1425 till tomorrow. Don't move. Till tomorrow. Majority Leader Duran. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the committee rise and report. Members, you have heard the motion. Seeing no objection, the committee will rise and report. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you. The House will come back to order. Mr. Schiebel, please read the report of the Committee of the Whole. Madam Speaker, your Committee of the Whole begs leave to report as under consideration the following attached bills being the second reading they're open makes the following recommendations are on House Bills 1043 is amended, 1100 is amended, and 1309 is amended, passed on second reading, order and gross in place on calendar for third reading, final passage. Senate Bill 6 is amended, 48 is amended, 113 is amended, 134, 146, 147, and 163 is amended passed on second reading, or revised and placed on the calendar for third reading, final passage House Bill 1425, laid over until tomorrow Representative English Thank you members, you have heard the motion, we do have amendments at the desk Mr. Schiebel, please read the first Bradley Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report Senate Bill 113 Representative Bradley moved to amend the port of the Committee of the Whole to oversee the action taken by the committee in not adopting the following Richardson Amendment, L16 to Senate Bill 113, to show that Senate Bill 113 is amended past. Representative Bradley. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I ask that the Bradley Amendment be displayed. We do need to move it first. I ask that the Bradley Amendment be moved to the... I move the Bradley Amendment to the Committee of the Whole and ask for it to be displayed. There we go. It is properly displayed. Please proceed. Yes. I move to strike shall not and substitute may and strike medications in accordance with the physician's orders and just put medications. For me, this is about people coming out of incarceration and going into recovery This is about people that want to be sober that want to be free of drug and alcohol I heard the bill sponsors say things like safety and not putting people at risk and all of these things We are in an opioid crisis. We just heard two bill sponsors down here talking about the opioid crisis that we are in in the state of Colorado and moving to have drugs that are non-opioids in the state of Colorado. In fact, we have four now. We're working on eight because of the opioid crisis that we're in. So now we're going to take people out of incarceration that are working on their sobriety and put them in a sober living facility but still allow people to come in on opioids and benzos and stimulants. And that is not fair and that is not just. I was just asking to make sure that we change a shall to a may so that there are other recovery centers in the state of Colorado that can allow for these residences to not allow opioids in their facilities. There has to be a way for people that are coming out of incarceration from opioid addiction to go get treatment where they are not living in a place with someone who has opioids prescribed by a doctor. It can't be the rules for them, not for me. We can't be helping people recover from alcohol and drug addiction and in the same breath allowing people to have opioids and stimulants in a recovery facility. I am asking that the state of Colorado does not make it a shall that is a may. That for people like members of my family that struggled with opioids and were incarcerated for it, that they can find a safe place to go where the person in the room next door has not been prescribed opioids. They are highly addictive. People struggle with them. I have watched a family member of mine struggle for 15 years with it. And if you're going to tell me that these sober living facilities are now going to be licensed, that there has to be places that these people can go where they are guaranteed to live opioid-free and not have to worry about the person next to them, having prescription drugs that they are trying to be free from. These same people are struggling with opioids too, guys. It's not just alcohol and heroin and meth. We have an addiction crisis to opioids in this country. Change the shell to the May. Let recovery facilities decide whether they are going to take people in with opioid medications. That's all I'm asking for. We are in a crisis. So much that two bill sponsors have brought a bill forward to help us with non-opioids in the state. And I stood down on it because we are in a crisis. I'm asking that there are safe places for people coming out of incarceration to go live and be free of opioid addiction as well. It cannot just be a place in our state that is only free of alcohol and other drugs and not a place free of opioid addiction. We cannot keep picking winners and losers. That is not fair, and that is not just, and that is not safe for the people struggling with addiction in our state. Please vote yes on this amendment. Representative Carter. Thank you, Madam. Speaker, as I said on the seconds, we have to meet our neighbors where they at The whole purpose of this is to help our formerly incarcerated and formerly in treatment neighbors You have to meet them where they are. And if our neighbors are suffering from the addiction that puts them in these halfway houses, we have to give them the treatment and the care that the purpose of these, even the reason that these halfway houses exist, we're already in this room, just based on our zip code and our area code, some of us don't even want these facilities near us. Now we're trying to limit who can actually take advantage of these facilities. The reality is the easiest and most, I don't even like the word. Cost-effective way is when an individual gets out of incarceration is to put them in a place where they will be taken care of, where someone who knows exactly what their needs are, and that individual will not go back to being incarcerated. That individual will not go back to using drugs or alcohol. I cannot be a part of a process that is already limiting who can access these halfway houses and now increase that lack of access. I'm asking for a no on behalf of your neighbors that are in these halfway houses, in these recovery centers because they need them, not because they want to. I'm asking for a no on behalf of your neighbors. Representative McCormick. Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I just want to assure everyone that is listening that the purpose of the language in the bill is to make sure that the folks in these recovery residents do have access to the medically appropriate prescribed medication that will help them in their recovery, and that the homes themselves still have the ability on a case-by-case basis to look at specific medication if it poses a risk to the welfare of the other people in the home or to the house's overall sobriety. They have the ability to have rules and control over that. So that is their ultimate purpose is for the welfare and safety of everyone in the home, and so they will be able to control that. So that's why we ask for a no on this amendment. Representative Bradley, this is your second time to speak. You have five minutes and 59 seconds remaining. Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I apologize for coming up after the bill sponsors. But again, so the welfare and the safety of people struggling out of incarceration from drugs and alcohol, but we don't want to carve out the people struggling with opioid addiction because there's going to be so-called rules. We have an opioid crisis. There should be an ability for the recovery residences to decide whether or not they want to take in people that are on medications for opioids so that they don't put other people that are struggling with their sobriety when it comes to opioids, benzos, and stimulants, putting them in harm's way. You can still take medications. They just can't be controlled substance medications, and that is a fair ask. for the other people struggling with their sobriety when it comes to opioids. I ask for a yes vote. Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of the first Bradley Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Thank you. I will be, I will be. Basenecker Pascal Sirota, excused. Please close the machine. With 22 aye, 39 no, and 4 excused, the amendment is lost. Mr. Schiebel, please read the second Bradley Amendment to the Committee of the Whole report, Senate Bill 146. Representative Bradley moved to amend the report of the Committee of the Whole to receive action taken by the committee and not adopting the following Richardson Amendment, L14, to Senate Bill 146. to show that said amendment passed, that Senate Bill 146 was amended passed. Representative Bradley. I think I've got it, Madam Speaker. I move the second Bradley Amendment to the Committee of the Whole and ask for it to be displayed. Thank you. It is properly displayed. Please proceed. This is an amendment to the catch-up bill to ask for businesses to strike the shall clause and substitute may elect to. we are talking about an opt-in versus a mandatory clause so that businesses can opt in to do this we heard from the children in the committee or the teenagers in the committee saying that businesses are going to want to do that they need to do that that's going to save them all kinds of money and in the bill we talked about for those that were in here listening that we have carved out, well, we said we wanted a blanket statewide statute, but in the bill we have carved out so many different businesses that we just felt like this was fair. If we're going to carve out different businesses, hotels, and different establishments, then why not make it a May elect to until we decide that we're going to make sure everyone is included in this? For right now, I think this is a fair way to go. If 165 businesses decided they overwhelmingly wanted to do this, then more businesses will do it. There doesn't need to be a shall. We can say may elect to. Let's start there. Denver's already doing it. Breckenbridge is doing it. I'm sure other local municipalities will want to jump on board. So let's start there with may elect to instead of the shall and go from there. I urge an aye vote. Thank you. Representative Kelty. Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I'm up here in support of this amendment, and I wish everyone had heard it earlier and heard the debate earlier. But if we're going to allow businesses to make wise decisions for their own business, we believe in choice, as we hear so often, under this dome, then it should be the choice of the business to be able to utilize whatever they want as far as what's best for their business. And if that means that they want to or don't want to hand out condiments, then that's up to them. But again, we have so many regulations on businesses as it is. If we believe businesses will do what's best for their own survival and for their own sake, then we need to let them do so. But by putting burdens on them, by putting on $500 fines for people who either do or don't ask whether you want a ketchup package or a mustard packet or a fork that absolutely unjust It unjust to businesses and if you want to show that you actually do support that they can make their own decisions for their business their grown then I recommend or I would like to ask for an aye vote on this amendment. Representative Froelich. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Folks, there's an underlying bill we passed two years ago that's already in operation. Our bill adds items to that. So this would potentially mean a hodgepodge of some items that you must and some items that you may. In addition to other reasons, I'm asking for a no vote. Seeing no further discussion, the motion before us is the adoption of the second Bradley Amendment to the Committee of the Whole Report. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Please close the machine. With 28 aye, 36 no, and 1 excused, the amendment is lost. Mr. Schiebel, please read the third Bradley Amendment to the Committee of the Whole report.

Representative Bradley.

It is properly displayed. Please proceed.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And again, like I was earlier, I am in support of this amendment. And part of the reason why is, I'm sure most of you have been to a farmers' market. And knowing that the dust that goes around, the germs that go around, the amount of people that go, It's a very fast-paced environment where sometimes you can have 50 people in line to get food. And to be able to hand out silverware, which you obviously need at a farmer's market market, it's not like everyone walks around and carries a fork and a knife in their back pocket. Well, some of you might, but I sure don't. And to be able to have more of a sanitary environment, I really believe that they should be carved out. to penalize a farmer's market vendor who only makes sometimes $200, $300 a day or maybe even for the whole weekend. It just depends on what they're selling. But to be able to carve them out and give them some grace in this industry and from being fined $500 each time. And what if there's a retaliatory farmer market guy? What if the guy down this way is selling the same thing and he gets upset that you're doing better than him? and then he can go ahead and report you and have no proof, not need any proof. There are no protections for small businesses or any farmer's market vendors in this bill. So this bill can be used as a weapon to retaliate business versus business. We never see that happen. Nonetheless, for sanitary purposes, for visualizing your head going to the farmer's market, visualize in your head the fast pace of handing out food, here, going here, barbecue, whatever it is that you're buying, and then for someone to make a mistake in that environment by handing out, God forbid, a fork, and you didn't ask for it, and then for them to be penalized. Again, these are the smallest of the small vendors. These are the smallest of the small businesses. I think some grace can be handled, can be given to them, and I'm asking for an aye vote because these guys need as much help as they can get. We might as well be able to help them out here today.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and it's an honor to serve with you. It is an honor to serve with you. Members, during the debate within the Committee of the Whole, we talked about this quite a bit. Why is it important to add to the exception list farmers' markets, food trucks, and roadside stands? Imagine buying a peach at the height of harvest season. It's ripe, it's juicy. You take a big bite of it at the farmers' market. I mean, you're getting juice all over your hands, your face. It's the best thing you've ever tasted in your entire life. After all, it's a Palisade peach. and now all of a sudden you don't have a napkin. And they're popular, so there's many people in line working to buy a Palisade peach also. And by not having it included, you get sticky, you get all over you. You might be able to wait at the end of the line until you have that opportunity to get back to the vendor and ask for a napkin Or when they hand you the peach they hand you the peach with the napkin which is currently the way things work. I tell you that because there are certain behaviors in which the consumer sees every action as part of the same contract. If you think about it, it's a barter for exchange. I want to buy a peach. I'm in a farmer's market. I have my money. I think that it comes with the peach and probably a napkin, knowing that I'm going to consume it right there on the spot. And that's when you're buying it individually for consumption. Same thing is true when you can buy corn on the cob, which is also very popular to sell at farmer's markets. it is part of the business transaction, the custom and practice, to include a napkin, perhaps a little plate, with that. And to say that there needs to be one more conversation of, may I please have a napkin, a plate, utensils, the things that are inferred, that are part of this entire negotiation. What in the world were you talking about for the food item if it didn't come with the sanitary side as well. I mean, we've made that an expectation that it's included. I mean, it's one thing if we're talking, for example, that the utensils need to be recyclable, or maybe they need to be made out of wood, which is what the European Union requires. But that's not the conversation here. It's that additional ask that needs to be made. And as I highlighted earlier, this also delves within that contract argument. So we're saying there has to be a secondary contract to your primary contract. We don't, I mean, most people, unless you went to law school, never think about the fact that we're engaged in 100-plus contracts per day of barter and exchange, back and forth. and that's why at a place like a farmer's market a food truck i mean i can tell you at the food truck that's down from the capital i don't know how many of you've checked out the the taco truck but i would expect my fork and my napkin to come also with the plate when it's being handed and it's popular enough that if i get pushed all the way to the back and don't think of it right away, that opportunity is lost. And you, yes, I could wait and go back to the end of the line. That's what the bill would call for. Or we add this to the exemption list, where we've already included places like hotels, hospitals, meals on wheels, schools, thank you, schools also, you know, it's funny, on the school side, if we're trying to instill good behavior with kids, it seems like schools would be the one place that should not be exempted at all because we should be teaching them, but that's a little bit of a dicta. But when it comes to a farmer's market, a food truck, a roadside stand with what would be most practicable to serve without food item, whether it's a napkin, a fork, maybe it's salt and butter if it's corn on the cob that you've bought. That should be able to be included with the food item and not have to be parsed out separately. And that's why this amendment is a good amendment, why it's a very reasonable amendment, and it's very, very, very narrowly tailored. And I'd ask for a yes vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I also rise in support of this amendment. I think it's ultra important to know, I think like my colleague said from over on the Western Slope, it's part of actually the culture of these food markets. I would consider myself a professional when it comes to eating burritos out of a cooler. And it's custom and practice, first and foremost, if they make a burrito with some good chorizo in it, the wrapper's going to be greasy, and that foil's going to be hot. So they automatically reach in with the napkin when they grab it, or a tamale and they hand it to you. that's part of this transaction that the representative from Delta is talking about. I think when we look at the exemptions that we're making, those are for high volume. I mean, nursing homes, schools, this is high volume. When we're talking farmers' markets, this isn't so high volume. So I think this exemption, when we look at the list of exemptions, this is minuscule compared to who we're exempting from this bill. And we talk about bridging the rural-urban divide. Most of the time, even at these farmers' markets, I said at the rural-urban divide, Even these farmers markets, these are people bringing their products into communities to be able to do this. So we just heard the cottage foods bill this year. These are people trying to make it. Maybe start that food truck. Maybe start that restaurant. Or they have a food truck. So the business model, first and foremost, they're going to want to ask you in the first place. And I think that we've heard that businesses are doing a good job about that. But in places like farmers' markets, I think it's more of a tradition, like my colleague was saying, at the end of the day on how they either serve the food or the speed of the transaction. So I'm just bringing it from a common sense perspective. If we have literally carved out the places that are going to use the most plastics in packets, how can we turn a blind eye to farmers' markets for people that have that minimum bottom dollar push? So I just think that when we look at the exemptions that we've made to ask for farmer markets, when you look at the amount of product that will be used between the two is minuscule. And to me, it's just a common sense amendment that lets those peoples know that they don't have to constantly look over their shoulder to make sure the plastic fork police or the ketchup patrol or whoever's going to be there is going to cause problems for them. And I just don't see how, in good faith, we can exempt these big abusers of these products and then not exempt something like farmer's markets. So I urge an I vote.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Folks, let's not mistake this for a vote on farmer's markets and food trucks. They're awesome. Also, they are places that are dedicated to reducing plastic pollution as you walk around. All of the examples of taking a napkin and reaching for a sample or reaching for a spoon and taking a sample, that's all customer choice. The customer has decided they would like a spoon, they would like a fork. That's all what is covered in this bill. In addition food trucks who have lobbying groups who have organizational groups and in addition to restaurants and farmers markets none have expressed opposition to this So it cool that we feeling that they need to be exempted but in the most part they are already practicing these practices If you been to a farmer market or a food truck we don want them to feel obligated to hand fistfuls of ketchup packets out because they've been exempted from this bill. So we ask for a no vote on this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I move to lay over Senate Bill 43, House Bill 1117, Senate Bill 149, and House Bill 1307 until tomorrow. The bills listed by the Majority Leader will be laid over until tomorrow.

Madam Majority Leader.

Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Please close the machine. With 42 I, 22 no and one excuse, Senate Bill 160 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Thank you Please close the machine Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1054. House Bill 1054 by Representatives Rutanel and Velasco, also Senator Wallace, concerning worker safety protections.

Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1054 on third reading and final passage. The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1054 on third reading, final passage.

House Bill 1230 by Representatives Martinez and Velasco, also Senators Roberts and Kirkmeyer, concerning the extension of the Conservation Easement Tax Credit through Income Tax Year 2036.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1230 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Valdez, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Valdez votes yes. Leader and Pascal. Please close the machine. With 58 ayes, 7 no, and 0 excused, House Bill 1230 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1272.

Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Valdez, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Valdez votes yes. Please close the machine. With 43I-22 no and zero excused, House Bill 1272 is adopted. Co-sponsors. please close the machine Mr. Schiebel members we are in thirds I'll ask you to keep your voices down Thank you. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1327.

Madam Majority Leader. Madam Speaker, I move House Bill 1327 on third reading and final passage. The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill

House Bill 1016 by Representatives Phillips and Tigard, also Senators Frizzell and Amabile, concerning the continuation of open educational resources, policies, and a connection there with making appropriation.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1016 on third reading and final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Valdez, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Valdez votes yes. Thank you. Please close the machine. With 48 ayes, 17 noes, zero excused, House Bill 1016 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine. Mr. Schiebel, please read the title to House Bill 1428.

The motion before us is the adoption of House Bill 1428 on third reading final passage. Mr. Schiebel, please open the machine and members proceed to vote. Representative Valdez, how do you vote? Yes. Representative Valdez votes yes. Please close the machine. With 54 I, 11 no and zero excused, House Bill 1428 is adopted. Co-sponsors. Please close the machine Madam Majority Leader

Seeing no objection, the balance of the calendar will be laid over until tomorrow, May 6. Madam Majority Leader.

Madam Majority Leader, could you withdraw that motion? we will entertain announcements and introductions.

Representative Froelich.

Representative Gilchrist.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. We will meet, House Business Affairs and Labor will meet tomorrow

Seeing no further announcements, Madam Majority Leader. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move that the House stand in recess until later today.

Thank you.